A Ten-Point Plan to Strengthen Westminster's Oversight of EU Policy

May 2015 A ten-point plan to strengthen Westminster’s oversight of EU policy By Agata Gostyńska A ten-point plan to strengthen Westminster’s oversight of EU policy By Agata Gostyńska One of David Cameron’s EU reform demands is a greater role for national parliaments in the EU, in an attempt to make the Union more democratically accountable. Low turnouts in European elections have strengthened the British belief that the European Parliament is unrepresentative, and that national parliaments should have a stronger say. Some suggest that parliaments should be able to club together to block a European Commission proposal, or to encourage the Commission to propose laws that would be in their interests. But the House of Commons’ scrutiny of EU affairs is weak, and represents a missed opportunity to strengthen democratic accountability at the national level. The Commons European scrutiny committee’s membership is mostly eurosceptic, and committee attendance is poor. EU proposals have an impact on many other select committees’ business, but these committees do not always examine them thoroughly. And unlike the House of Lords, the Commons European scrutiny committee does not have much first-hand experience of working with the EU’s institutions. This policy brief proposes ten steps that the British parliament and government can take to improve Westminster’s engagement with the EU: The chair of the Commons European scrutiny committee should be elected by the whole house rather than by committee members, which could help to soften the committee’s euroscepticism. MPs should talk to their colleagues in the House of Lords more often, in order to benefit from their EU expertise. MPs and peers should establish a joint committee on the future of Britain’s relationship with Europe, to provide scrutiny of Cameron’s reform process. British parliamentarians should invite MEPs more often to tell them their views on draft EU laws. Each departmental select committee should appoint a rapporteur on EU issues to liase with the scrutiny committee. MPs should visit other parliaments to find out how they examine EU policy. The British parliament should swiftly identify proposals in the Commission’s programme that might breach the subsidiarity principle. This would give MPs more time to make use of the EU’s ‘yellow card’ procedure, whereby national parliaments can make the Commission reconsider a proposal. The government should allocate more time for debates on EU issues. The prime minister should hold plenary debates with MPs before European Council summits, so they have a better idea of his negotiating stance beforehand. On sensitive matters, the government should hold off-the-record briefings with parliamentarians. A ten-point PLAN TO STRENGTHEN WESTMINSTER’S OVERSIGHT OF EU POLICY May 2015 1 [email protected] | WWW.CER.ORG.UK David Cameron, the British prime minister, promised in his Bloomberg speech on January 23rd 2013 that he would seek to reform the EU and renegotiate British membership if he won the next general election. Having secured a majority on May 7th, with 331 out of 650 seats in the House of Commons, Cameron will now have to deliver on his promise. He must try to redefine the UK’s relationship with Europe in a way which appeals to the British people and to his eurosceptic backbenchers and then he must win a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. In the speech, Cameron advocated a greater role for saw a further drop in turnout across Europe, have national parliaments in EU decision-making. Securing only strengthened the British belief that national this will be one of his priorities in negotiations with parliamentarians would do a better job of ensuring the other EU capitals and Brussels. Cameron thinks that accountability of the EU and therefore should play a the European Parliament has failed to address citizens’ greater role. concerns, and that national parliamentarians are better placed to ensure democratic legitimacy in the EU.1 They But what does ‘a greater role’ mean? In its election are closer to the voters than are the members of the manifesto the Conservative Party supported the idea European Parliament (MEPs) who deliberate in far-away of allowing a group of national parliaments to block Brussels and Strasbourg. Indeed, the British trust their “unwanted” legislative proposals from the European national parliament more than they trust the European Commission,3 commonly known as a ‘red card system’. Parliament.2 In most other EU member-states, it is the Currently, national parliaments can object to a other way around: according to the last Eurobarometer Commission proposal when they think it deals with survey, 37 per cent of respondents trusted the EU and something that can be better tackled at the domestic level only 30 per cent their own national parliaments. (the subsidiarity principle). National parliaments can show a ‘yellow card’ to the Commission. The latter, however, is Many in the UK share Cameron’s concerns that not legally obliged to abandon its proposal if it still thinks the European Parliament has failed to ensure the that the subsidiarity principle has been upheld.4 democratic legitimacy of the EU. Few were convinced that the Spitzenkandidaten process, whereby the But some parliamentarians in other member-states candidate of the largest party in the European think that the idea of the ‘red card system’ is flawed: it Parliament becomes the Commission president, would contributes to the view that parliaments are interested make things any better. The British largely viewed in obstructing the European agenda rather than in the new process as another unjustified power grab shaping it.5 The House of Lords, together with the Danish by the European Parliament rather than an attempt parliament and the Dutch lower chamber, have recently to narrow the gap between national and European supported a ‘green card system’, whereby parliaments politics. Because of the hostility towards the idea of could ask the Commission not just to repeal laws, but also Spitzenkandidaten, candidates were reluctant to visit to modify them and propose new ones if they thought London to present their electoral manifestos, thus this would benefit their citizens and businesses.6 missing the opportunity to connect more directly with British voters. Neither Jean-Claude Juncker, candidate In principle this is a good idea, offering a constructive way of the European People’s Party (EPP) and current of engaging parliaments in EU business.7 But are British president of the European Commission, nor Martin MPs and peers prepared to take on new responsibilities Schulz, candidate of the Party of European Socialists in the EU? Are they sufficiently interested in European (PES) and the current president of the European affairs? To answer these questions, this policy brief Parliament, campaigned in the UK. The results of the examines parliamentary scrutiny of EU affairs in both the May 2014 election to the European Parliament, which House of Commons and the House of Lords. The way in 1: David Cameron, ‘Speech about the future of Europe’, January 23rd 2013. 5: The Lisbon treaty allows parliaments to raise objections to a 2: According to Standard Eurobarometer, only in the UK, Denmark, Commission proposal but it does not give them the right to initiate Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland do citizens trust their EU laws. In 2006 Jose Manuel Barroso, the former president of the national parliaments more than the European Parliament. Standard European Commission, established a political dialogue with national Eurobarometer 82, December 2014. parliaments in an attempt to increase their engagement. Ever since 3: The 2015 Conservative Party manifesto. 2006 the Commission has been sending all its legislative proposals 4: The ‘yellow card procedure’ involves national parliaments jointly and other consultation papers directly to national parliaments objecting to a Commission proposal. Each member-state’s parliament for comment. Parliaments complained, however, that the Barroso has two ‘votes’ (in bicameral parliaments, each chamber has one vote). Commission did not take the political dialogue seriously and ignored If one-third of all the votes are cast against a Commission proposal parliamentary feedback. (or one quarter in the case of justice and home affairs proposals), 6: A letter from Lord Boswell of Aynho to chairpersons of the EU affairs that constitutes a ‘yellow card’. In such a case, the Commission has to committees of the national parliaments with accompanying note on a reconsider its proposal; it can decide to withdraw it, amend it, or press possible ‘green card’, January 28th 2015. on with it. 7: In ‘How to build a modern European Union’, the CER put forward the idea that a third or more parliaments should be able to request that the Commission legislates in a particular area, Charles Grant and others, ‘How to build a modern European Union’, CER report, October 2013. A ten-point PLAN TO STRENGTHEN WESTMINSTER’S OVERSIGHT OF EU POLICY May 2015 2 [email protected] | WWW.CER.ORG.UK which the two Houses of Parliament in Britain scrutinise encounter in influencing government positions varies EU business should provide evidence of whether British greatly between member-states. What lessons do other parliamentarians are likely to contribute constructively countries provide for both the British parliament and to the EU decision-making process rather than hamper the new government on how to improve parliamentary it. How parliaments hold their governments to account scrutiny of EU affairs? for their actions in the EU and what challenges they Westminster and Europe: Different approaches to the same matters E ver since Britain joined the European Communities ask the relevant government minister for further in 1973, both the House of Commons and the House clarifications. It can also request a debate on the floor of of Lords have scrutinised the government’s European the house or in one of the three ad hoc EU committees.

Load more