Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Main Page: Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-affiliated - Life peer)Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Excerpts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, the House will be delighted to hear that I shall spare your Lordships my usual intervention to protest at the continuing largely Europhile composition of our proposed EU Committee. However, perhaps I may ask the Chairman of Committees whether he agrees that your Lordships’ House should limit the number of sub-committees under this committee. There have been as many as six in the past. As Brussels pays so little attention to their deliberations—and that is putting it politely—should we not start to limit their number? Before we accept this Motion, I suggest that, at the very least, we limit the European Committee to two sub-committees. Would that not free up valuable resource to set up more ad hoc committees, at which your Lordships excel with all your gathered wisdom, and which are so appreciated by the British people?
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees replies, perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He will perhaps have anticipated that I was half-anticipating a contribution from him; it is, indeed, a seasonal necessity. It will perhaps be helpful to Members of the House, under whose remit we have the honour to serve, if I briefly comment on the state of play within the general framework. The noble Lord’s restraint today in terms of the personalities involved on the substantive committee was admirable but he has questioned the number of sub-committees. Frankly, I am not ashamed of the work that is done by my sub-committees through my main committee. There will be an opportunity for that to be debated in public in due course, and I hope that the noble Lord will join us in doing so. But in terms of the overall remit, I would suggest, if nothing else, that this is not the moment to change our substantive arrangements, although we may well wish to reappraise them in the future. We are well aware of the risks and opportunities presented by the upcoming referendum. At the very end of the last Session, we considered a paper prepared by our clerks indicating work that our committee could do when the result was known.
The structure of our committee and our scrutiny model have served us well since they were adopted in the 1970s. Indeed, I have the first report within yards of my desk, and the structure is substantially unchanged. Despite the noble Lord’s feelings, I hope that we have built up a reputation for diligent scrutiny and for evidence-based, balanced and thoughtful inquiries. We get a steady stream of visitors from across Europe asking what we do, why we do it and the conclusions we have reached. The committee is clear already that we should use the opportunity presented by the referendum to undertake a fundamental and challenging review of our scrutiny model. If people vote to leave the EU, it is self-evident that fundamental change will be inevitable. We would need to ensure proper parliamentary oversight of the withdrawal negotiations and the terms of any new relationship with the European Union. As long as we remain in the European Union, possibly for several years, we will need to maintain a continuing scrutiny function. If, on the other hand, the electorate vote to remain, we are minded to use the opportunity to launch a thorough review of our scrutiny model.
The European Union has changed almost out of recognition since we joined in the 1970s. It is a Union of 28, rather than nine, member states, with a directly elected European Parliament which acts as a co-legislator in the majority of cases. The United Kingdom has also changed with the creation of devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and their associated parliamentary Assemblies or Parliaments. We need to ask whether a system of document-based scrutiny devised in a pre-internet age is still appropriate. Clearly, the European Union continues, and will continue, to exercise a profound influence on the UK, and it is right that the House should devote proper resource to its scrutiny. I hope that our work is helpful to the House as a whole. But as a committee we are determined to move with the times and ensure that our resource is not wasted but is used as effectively as possible, whatever happens in the referendum.
It happens that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has not participated in debates on our reports in recent times, to my memory. He has confined himself to criticising the committee in the media, alongside his traditional and, I am sure, welcome contributions on occasions such as this. I regret that he has not done more. However 23 June turns out, we will need collectively to pull together, as a society and indeed as a House, to heal wounds and to move forward. I sincerely hope that once the referendum is out of the way, he will work with us in reflecting collectively on how, in a changed world, this House can most effectively perform its vital and, I think, continuing task. I hope that is helpful. We are conscious of his sensitivity and we hope to be helpful to the House as a whole.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Laming)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. Perhaps I can try to offer a little crumb of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. These committees have been scrutinising thousands of documents a year. If we did not have these committees to do this job, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, might have even greater concern. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, perhaps I might reply briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, implied criticism of my not participating in debates on these reports. I have to say that that is because I see that they have so little effect in Brussels, as I mentioned. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, or indeed the Chairman of Committees, can give your Lordships more than one or two examples of all the thousands of documents they look at where we have actually changed policy in Brussels.