---

EU: Codecision (EUC Report)

I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. Once again, I shall ensure that it is fed into the feedback that I give to my colleagues so that they can respond further to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, on that point when the Minister for Europe writes to him. As I said, we hope to have the documentation on the website within the next month, and I hope that my assurances, while not necessarily meeting every point that concerns noble Lords, will underline our commitment to taking forward the committee’s recommendations. The most substantive point tonight related to scrutiny override and was made by two noble Lords, one of whom was the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I enjoyed his contribution, but then I do like party political broadcasts, being something of a political nerd. On the more substantive issue, which I think was made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in the first half of 2009, only one override was used, which is the level to which we aspire. Following the 2009 Summer Recess, this figure increased. However, the UK utilises its parliamentary reserve in Brussels so that we can hear the views of the committee before documents are signed off. When we override, we do so for operational reasons where UK interests are at stake and there is a risk of setting back key EU actions, such as civilian missions being able to carry out important work. Where there are administrative errors, the FCO is quick to correct them and explain any shortcomings to the committee. In 2008, the Foreign Office provided 135 Explanatory Memoranda for scrutiny, all on fast moving issues. Of these, 20 were overrides, including four on the crisis in Georgia and three on the piracy mission off the coast of Somalia. I hope that that in part meets the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Howell. Parliamentary scrutiny is essential in informing and improving our approach to EU policy-making. Debates such as this are a vital part of that scrutiny. I therefore re-emphasise the Government’s commitment to getting the scrutiny process right. As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said, we need to work at it. In that sense, we are entering and going through a collaborative procedure. I entirely accept the points made from the Liberal Benches that we need to work closely with our international partners. I should like therefore to give the commitment to continue to review that process in the light of developments at the European level. I thank noble Lords once again for their commitment to the parliamentary scrutiny of EU affairs, which I believe is one of the strengths of our House and beneficial to us all. I should particularly like to commend the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and his committee for their timely and constructive reports. I hope therefore that my report of progress shortly to be made on the issues outstanding from the committee’s excellent report will be helpful. I need to make a correction: the overrides to which I referred were reported from the FCO alone and may not cover other departments.