---

EU: Codecision (EUC Report)

My Lords, it is always a great delight but also, I am afraid, a matter of some despair to follow the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in a debate: delight because he comprehensively covers the subject, but despair because he comprehensively covers the subject so that there is little else to say. However, as I remember, that has never inhibited Members of your Lordships’ House, and I intend to follow that precedent. It is clear that the treaty of Lisbon essentially tried to deliver many things but two in particular: to enhance the role of national parliaments in the affairs of the Union while, at the same time, developing further the role of the European Parliament through the adoption of codecision-making as the normal method of decision-making. The difficulty was that that inevitably produced a few paradoxes and stresses. Sometimes, the explicit values seem to go in one direction and behaviour goes in another. So we have an emphasis on the value of transparency but there is also the practice of informal trialogues, which makes transparency particularly difficult. Those are the challenges in ensuring that we proceed with a form of decision-making in the EU that enables national parliaments to play a full and proper role. Quite honestly, it will need to be worked at by national parliaments, but it will also need to be worked at by the Governments of member states so as to enable national parliaments to carry out their scrutiny role properly and thoroughly. As we look at decision-making in the EU, how do we see it developing? The noble Lord, Lord Roper, has already spelt out the main features that we have now identified. There is an emphasis on First Reading and early Second Reading decisions, and a speeding-up of decision-making as the rotating presidency comes towards the end of its six-month period. Those are stresses or difficulties that we, as parliamentarians in national parliaments, have to confront if we are to do our scrutiny role properly and adequately. The danger is that things go below the radar and are not properly identified, and that there is insufficient time to assess the merits of a proposal. If we are to succeed, we will do so in partnership with the departments. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said, it is essential that departments keep the Select Committee and its sub-committees informed virtually immediately the policy changes develop and as compromise text becomes identified. To repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said, I am afraid that in the past there have been occasions when that degree of communication has not been established as properly and effectively as it should be. The danger now is that the consequences of not having that sort of communication are very much greater, as I hope will be recognised. I say in parenthesis that I speak in this context as the former chair of Sub-Committee D, which deals with agriculture. Of course, agriculture is one area that has come fully into the codecision process for the first time. I know nothing about the pesticides regulation but the record of Defra, even without codecision-making, was, I say with some generosity, somewhat patchy. It has a real challenge and I am sure that it will rise to it. We have to recognise that scrutiny has evolved within this House. Two types of scrutiny take place. Routine scrutiny is where a sub-committee receives a communication, looks at it, assesses it and passes it back through correspondence with the department. That routine, day-to-day scrutiny focuses on scrutinising the Government and on their reaction and response. A slightly different type of scrutiny, with a slightly different emphasis, has developed and that is scrutiny which flows from the pretty exhaustive inquiries and reports which come before your Lordships' House. That scrutiny has moved beyond just holding the Government to account and scrutinising them; it goes into the area of trying to influence policy at the European level directly. Until now, we have developed reasonable mechanisms to ensure that the Commission is aware of the views of the committee and the arguments and the evidence which have been brought forward in sub-committee hearings. However, we have not developed very well any real link with MEPs and with the committees of the European Parliament. We still have some work to do in that area and there is an opportunity there to come up with some innovative thinking on how to get the work and the value which goes into these reports into the decision-making process. Finally, I return to limité. I wish the Minister could help us to clear this up. We know that many departments now come to sub-committee meetings with limité documents and go through them quite openly with members of the sub-committee. We know that in some member states the national parliaments put limité documents on their websites. We know from the evidence that we received in Brussels that there is no objection at that end to limité documents being made available to committees. So can we just get on and do it?