---

EU: Codecision (EUC Report)

My Lords, I shall intervene briefly in this debate on what might at first seem a rather dry and process-driven report, because it covers matters of considerable underlying importance for this House’s scrutiny of draft EU legislation. The entry into force at the beginning of last month of the Lisbon treaty brings all these issues into sharper focus and gives them added urgency. The first point to make is that the Lisbon treaty considerably extends the fields of EU policy that fall subject to codecision and in which thus the capacity for the European Parliament to influence EU draft legislation is enhanced. This is particularly the case with respect to agriculture and fisheries, where the abolition of the old distinction between different forms of expenditure has that effect, and to the fields of justice and home affairs, where the move to qualified majority voting has a similar effect. We will need to ensure that the departments that are in the lead on these subjects, Defra and the Home Office, which have not always in the past been gold medallists in applying scrutiny procedures, are prompt and full in their handling of these procedures where codecision now applies. I hope that the Minister can tell us that proper Cabinet Office guidance has been issued to all departments covered by this extension of codecision. This extension also underlines the importance of strengthening the links between this House and its EU Committee and sub-committees on the one hand and the European Parliament and its committees and Members on the other, and with other national parliaments. If we are to exert any real influence on legislation, subject to codecision, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that giving our views on draft legislation to our own Government is sufficient. We need to ensure that our views reach the key players in the European Parliament, in particular committee chairs and rapporteurs. That will require more work by our representative in Brussels, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred. It surely adds another argument against any weakening of our links with Members of the European Parliament such as would have occurred if we had simply acquiesced in the other place’s policy of withdrawing Palace of Westminster passes from them. The other key issue highlighted by the report is the extent to which co-operation in the codecision procedures between the Council and the presidency and the European Parliament is often shortening and truncating the laborious shuttle procedures involved in codecision. I have to confess that I am a little less critical of that development than some others who have spoken, but it does mean that we will have to become more nimble and prompt in reaching views ourselves on draft legislation if we are not to be marginalised in the process. We may welcome or regret this acceleration of codecision procedures, but this trend is not in our gift, so we will need to learn to live with it. The Government’s responses to our recommendations, as others have said—and I shall offer some praise, too—have been broadly, reasonably positive, if a little grudging. I welcome their acceptance of a number of our proposals. It is good that the weasel words, "significant and substantive", to which the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, drew attention and which were a wonderful provision behind which the bureaucracy could shelter, in true "Yes Minister" style, are now to be removed from the lexicon of interdepartmental guidance and that the sole criterion for the need to update us will be if any development that takes place in Brussels has policy implications. I should also welcome the Minister’s confirmation that we will in future receive documents that are marked "limité", thus putting us on all fours with a number of other national legislatures such as the Finnish and Danish Parliaments and the French senate. This should have happened long ago, given that the term limité is not a security classification as such—but better late than never. I shall add one or two remarks about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, who referred to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, which he put to Mr Corbett. It was a slight pity that he did not enlighten the House of Mr Corbett’s reply. The loss of Mr Corbett to the European Parliament to the benefit of the British National Party at the elections last June was one of the saddest aspects of that occasion, along with the very low level of turnout. In reply to the question that the noble Lord quoted, Mr Corbett said: ""Of course when you are dealing with complex legislation of the sort that you also want expertise and input, just as happens at the national level when a government drafts a bill and consults ""and puts it to Parliament and there are debates and discussions, if it is a complex matter and there are lots of inputs from outside and then compromises are made. That whole process indeed can be complex and, certainly at European level, equally, if not more so, because there are more Member States and more diversity to be accommodated"." As usual with Richard Corbett, I thought that was an admirably honest but also clear reaction to the question that was put to him. The other remark that I would make about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is that he seemed to display an extraordinary lack of confidence in his colleagues in the European Parliament. After all, his party is much better represented in the European Parliament than it is in this one. Why is he so sure that they can have no effect at all on European legislation, to which he made no reference whatever, and why therefore are they drawing their salaries, taking their seats and—dare I say it above a whisper in case his leader hears this?—acquiring rights to pensions that will no doubt yoke them for ever to the federalist cart that is dragging us all to damnation?