Lord Sewel
Main Page: Lord Sewel (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, I beg to move the 27 Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper—fortunately, en bloc.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I fear that it is that time of year again, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees put it when we last approved our EU Committee on 16 May 2013. Everything I said then remains valid for this proposed committee. Its composition is heavily Europhile with, so far as I can see, only two mildly Eurosceptic Peers out of its 19 proposed members, of whom at least eight are among the most ardent Europhiles in your Lordships’ House. I accept that the noble Lord’s task is not easy and that your Lordships’ House is a very Europhile place, perhaps because it contains so many former EU Commissioners and employees in receipt of forfeitable EU pensions, and so many former Foreign Secretaries and Ministers of the Crown who have played their part in this great country paying billions a year to Brussels to take our sovereignty from us. Indeed, I estimate that there are perhaps only eight out of roughly 750 active Peers in your Lordships’ House who are prepared to say publicly that we should leave the EU forthwith, without the charade of renegotiating the terms of our membership.
That is why I have been asking the Prime Minister to fulfil his commitment to make the composition of this House better reflect the votes cast at the previous general election. It is not because I agree with that policy, which is clearly very misguided. I imagine we all agree that one of the great strengths of your Lordships’ House is precisely that it does not reflect the composition of the House of Commons. However, I have been using the Prime Minister’s promise in an attempt to get some improvement on the present imbalance, to which I have referred. I should now correct last Saturday’s BBC News coverage in this respect because I never asked for the 23 new UKIP Peers which our vote at the previous general election would indicate. I have suggested four, or perhaps six, but without success.
I ask yet again whether we need six EU sub-committees, whose resources could be redistributed over many other subject areas where your Lordships’ House does such valuable work for the nation. In other areas, apart from the EU, I submit that your Lordships are often more in touch with British public opinion and interest than is the House of Commons, which is why your Lordships’ reports on those subjects are so respected by the nation.
By contrast, our EU reports are routinely ignored here and in Brussels where it is hard to find a recommendation that has been accepted. Between January 2010 and June 2013, the latest period for which figures are available, the scrutiny reserve of our committees was overridden 298 times in either or both Houses— 235 times in your Lordships’ House alone. Not that Brussels appears to take much notice of our Government’s views either. Our Government have been outvoted in the Council of Ministers on every one of the 55 objections they have raised against new EU legislation since 1996.
I suggest we reject this Motion today and respectfully request the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to return with a more balanced composition for the committee and without our agreement for any sub-committees at all.
I conclude by suggesting that the first task of our new committee should be to report to the British people how EU law-making, which makes so much of our national law, actually works, of which they are at present largely ignorant. I suggest it would be helpful, as we approach renegotiation of the treaty of Rome, if our people understood how the unelected EU Commission has the sole right to propose all EU legislation, which it does in secret; how those proposals are then negotiated, still in secret, in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives, bureaucrats appointed by the member states—and how the proposals then go to the Council of Ministers for further clandestine discussion; and to the EU Parliament, with its powers of codecision. Such a report would also explain why the appointment of the next President of the Commission is so important, which at the moment the people do not understand at all. They are beginning to cotton on that the whole project is wildly anti-democratic, but they do not know why. I think they should be told. The BBC refuses to do it, so I suggest that the first report of our new committee should fill this vital gap in our people’s understanding of our arrangements with the European Union. I look forward to the noble Lord’s reply.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, as we have entered into a general debate on the Motion of the Chairman of Committees, I shall raise one other point. No one is more in awe than I am of the enormous workload of the Chairman of Committees, but as a comparatively new Member of your Lordships’ House—I think I have not yet achieved my 16th year —I remain in a state of some befuddlement about which of the various committees that the Chairman of Committees has put before us today is in charge of what, what their lines of accountability are, what decision-making powers they have and to whom they report. Would it be possible for the Chairman of Committees, not today, but on a future occasion, to lay before this House a statement which makes all that abundantly clear?
The Chairman of Committees
The sting was in the tail, was it not? I shall deal with the questions not necessarily in the order they were asked.
The question about pensions raises a number of issues. I am grateful that both noble Lords who made the point about former EU commissioners did not personalise it and did not in any way attempt to say that there was any dishonourable behaviour attached to the activities of those Members. I think the whole House would recognise that. For the sake of clarification, the important point is that if a Member thinks there is the possibility of a conflict here, his route is to seek the advice of the registrar. I know that the registrar has been consulted on those issues in a general way previously and the registrar has taken the view—I think properly—that no conflict arises. I do not think any criticism can be placed on the activities of those Members who are in that position. I hope we have now heard the last of that. It is repeated from time to time, from year to year. There is now a clear, authoritative resolution of that point, and I hope we can move on.
On the representation of the UKIP voice, the Committee of Selection acts on the basis of names that come forward from the parties and from the Convenor on behalf of the Cross Benches. Clearly, under our system, three UKIP Members do not constitute a political group. However, if anybody thought that they had a claim or that their voice should rightly and properly be heard on a committee, they have direct access to the committee through writing to me. I would ensure that any letter advancing a name was placed before the Committee of Selection when the composition of a committee was being considered.
I do not, alas, follow the logic of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I take it he accepts the proposition of his leader that 75% of our laws are made, or are in effect made, by Brussels. I do not necessarily accept that figure, but if it is anywhere near that figure, I would have thought he would have been asking for more and greater scrutiny rather for a reduction in the number of scrutiny committees.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the point I was trying to make to the noble Lord and your Lordships is that it does not matter what the committee or the Government think. They are routinely outvoted in Brussels. The scrutiny reserve is routinely overridden: 235 times in the past two years. I do not wish to prolong the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courteous—but, I am afraid, inadequate—reply.