House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Bowness Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for his clear and very reasonable introduction to his Bill. Although I concede that in time there is almost an inevitability about this, I do not support it at this time. It is true that the by-elections were intended to be temporary but so was the whole arrangement for the House of Lords in 1911, so that is not a good argument. I support my noble friend Lord Robathan’s comments about the public view. When I go to speak at various places, I find that many of the people who I speak to have not heard of the by-elections and are interested in the process. It takes some time to complete that explanation, and often their eyes start to glaze over, but I do not believe that the process is widely ridiculed by the public at large.

This House faces many problems, particularly regarding our numbers and appointments. The abolition of the by-elections to replace the 90 would do almost nothing to solve the problems. This situation is not the fault of the House or of any noble Lord, in whichever part of it they sit or for how long they have done so. It is the fault of the Government in the first year of this Parliament and during the period of coalition government.

The House of Lords has an ethos established originally by the hereditary peerage and carried on by the life Peers who followed them. Its way of working—observing conventions; compromise; courtesy; and a less partisan approach—has been recognised as of value to the legislative process but it is threatened by the sheer weight of numbers and an increasing urgency on the part of the Government to have their business as quickly as possible. The problems of numbers will not be solved easily. We will no doubt return to possible solutions shortly; suffice it to say that I am concerned about the ideas which have been mooted to cap overall numbers and that the membership should somehow reflect the votes cast at the next general election. This change would, in my view, lead to a further weakening of the independence of the House and its Members, and create a Chamber much more in tune with whichever party formed the Government and hence a stronger Executive. A solution to the numbers problem would be espoused by the Government for rather different reasons from those which motivated the House in putting them forward.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Norton about the need to establish a statutory Appointments Commission. Its creation, with agreed guidelines and oversight over appointment and numbers would preserve the Cross-Bench position and the position that there should be no overall majority. For me, that is becoming a condition precedent to any further changes that we might put forward in this House.

I recognise and pay tribute to the work of the group led by my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Norton. I accept, and apologise for this fact, that I have not been as regular an attender as I should. We should all be careful of what we wish for. We can all be victims in changed circumstances of the solutions we have put forward to solve problems which we thought would involve other people. We should be careful of drastic measures implemented over a very short time, and brought forward with the best of intentions, but which might have unforeseen and unintended consequences for the House and for Parliament. We would have done that to solve a problem not of our making but made by the previous Executive, who were incredibly careless of the nature, working and constitutional role of the House.

We do not know the scale of legislation which Brexit will bring; we do know that it will require vigorous scrutiny and time. I suggest that, in the eyes of the public, time spent on our composition will not be well spent. Of course noble Lords may say that I am advocating inaction. I recognise the problem but do not believe that we should take action without some signs from the Government that they share and understand our concern.

I advocate restraint by this new Government in the creation of further Members. I hope that my noble friend Lady Chisholm, who is on the Front Bench, will take that message to her colleagues. I advocate recognition that if this House is to continue to be an appointed House, as I hope it will, the creation of a statutory Appointments Commission is essential. If the by-elections continue, maybe candidates should be subject to that process before being approved to stand. Lastly, I advocate leadership within the House from all quarters of all parties, of the kind which in previous years led to the Salisbury/Addison convention and to the agreement between the then Viscount Cranborne—now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, over the House of Lords reform Bill. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, we do not need the gradual sacrifice of the hereditary Peers’ contribution to what is already an increasingly partisan House and constant contemplation of ourselves, rather than the vital work which this House does and which I hope it will continue to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I think I have said all I am going to say on the matter in my speech. We are not taking forward reforms during this Parliament. However, as I said, the new Leader looks forward to working with Peers to support incremental reform that commands consensus across the House. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today.

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I—without reopening this debate or asking her to agree—at least confirm that she will convey to her colleagues in government at the very highest levels the concerns, expressed both by those who are in favour of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and those who are against it, about the numbers being appointed by the Government? Whether they agree or disagree, will she at least convey those concerns and the fact that we believe the Government have a part to play in solving that problem?

National Parliaments (EUC Report)

Lord Bowness Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of the European Union Select Committee at the time of the preparation of this report, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, both for his comprehensive introduction of the report and for his guidance and chairmanship during the inquiry. It goes without saying that I support the conclusions and recommendations in the report. I want to emphasise one particular aspect of the report, express a concern and put two matters on the record, not so much to Ministers as to the usual channels and parliamentary authorities.

The aspect that I wish to emphasise is the need for enhanced contact and working with the European Parliament and its members. If our scrutiny is to be effective and we wish to try to ensure that our views are reflected in the final version of European Union legislation, it is vital that we build relationships with the chairmen of committees, the rapporteurs and, indeed, the spokesmen and spokeswomen of the important political groups in the Parliament. It is important, too, to remember that the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees are there not just to scrutinise the draft EU legislation but, as many Members have said today, to hold Her Majesty’s Government to account in the way that they approach these matters.

Co-decision presents us with significant challenges in knowing what may happen at various stages—particularly the first reading deals, referred to in the report. We need robust systems which will enable us further to scrutinise measures when substantial changes have been made to the proposal originally scrutinised. Agreements as to working practices between the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and other national parliaments are what are required, not treaty changes, and these will, I believe, be easier to achieve when personal relationships are established.

The concern that I have is this: a national parliament’s view of a greater role for national parliaments may be rather different from that of a national Government, which may espouse the cause of greater power for national parliaments. I believe that we have to be careful to ensure that national Governments, including our own, do not seek a greater role for parliament if the motivation for that greater role is to use a whipped majority to support a government view as a way of circumventing the decision-making processes of the treaties. To do that in the extreme will lead to a slower and less efficient decision-making process in the European Union and undermine the position of the European Parliament.

The so-called democratic deficit will not be solved just by national parliaments and national Governments proclaiming themselves to be the only keepers of the democratic flame in the European Union. There is a real role for the European Parliament, and I am pleased to say that the report recognises this. We in the United Kingdom do not always help to dispel that deficit. There has in recent months been much questioning of the candidacy of Mr Juncker as Commission President, with it being said that we in the UK knew nothing about the campaign during the European elections and that therefore the positions adopted by the parties in the European Parliament were somehow irrelevant and not justified. But, quite simply, we did not engage in the way of the other member states. There was election literature in all the languages of the European Union and there were televised debates. Of course, I have to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the United Kingdom Government could have had an input into the choice of right-of-centre candidate had the Conservative Party still been associated with the European People’s Party.

My last points I address to the parliamentary authorities and the usual channels, and perhaps, in their absence, to Treasury Ministers, as there are not many pies in which they do not have a finger. Relationships with the European Parliament, the Commission and national parliaments are important, and many of the proposals in this report require resources in terms of staff and Members’ time. I do not believe that those relationships can be built initially just with video links. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, said, people need to meet people—at least initially. So, although I am not advocating a merry dance around the capitals and parliaments of the European Union, I believe in those personal contacts.

Likewise, the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees cannot carry out the work of scrutiny and holding the Government to account without the necessary support. We have very great support through the committee and its sub-committees but it would be a brave individual who suggested that in some way there was any element of slack in that support.

My last point will, I fear, not be heeded because it would involve a change of a decision already made by the House and is likely to be dismissed as special pleading, but I put it nevertheless. The proposal which has been agreed regarding length of service on a committee, and particularly the decision to treat the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees as one—and the retrospective nature of that decision—will, I understand, mean that some two-thirds of the existing members will no longer be able to serve for at least two Sessions of the next Parliament. Of course, I accept what my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, said—that there is a need to involve as many Members in EU matters as possible, and that it be seen to be a part of mainstream politics and not a specialist interest. It is regrettable perhaps that today, as the noble Baroness described it, only the usual suspects are present.

Nevertheless, having said all that, I believe that the Select Committee, under both its current chairman and his distinguished predecessors, has built an enviable reputation across the European Union. That is at least in part due to the fact that a body of knowledge of issues and people has been built up over the years and members have acquired experience in a wide variety of different areas of EU activity. There is a corporate memory which may well be lost with the rapid turnover which is now to become the norm. I hope that someone may think again on that issue.

European Union Committee: Report on 2013-14 (EUC Report)

Lord Bowness Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, for his introduction of this report and for his chairmanship during the year in question, when I was still a member of the Select Committee. I am very pleased not to have severed all connections and to have the pleasure of serving on Sub-Committee D under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market.

I will begin by making two points, which I suspect ought to be addressed to the mysterious usual channels, not the Minister. When the Select Committee first decided that its annual report should be put down for debate and not merely published, it was hoped that the debate would provide the focus and opportunity for a wide debate on European Union matters, to be answered by Ministers as well as providing a window on the activities of the committee itself. While we have had a full and wide-ranging debate with many valuable contributions from all the noble Lords who have spoken before me, the graveyard slot of a hot summer Thursday in July is not conducive to drawing in a wider range of Members other than members of the EU Committee and its sub-committees. I am sure that there are difficulties in timetabling, but given the breadth of subjects covered in the report, which shows just how much European Union matters are in fact part of mainstream politics, in future a means should be found of getting a better and more substantial billing for this annual report, which it deserves. Moreover, if I may say so as a coda to that comment, so do the Select Committee reports which are offered similar slots despite the time and work that has gone into them and the public interest expressed.

The chairmanships of the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff, Lord Grenfell and Lord Roper, and now the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, have indeed ensured the enviable status which the committee enjoys, if not in this House then across the European Union and other national parliaments. This is because of the leadership shown by our successive chairmen and the thoroughness and objectivity of the reports, which in turn owe something to the expertise brought to bear on the subjects by Members who have been involved with European Union affairs through the medium of the Select Committee and its sub-committees. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market has already referred to the changes which have been made to the rules on sub-committee membership. I will say no more than this. Even if it was right to limit membership to three Sessions with no return for two, the retrospective element and the decision to treat the European Union Select Committee and its sub-committees as one is a matter that the usual channels—because undoubtedly they control these matters whatever the formalities of the decision-making process—should revisit urgently and quickly if value and expertise are not to be decimated.

The report looks forward as well as looking back, and one of the important activities of the committee will continue to be the sessions held with the ambassador of the incoming presidency and with the Minister for Europe. I suggest that that is an opportunity where the committee, on behalf of the whole House, is able not just to react to Government and the European Union, but to press for action in particular areas. Perhaps I may outline three of the areas which I would like to mention.

The first is that enlargement to include the states of the western Balkans—I was told at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting that south-eastern Europe is how they prefer to be referred to—must be kept high on the agenda. We should be applying our efforts to resolve the Macedonia situation, to advance its candidature, and to ensure that the normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo continues. We need to confirm our continued enthusiasm for eventual membership of these countries and the others of that area. I would say to the Minister that we should not link the enlargement agenda with our own possible attempts by the United Kingdom to renegotiate its place in Europe, as initially we tried to do with Albania, and our doubts about freedom of movement. If we do that we will undoubtedly create uncertainty in those countries about our true intentions, and once that happens, the reforms will falter and the countries will start to look elsewhere.

Membership for none of these states is an immediate prospect, but the steady advance in that direction should not be stopped, and the growth of substantial Russian investment in the region, reported to be some €5 billion over five years in Serbia alone—a candidate country—should in itself be sufficient motive to ensure that we put our efforts behind maintaining the European direction of travel. These countries will have an added importance given the routes of proposed schemes such as the trans-Adriatic pipeline, which would help to reduce member states’ dependence on Russia. Reliance on Russian energy and that policy should have a priority in the present circumstances. The United Kingdom should be prepared to lead in that respect and not just leave it to others, because we have only a limited dependence on Russia for our energy.

The events of this year have emphasised the desirability of the European Union acting together in matters of defence and foreign policy, and underlined the folly expressed by some recently of taking peace and prosperity in Europe for granted. This is not the time to seek selective disengagement. The United Kingdom used to be somewhat reluctant to espouse the cause of a united foreign and defence policy, so it has been interesting to see the Prime Minister pressing member states for united and strong action against Russia. However, I believe that we will find the way forward only in discussion and give and take.

All member states have different sensitivities, priorities and concerns. Some will have worries about threats to energy supply. The proceeds of sale of a warship may be as important to France as the benefit we derive from the City of London, which was described in Tuesday’s Times as the “haven for Russian Capital”. If we are to find a united way forward we all have to be prepared to sacrifice something to achieve the common good. I hope, in winding up, the Minister may find it possible to comment on these points.

I return to the report. The European Union Committee has a role to play in questioning and holding the Government to account in their dealings with the European Union, and raising the kinds of issues to which I have referred. If I may say so, the report shows how comprehensively it does this and I am sure that the story in next year’s report will be no different. I support the Motion.

OSCE: Helsinki+40 Process

Lord Bowness Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Bowness]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their priorities for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Helsinki+40 discussions; and what progress has been made.

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I will endeavour to comply with the rubric to limit this debate to 60 minutes. I note that the second rubric, however, limits me and all other speakers except the Minister to 10 minutes. Should I err, I will rely on the former rather than the latter.

My Lords, 2015 is the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act in which the participating states agreed principles to govern relations between member states and to work through three security dimensions or pillars: political and military; economic and environmental; and human aspects. I, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and 10 Members from the other place form the United Kingdom delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

In January 2012 I asked what the Government’s assessment was of the role of the OSCE and whether they had any plans to increase awareness of it. On that occasion, the Minister made clear the Government’s support for the organisation and noted the difficulties under which it worked, especially the need for consensus. That is understood.

The Question before the Committee this afternoon was on the Order Paper for debate on a Thursday in late June, but since it attracted no more speakers than are due to participate today, I withdrew the same. Of course, today’s tabling now clashes with major debates on China and the Armed Forces. Nevertheless, it is perhaps surprising that in general there is so little interest in the affairs of the OSCE, which should be of some concern to Her Majesty’s Government if they still believe in the organisation.

I know that the noble Lord responding for the Opposition and my noble friend the Minister will be familiar with the OSCE and all its works, and for that reason I will not go into its role at great length. However, I should like to point out for the record that the OSCE’s own website tells the inquirer that there are 57 participating states. Its membership stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok. All the largest and smallest countries in Europe and Eurasia are members. Mongolia has recently joined.

The OSCE addresses subjects as important and varied as arms control, confidence and security-building measures, human rights, national minorities, the democratic process, policing, counterterrorism and environmental activities. There is a ministerial council, which normally meets once a year. There is a permanent council and a Forum for Security and Co-Operation, which meet weekly in Vienna. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights works on the commitment to democracy and human rights and plays a particular role in monitoring elections. Other offices deal with freedom of the media, national minorities and conflict prevention. That is not a comprehensive list.

Important work is done in field missions, which are located in what is a roll call of areas of concern to this country and our European partners. The tasks undertaken include the training of police, judiciary and border control staff.

The OSCE’s website tells me that it employs 550 people in the various institutions and 2,330 in the field operations. The 2013 budget is nearly €145 million, of which the UK pays 9.3%. Excluding expenditure on field missions, the EU member states together contribute some 70%. I suggest that the organisation has a potentially important role, which I accept is made more difficult by the need for consensus and the fact that decisions, even if taken, are binding only politically and not legally. It is against that background that I formally ask the Question on the Order Paper this afternoon.

At the ministerial council in December 2012, the then chairman in office, Ireland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, said:

“I am delighted that we have agreed to launch the Helsinki+40 process, setting out a clear path from now until 2015 for work which will significantly strengthen the Organization”.

The ministerial decision issued by the organisation, in language rather more opaque than that, welcomed,

“the initiative to launch the ‘Helsinki+40’ process as an inclusive effort by all participating States to provide strong and continuous political impetus to advancing work towards a security community, and further strengthening our co-operation in the OSCE on the way towards 2015”.

In that decision, forthcoming chairmanships were tasked with,

“establishing an open-ended informal Helsinki+40 Working Group at the level of … participating states”.

It requested,

“the current and incoming members of the Troika”—

the past, present and immediate future chairmen—

“and forthcoming Chairmanships”,

which means Ukraine, Ireland, Switzerland and Serbia,

“to propose the agenda of meetings of the …Working Group”.

It tasked the forthcoming chairmanships and the Secretary-General,

“to regularly take stock of progress made under the Helsinki+40 process, and report to the participating States twice a year, before the summer recess”—

I presume a report was made before the summer recess—

“and before the meeting of the … Ministerial Council”,

which will be in Kiev in December.

The enthusiasm for the whole process was shared by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who said:

“A key outcome was agreement on a new initiative designed to inject a fresh dynamic into the OSCE as we approach the 40th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act”.

Indeed, the American Permanent Representative, speaking to a working group meeting, said that,

“it is essential that civil society has a voice and prominent role in Helsinki+40 discussions”.

I ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been achieved in the light of that ambitious decision. What are the goals that Her Majesty’s Government are hoping to achieve within the process? What indicatives are they supporting in connection with reform of OSCE? What initiatives have been put forward by others? What initiatives are we taking as the UK within OSCE to try to resolve some of the outstanding so-called frozen conflicts? I cite Moldova/Transnistria, which according to the December ministerial council was a priority, Nagorno-Karabakh and the issues in Georgia.

What is our vision for the scope and role of OSCE? We welcomed Mongolia as a participating state in the past 12 months, but do we as the United Kingdom have a view about which other states might become participating states? What about Afghanistan and Pakistan? I do not expect an answer from my noble friend this afternoon, merely an assurance that issues about expansion are being considered—and not on a purely ad hoc basis.

In discussions about OSCE at Helsinki +40, do Her Majesty’s Government see a role for the Parliamentary Assembly? Do they agree that greater involvement for the Parliamentary Assembly would assist in supporting participating states in raising awareness of OSCE’s work? The Parliamentary Assembly spends considerable time on election monitoring. While in my opinion that is a valuable and important part of its work, I believe that it could have a wider political role. If Governments wanted the work of OSCE to have a higher profile, this could be a way of achieving that.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, reminded me this week that at the annual meeting in July he proposed a resolution on Guantanamo Bay, which was adopted and formed part of the 2013 declaration of the Parliamentary Assembly. Since then, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights has visited the camp, but strangely enough the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as a member of a national delegation, has not been able to obtain a copy of the report—the Parliamentary Assembly apparently does not have a copy. Can the Minister tell us how the UK delegation and indeed Parliament are to be informed about such matters? Will he please look into that problem and in due course advise how the information may be obtained?

In its 2012 declaration, the Parliamentary Assembly requested that at the end of every chairmanship in office, the OSCE should submit to the Parliamentary Assembly and its national delegations a concise report of the work of the organisation in time for debate at the winter meeting in Vienna in February. This seemed a fairly modest and reasonable proposal, if only because it was included as the result of an amendment submitted by me. I ask the Minister whether the Ministerial Council expressed a view and whether it is going to happen. What is the United Kingdom view? Lastly, I am grateful to the Minister and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on behalf of the Front Bench, for tolerating, listening to and having to respond to my monologue. I am sorry there is no one else to add to it.

European Union Committee: 2012-13 (EUC Report)

Lord Bowness Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, for so comprehensively introducing this report and for his leadership of the Select Committee during this past session. I am delighted, too, that this is the second year running that we are debating the committee’s annual report. I am pleased that it is not purely historic on this occasion, but includes a chapter setting out the future work that the committee and sub-committees will undertake.

I hope that this practice will continue, that the debate on this report will become a major occasion in your Lordships’ House for debating European Union matters and that Ministers will want to contribute. Indeed, I hope that the usual channels might find another time, when the minds of Members are on other things, rather than the fact that this is the last day—and almost the last hours—of the Session before the Summer Recess.

I do not wish to repeat what has already been said, so perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I make some personal observations on this report and pose some questions. I particularly want to underline the importance of our participation in the inter-parliamentary meetings, and of building relationships with members of the European Parliament and the Commission. This gives us an opportunity to make our views known and find out what other people are thinking: not just members of the European Parliament from the United Kingdom, but those within the Parliament who occupy important positions in the particular committees. It gives us an opportunity to do that and it is particularly important in the codecision process.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for her review of the work of Sub-Committee C and her kind comments to me. I wish the noble Baroness, my successor as chairman of the sub-committee, well for the coming Session and thank those members who served with me in the past, as well as the staff for their considerable assistance. The noble Baroness referred to the three reports that were carried out in the past Session. I will make one or two brief comments on each. On the follow-up report on the workload of the Court of Justice, I am delighted that the Government have now been persuaded of our view that additional judges are needed in the general court.

We know that it has stalled because agreement cannot be reached on how to determine which countries have more than one judge; but I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are keeping this very much at the top of the agenda. Equally, I hope that if cash—money, lest I be misunderstood—seeks to intrude on this matter, a Written Statement made to the House on 2 July by my noble friend Lady Warsi will be borne in mind. While the amount that the UK contributes to the budget of the Court of Justice of the European Union is not clear, on the basis that we meet some 11.5% of the cost of the European Union, our share of the court’s budget would be £32 million. According to that statement, we put £25 million into a variety of other international justice organisations, including the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and made voluntary contributions to a lot of other international tribunals. Given the importance of the Court of Justice, I feel that this puts its relative cost into perspective.

The other inquiry dealt with preventing fraud against EU finances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, said, we were particularly disappointed with the apparent lack of engagement by both the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I particularly regret the rejection of the suggestion that one department, or one office within Government, should be responsible for our efforts against fraud on European finances. More contentiously and on a personal note, I regret the outright rejection of a European prosecutor’s office even before any proposal had been made. That seemed to me somewhat ill judged. It now looks as though this may form part of the revised Eurojust proposal; and although separate from the proposal for a European prosecutor’s office, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, referred, there are likely to be close links. I ask the Minister: will this lead to the Government not opting in to the new Eurojust proposal? Eurojust has been identified by the Government as being very important, as shown by their desire to reapply to rejoin in the present format. How workable will rejoining in the present format be if we do not join in the revised Eurojust?

The other important inquiry that was carried out has already been mentioned. I refer to the joint inquiry carried out by the home affairs sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I do not propose to rerun last week’s debate. Suffice it to say that it was the failure of the Government, I am sorry to say, to consult on timing and the form of the Motion as promised which led to the difficulties—which, I am glad to say, were solved by my noble friends Lord McNally and Lord Taylor of Holbeach and their revised Motion. However, the status of that Motion and what difference a Motion in your Lordships’ House and one passed in the other place makes to the mandate and the decision-making process is far from clear.

The Explanatory Memorandum which formed the Command Paper is also far from clear. It must be an outstanding candidate for an award for being the least helpful and most confusing Explanatory Memorandum ever produced. However, having said that, the Motion that came before the House did not solve the problem for those of us who wished to express a deeply held belief that it is a mistake to opt-out but wanted to make it quite clear that, if we did, we should rejoin at least the 35 measures that were listed. It was a dilemma I could resolve only by not voting.

With this in mind, the European Union Select Committee was quite correct in not becoming directly involved with the Government’s competence exercise. Let the committee comment when the deeds have been done by government or in the course of an inquiry when relevant. The interests of government and Parliament are not always the same even if the same words are frequently used. For Governments, parliamentary co-operation tends to be the support of the Executive by Parliament on a whipped vote. That is not the tradition of the evidence-based, considered reports on which we in this House act.

I also note, from an exchange at Questions yesterday, that my noble friend Lady Warsi, in her Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said that,

“the Prime Minister regularly discusses a range of EU issues with his counterparts, including changes needed to make the EU more competitive, flexible and democratically accountable. These discussions include the substance of reforms and the means to achieve them, which range from legislation to treaty changes”.—[Official Report, 29/1/13; col. 1533.]

This must inevitably raise the question of how these discussions are taking place before we have seen the publication and the results of the competence review. On what basis are these discussions taking place? I do not expect the Minister to tell us but it is a question that inevitably forms in our minds.

I appeal to the Minister to confirm that, as it is the stated desire of my noble friend the Prime Minister for us to remain a member of the European Union, there will be a major drive on the part of Ministers to emphasise the benefits and desirability of remaining a member, and that this message will be made just as clear as the message that the public are to be given a chance to decide whether or not to stay in the European Union.

EU: Advocates-General of the Court of Justice

Lord Bowness Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Lords Chamber

I hope that Peers will appreciate how keen the Government are to promote the effective passage of justice at the Court and that they will agree with the Government’s view that these additional advocates-general will contribute to this aim and should be delivered without further budget increase. I hope that today’s debate will provide Peers with the opportunity to consider this proposal fully and that, having done so, they will agree with the Government that the addition of three advocates-general to the Court of Justice of the European Union is in the UK’s interests. Before Ministers can vote in Council on this issue, the Government need to secure parliamentary approval. As such, this is a key element of improving trust in the decision-making process between citizens, Parliament and Government, and so increasing the democratic accountability of the European Union.

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I am extremely pleased to see this Motion before the House tonight, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very full explanation. Indeed, he has pre-empted and answered a number of the questions that I would have sought to put to him.

The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee has taken a close interest in this matter since its report on the work of the European Court of Justice. Among its recommendations was one that additional advocates-general should be appointed. They play an important part in complex cases, delivering a non-binding opinion on the legal issues involved and a recommendation as to how it should be decided. The figures that we had for our report suggested that a report from an advocate-general was produced in about half the cases brought to trial. It was a recommendation in the report that the number of advocates-general be increased. Before any noble Lords go away with the idea that perhaps that request was made prematurely or without thought, it is worth pointing out that there are still only eight advocates-general for 27 judges, and there were only eight for 15 judges.

In the committee’s follow-up report, published just before I relinquished membership and chairmanship of the Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee, we repeated the recommendation and urged the early appointment of the new advocates-general. I am delighted that the Government have now been satisfied that the appointment of the advocates-general should go ahead. I welcome that, and the assurances from my noble friend that the first appointment of the Polish advocate-general should be made during the course of the Irish presidency.

With regard to Declaration 38 on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I ask my noble friend whether he can clarify the position. It states unambiguously in a declaration annexe to the treaty of Lisbon that the advocates-general will be increased by three if that request is received from the Court. It says that,

“the Council will, acting unanimously, agree”,

such a request. Out of interest, I would like to know what happens if the Council does not agree unanimously. What prevails—the absence of unanimity or the declaration annexe to the treaty? Closer to home and more domestically, what would happen if your Lordships’ House or the other place did not agree? What would then take precedence: the treaty declaration or the provisions of the European Union Act? Dare I ask if we would have to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union?

The Government have agreed in principle for some time, subject to the additional costs being found from the Court’s own resources, and they are now satisfied that this is the case. There are similar concerns about another recommendation of the committee: the appointment of additional judges of the General Court. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, will pursue this in the debate this evening and I am delighted that the sub-committee is fortunate in having her as its new chairman. I had the privilege of serving under her when she chaired the Joint Committee on Human Rights when she was a member of the other place. I know that she will be an excellent chairman and advocate of the committee’s views. I am sure she will be pursuing the cause of additional judges with considerable diligence.

As I said, I am very pleased the Government have been able to overcome their financial reservations about expenditure in respect of the advocates-general. I understand that they are keen to restrict expenditure and I also understand that it is very easy to say that new expenditure should be found from within existing resources. However, with great respect to my noble friend, it is important, when that argument is advanced, to ensure that it is possible for these important things to be met from existing resources. Preserving the quality and effectiveness of the European Court system is important and we need to remember that expenditure on the courts represented only 0.26% of the whole budget of the European Union in 2011.

The Minister warned the committee that the issue of judges was unlikely to be pressed by the nearly ended Irish presidency and the forthcoming Lithuanian presidency. I hope that the Minister will see what the Government can do to bring the question back to the table. The administration and dispensing of justice, like the democratic process, has elements that make pure efficiency hard to achieve. Tonight’s procedure under the European Union Act 2011 does not exactly streamline the decision-making process in EU matters. It was an Act strongly advocated by some who are equally strong advocates for efficiency in the decision-making process, so to obtain the best of both cannot always be done in ways that are the most efficient. This is the price we pay for justice and democracy, and a failure to appreciate this leads, I fear, to a situation where you know the cost of everything and the value of not very much.

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in this important debate. I should like to place on record the committee’s appreciation of the fact that he served the committee with distinction and, in the post of chairman, conducted himself with absolute consideration for members and with great diligence.

This debate follows on from that on 23 July last year, under Section 10 of the European Union Act 2011. It requires a positive vote in both Houses before the Government can support any decisions in council. In July last year, the House debated a motion to approve amendments to the statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the appointment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal, which together comprise the Court of Justice of the European Union, play a fundamental role in the effective functioning of the single market and the European Union. The Court of Justice and the General Court rule in matters of freedom of movement, of persons, goods and services, equal treatment and social rights, fundamental rights, European citizenship and trademark and competition cases. It therefore follows that their decisions have a direct impact on the functioning and operation of the single market and on the lives of the citizens of the European Union. So an efficient and effective court system capable of delivering justice in a timely manner in matters of EU law is essential for the rule of law within the EU.

The function of advocates-general is to support the work of 27 judges. They produce written opinions for the Court, setting out their understanding of the applicable law in each case and recommending how, in their view, cases ought to be decided. Their origins lie in the French legal system. Although their opinions are not legally binding, they tend to offer more comprehensive discussions of the EU law governing each case than the judgments themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, in 2010 the EU Committee conducted an inquiry under his chairmanship into the workload of the Court, prompted by concerns about the Court’s ability to fulfil its functions effectively and in a timely manner. It noted that the ratio of judges to advocates-general was 15:8 in 2003, but 27:8 by 2011, following enlargement of the European Union. The committee therefore recommended that the number of advocates-general should be increased as soon as possible in order for the Court to increase the speed with which cases could be dealt with while improving the quality of decision-making.

In January this year, the committee was pleased to learn that the Court had requested an increase in the number of advocates-general. It is proposed that the first additional advocate-general would be appointed as soon as possible this year, with the other two taking up their posts in October 2015. It was very gratifying to hear the Minister informing the House that the Government were entirely happy with those proposals. The appointment is a welcome step and it can be achieved without the significant difficulties posed by treaty reform. It is to be hoped that people in another place take the same view.

I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the equally important issue of tackling the backlog of cases in the General Court by increasing the number of judges. In 2011, the committee commented on the backlog of cases and delays in the General Court, and recommended that the number of judges appointed to that court be increased by one-third. Indeed, some organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, had expressed concerns about delay and the effect on business within the European Union. Shortly after the report was published, the Court asked the Council to increase the number of judges by 12 which, in the view of the president of the Court of Justice, was the only solution to afford the necessary flexibility to tackle the increase in the number of cases pending before the General Court and the time needed to deal with them. During the debate on 23 July last year, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said:

“The delay resulting from this backlog of cases is bad for British businesses, which wait months or years for their own case or cases of relevance to them to be heard and determined”.—[Official Report, 23/7/12; col. 564.]

The Commission agreed and commented on the Court’s request by stating that,

“an urgent solution is needed for the considerable number of cases currently pending at the General Court. Only by immediately increasing the number of judges … will it be possible to stem the flow of new cases and effectively tackle the backlog”.

In July 2012, the Council established a Friends of the Presidency group, which included representatives from all member states to facilitate examination of the case for increasing the number of judges in the General Court. The group met regularly but failed to reach agreement. In December 2012, the Cypriot presidency put forward a proposal for consideration at the General Affairs Council, whereby nine additional judges would be appointed to the General Court under a rotation system. Although it appears that there is agreement on the need to increase the number of judges, there is evident disagreement over the rotation system, and the proposals were rejected.

Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Lord Bowness Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Bowness]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the present role of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and whether they have plans to increase awareness of its work.

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I am a member—together with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and colleagues from another place—of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE. The question tonight is about the OSCE and not the Parliamentary Assembly, although there is a connection to which I will return.

Noble Lords here tonight will know the history of the OSCE, but for the record, and to emphasise the breadth of its membership and activities, I will briefly outline its structure and history. Its origins go back to the early 1970s and the East-West détente, and the formation of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which became the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1994. In the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 the participants agreed commitments in three security dimensions—political and military, economic and environmental, and human rights—and also agreed 10 principles to govern relations between the member states and their peoples.

There are 56 member states, from Vancouver to Vladivostok, including the largest and the very smallest nations: the USA and Canada in North America, through all Europe to the Caucasus, and into Eurasia, Russia and Kazakhstan. Even the Holy See is a member. The highest decision-making body is the Meeting of Heads of Government, or summits. These are infrequent, the last being in Astana. The Ministerial Council meets once a year unless there is a summit. The last was in Vilnius, last December, at the conclusion of the Lithuanian chairmanship, that role having being taken up at the beginning of this year by Ireland.

The Permanent Council, attended by our Permanent Representative, discusses and decides upon current developments in the area. It meets weekly in Vienna, as does the Forum for Security Co-operation, the chairmanship of which rotates among the member states on a four-monthly basis.

The Vienna Document requires states to share information on their military forces, equipment and defence planning, and provides for inspections and evaluation visits. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is involved in the implementation of OSCE commitments to democracy, rule of law and human rights, and plays a particular role in the monitoring of elections. The High Commissioner on National Minorities addresses the problems of ethnic tensions in member states, and works with the states to improve legislation related to such issues. The Representative on Freedom of the Media acts as a watchdog to promote compliance with OSCE values on freedom of the media.

The OSCE is also involved in areas of vital interest to the United Kingdom and its European Union partners. A list of its operations and missions is a roll call of actual or potential trouble spots: Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is involved in all these vital areas. Important work is done on the ground in activities essential to any state governed by rule of law and democracy, and to all the states in the region, such as control of the spread of illegal arms and border control.

In 2010 the local office in Kosovo, which I visited in November last year, was involved in the following activities: monitoring community rights; property rights, including resolution of problems arising from returning refugees; human rights; rule of law issues; development of the police service; anti-trafficking training; good governance and support for the Kosovo assembly; support for the electoral process; assisting the media regulator; promoting police and public partnerships, and many other initiatives.

The organisation has relations with other international and regional organisations and with Asian and Mediterranean partners for co-operation. The organisation and the Parliamentary Assembly have already been involved in monitoring elections in Tunisia, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, took part.

A Conflict Prevention Centre works on problems which include Moldova and Transnistria, and Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities works on the problems of hazardous waste, energy security and sustainable development in places where—particularly in Soviet times—there appears to have been rather less concern for the environment and the damage caused by industrial process.

Lastly, a Department of Management and Finance provides financial management and administrative advice to participating states.

I believe that there is a considerable lack of knowledge about OSCE and what it does, not just in the wider world but, with great respect, also in Parliament itself. I therefore pose some questions to Her Majesty’s Government. Do the Government consider the OSCE to still be a relevant organisation? Do they believe that an organisation based on consensus can work, when the position of Russia on issues such as Georgia makes resolution almost impossible? Do we co-ordinate our efforts in OSCE with our European Union partners? Surely it is a forum where the elusive CFSP could begin to work. Apart from our budgetary contribution, how far are we prepared to go in funding secondees to assist in the work of OSCE? A 2010 report showed that we provided 48 people. How many are financed now by additional finance beyond our budget?

Why is it that we hear so little from Her Majesty’s Government about OSCE, about our position in that organisation and the policies that we seek to promote in it? Since May 2010 there has, as far as I can see, been only one Written Statement following a ministerial meeting. No separate Statement was issued after the Astana summit. The 18th ministerial meeting in December in Vilnius did not even merit a Statement, written or otherwise, to either House of Parliament. The most we have is a blog on the FCO site by my right honourable friend Mr David Lidington, and I thank him for it—any information is welcome—but is a blog, however good, an appropriate way to inform Parliament?

If Her Majesty’s Government are convinced of the importance and relevance of the OSCE, surely Statements, written or otherwise, should be made to Parliament after every summit and every ministerial meeting, formal or informal; and from time to time Parliament should be brought up to date with the proceedings of the Permanent Council and the Forum for Security Co-operation. With weekly meetings of both in Vienna, it is difficult to believe that there is nothing in the course of a year which merits some report to Parliament.

This is where I square the circle with membership of the Parliamentary Assembly. As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, I would find it much easier to fulfil the role of the Parliamentary Assembly, which includes, though not exclusively, assessing the implementation of OSCE objectives, discussing subjects addressed at the OSCE Ministerial Councils and summits, contributing to the development of OSCE and its institutional structures and relations, and co-operation between the existing institutions of the organisation.

The Parliamentary Assembly has problems about the way in which its business is transacted and the use of the time available, but that is for the Parliamentary Assembly to resolve. Without the information, there is no point in putting the time to better use. I believe that Her Majesty’s Government could help these objectives to be better fulfilled if Parliament and the public were better informed about OSCE activities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.