rights and privileges of this institution. The whole procedure today appears to be very much driven by the Governments requirements, and the short time allocated for this debate is a reflection of that.
The core issue in this short debate about the European scrutiny system is openness against secrecy. As usual, the friends of secrecy deploy a lot of self-serving arguments, as they have always done. I am quite sure that in the 18th century the same arguments were deployed against allowing reporters to enter the Chamber and take away records and accounts of proceedings. The argument was that the integrity and candour of debate would be undermined if the public were allowed to know what went on. That is a poor argumentand, today, a very damaging one, because there is an acknowledged gap between the public and the political system. Nowhere is that greater than in respect of European business.
Throughout the debates about the European constitution and the treaty of Lisbon, it was asserted by Ministersby the Governmentthat we had to ventilate the system and allow people in to see what was done on their behalf. They do not know what is going on in secretive committees in the European Union such as the article 133 committee that sets our trade policy, because only officials sit on it and no minutes are published. It is here that people want to know what is done in their name, and although the European Union is secretive in its deliberations, there is no absolutely no need for us to replicate that secrecy in our own proceedings.
Angus Robertson: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the strongest argument against meeting in public is that it would somehow impinge on the independent advice that we receive from our advisers? But, for the record, does the House not appreciate that it would be useful if the advice that we received in advance of meetings came with the telephone number of the advisers in question, so that, should we have any queries about explanatory memorandums, we might take them up with the advisers in advance of the meeting, which could then take place entirely in public?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman makes a very creative suggestion, which the Government have not even considered. Of course we want to protect our advisers from giving confidential advice that may be damaging, but in this country we have a culture of secrecy, and official Britain needs to roll back its frontiers. It was not very long ago that the advice given by magistrates clerks in court was secret; now it is public. It was not very long ago that planning officers gave their advice to a committee only in private; now it is public. The roof did not fall in and civilisation did not end. It ought to become part of the national culture to take people along with usto allow them to see what is done on their behalf. Of course there is an institutional tension, as there should be, between the House and the Executive, because our Clerk advisers and legal advisers quite properly give us advice that does not always accord with the advice given by Ministers, but that is a healthy part of the debate, and we should not be ashamed of it.
Mr. Cash: Taking up the point just made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), I must say that it would not be by any means impossible for us to have two completely separate sessions at which we dealt with the question of advice with the Clerks on the one hand and then went into public sitting. We would not need to telephone the Clerks, because we would have two separate sessions. It is perfectly simpleno problem at all. The following session would be open to the public, and open for broadcasting, as it could be and often is.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a constructive suggestion; he has lengthy experience on the Committee. What is true is that, currently, we treat the public with contempt. They read and are told that our proceedings at some pointthe phrase is when convenientwill be opened to the public. But that is for our convenience, not that of the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) gave us an example of when they do turn up. A constituent wrote to him, saying that he had gone to the Committee and had had to wait half an hour or an hour before being admitted. On more than one occasion, we have actually moved to consider a draft report and put back by another half an hour the time at which the public can be admitted. This is not our Parliament, however. The public sent us here, they pay our salary, this is a democracy and they ought to come first. They ought to be permitted, allowed, encouraged, indeed, to watch what we try to do on their behalf. The importance is obvious, and the point has already been made that more than half the legislation in this country originates from the European Union. Even the Government admit to that figure, but I believe that it is higher than that. The dominant influence on our legislation and regulations comes from the European Union.
Kelvin Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some common sense has been injected into the debate with the acceptance that the official advice should be private to us? Perhaps our debate about the issues should be public, but the crucial thing is that the advice should be in private so that the officials remain private people and do not become public, political figures. That would be the problem.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have already given examples of other public bodies, such as magistrates courts and planning committees, in which what was once secret is now publicto the general benefit. I do not accept that all advice should be given in private. That should be done exceptionally, when the case for doing so is made. The case could be about national security or commercial confidentiality, or the advisers might say that they wished to give sensitive advice that could be given only in private.
behalf of the people who send us here, and I strongly support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): I have prepared a longer speech, but I have only about one minute. I have listened to the debate with interest, but I believe that we should do everything to ensure that our official advice stays private and confidentialto protect the advisers, who would otherwise become political figures. They would be identified as Eurosceptics or Euroenthusiasts, and the advice would not be as objective and robust as what we get at the moment. Such objective and robust advice is crucial.
I speak as a profound critic of the European Union who takes a view similar to that of many Conservative Members about the importance of retaining parliamentary democracy and not handing over power to Brussels and bureaucrats. What we have now actually works. One of the reasons why I so enjoy being a member of the European Scrutiny Committee is that we have absolutely first-class written and oral papers and first-class advice from our five advisers and legal adviser. If they became public in any way, we would end up with bland advice that was less robust. The Euroenthusiasts, who no doubt want to run rings around people such as myself, would have a field day.
I support Government Front Benchers strongly on this matter. If we can find a way of making our debates about Europe more public, that will be fine. However, we must, above all, protect our advisers so that they can give free, robust and objective advice about all matters European. I, for one, think that what they do now is first class and of fundamental importance to our democracy. They ensure that we understand what is going on in Europe, and that the Euroenthusiastsmany of whom are on my side of the Housedo not run rings around people such as me.
I have had only a brief time to speak, but I wanted to make my point.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
That the amendments to Standing Order No. 119 and the amendments to nomenclature in the Standing Orders agreed to by this House on 7th February 2008, shall have permanent effect from 1st January 2009.
(e) in line 24, leave out from to to the end of line 26 and insert a maximum of five interventions..