I thank you very much for your welcome. I know we packed a lot of work into yesterday and we still have some business today. We have found it both informative and enjoyable. I thank you, your colleagues and the Ministers we have met for making it such a successful visit.
Before I outline how the committee works, I will explain why we visit the Presidencies, under normal circumstances before they take over, to get a flavour of what they see as their priorities. We talk to our colleagues such as the members of this committee and Ministers to get a flavour of what the agenda will be for the following six months. This allows us to better prepare ourselves for the work we do as a committee. We find it very useful and important to the work we do. We tell all committees that do not do this about our experience and invite them to do so also. Many other committees now do this.
Our committee has 16 members. There are ten Government members and six from the Opposition. Four of the Opposition members are from the official Opposition party, the Conservative Party. There is one from the Scottish National Party and one from the Liberal Democrat Party. Like this committee, we do not vote along party lines. Since I became chairman of this committee in 1992, there have been fewer than ten divisions. Divisions are not necessarily on party lines but on matters on which members feel particularly strongly and wish to record their position. I cannot of think of any vote we have had in those ten years which have been along party lines.
What helps the committee achieve such consensus is that we do not look at the merits of what we debate. We scrutinise everything that comes from the Commission to Council, Green and White papers and what the European Parliament is doing. We particularly try to keep an eye on what our Executive is doing. When we meet every Wednesday to look at directives coming forward we make a judgment as to whether they are legally or politically important. If it is legally important, that is, it will have an impact on our domestic legislation, it is automatically referred for further scrutiny.
If it is politically important, that is, if there is any controversy at all - this is where the consensus comes in - we will refer it for further consideration. We will hold it back until we get further information. We will not just say there appears to be something that needs to be referred. We like to refer it for debate in the standing committee on the floor of the House when we have exhausted the avenues open to us to get information to assist in scrutiny. This includes me writing to Ministers asking them to explain. They need to present us with an explanatory memorandum, that is, the Government's position on every directive. Sometimes those explanatory memoranda are not as forthcoming as we would expect or do not cover the areas that interest us. So there can be an exchange of formal letters between myself and the Minister. There can be informal exchanges between our advisers and the departments. When it comes to the committee that is what is done. Then there is a recommendation on whether to clear it - to let it go to the Council Ministers, who will vote the way they like - or hold it for further scrutiny.
We have a power we call scrutiny reserve, which means that if we are not satisfied that the House has had an opportunity to consider an item properly and it needs more time, we will ask the Minister not to vote on it at the Council meeting. This is a difficult area because Minister's priorities at Council meetings, particularly at the end of a Presidency, can be squeezed so that they may be tempted to override scrutiny reserves. This happened more frequently in the past, but in this Parliament we have made it perfectly clear to Ministers that if they ignore the scrutiny reserve they will have to come back and explain to us and to the people, in front of television cameras, why they did this. It is good discipline, but there are times when Ministers, in view of all those considerations, must make a decision and stand by it. There are occasions when they will override a scrutiny reserve but when they do they must come back with some good answers.
The European Scrutiny Committee meets every Wednesday and deals with the same issues as this committee, including 1,200 to 1,300 directives every year. Of those we will consider further and obtain further information on about 300. We probably have 30 or 40 debates a year in which we examine an item further politically. We also have a fortnightly report in which everything we do and every decision we make is reported to the House. This report is now live on the Internet, which is a new development. This, it is to be hoped, gives citizens greater access to what is going on and the issues that concern them within the EU and the national parliaments.
I would never claim that what we do is perfect because we can never satisfy the need for further scrutiny. We can catch up as much as possible but there is always room to do better. We are always keen to listen to news from other member states, particularly through COSAC. That is why we are so keen to make COSAC effective, especially with the coming enlargement of the EU. It must be a forum in which we can exchange ideas about best practices. There are things we do that others may want to try and there are many aspects to the scrutiny processes of other member states from which we can benefit. If COSAC can be made more effective it will help us all in terms of scrutiny.
We see our role in this committee as representing the Parliament, not the party. I am a member of the Labour Party and support the Government on the floor of the House when I am expected to do so, but in the committee it is never a matter of going along with what a Minister thinks. Ministers tend to find out the views of their own members. I take pride in impressing on Ministers that, as I once said to Peter Hain when he was European Minister, I am like a haemorrhoid doctor - they do not appreciate me but I am here to help them. It is a good relationship and one which I recommend for the Chairman.