Scrutiny of European Business

House of Commons Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons

Second Report of Session 2004–05

Volume II

Oral and written evidence

Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 16 March 2005

HC 465-II [Incorporating HC 565 i-v, Session 2003-04] Published on 22 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £16.50

The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons

The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons is appointed by the House of Commons to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised.

Current membership Mr Peter Hain MP (Labour, Neath) (Chairman) Ann Coffey MP (Labour, Stockport) Barbara Follett MP (Labour, Stevenage) Mr Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) Mr David Kidney MP (Labour, Stafford) Martin Linton MP (Labour, Battersea) Mr Patrick McLoughlin MP (Conservative, West Derbyshire) Anne Picking MP (Labour, East Lothian) Mr Peter Pike MP (Labour, Burnley) Joan Ruddock MP (Labour, Lewisham Deptford) Mr Martin Salter MP (Labour, Reading West) Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills) Mr Andrew Stunell MP (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove) Mr Paul Tyler MP (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Sir Nicholas Winterton MP (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Mr Andrew Mitchell MP (Conservative, Sutton Coldfield) Mr David Cameron MP (Conservative, Witney) Mr Greg Knight MP (Conservative, East Yorkshire) Dr John Reid MP (Labour, Hamilton North & Bellshill) (Chairman) Caroline Flint MP (Labour, Don Valley) Mr Robin Cook MP (Labour, Livingston) (Chairman) Mrs Lorna Fitzsimons MP (Labour, Rochdale) Mr John M. Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in an Appendix to the House of Commons Standing Orders. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at http://www.parliament.uk/modcom.

Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are George Cubie and Tom Healey (Clerks), Susan Morrison (Chief Office Clerk) and Jane Cooper (Secretary).

Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk, Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Journal Office, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3318; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

Witnesses

Wednesday 5 May 2004 Page

Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold, Clerk of European Scrutiny Ev 14 Committee

Wednesday 23 June 2004

Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP Ev 32

Wednesday 14 July 2004

Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP Ev 46 and Dr John Whittaker MEP

Wednesday 8 September 2004

Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP Ev 61

Wednesday 15 September 2004

Mr Roger Sands, Clerk of the House and Mr Liam Laurence Smyth, Clerk of Ev 90 Delegated Legislation

List of written evidence

1 European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) Ev 1 2 Supplementary submission from European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) Ev 24 3 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP Ev 31 4 Ms Gisela Stuart MP Ev 31 5 Mr Chris Huhne MEP Ev 43 6 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP Ev 59 7 Rt Hon Michael Jack MP Ev 60 8 Supplementary submission from Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP Ev 74 9 Mr Roger Sands, Clerk of the House of Commons Ev 79 10 Note by the Clerk of the Committee Ev 97 11 Mr Bill O’Brien MP Ev 106 12 Mr Colin Challen MP Ev 107 13 Mr Stephen McCabe MP Ev 107 14 Brian White MP Ev 107 15 Rt Hon Alan Williams MP Ev 107 16 Corporation of London Ev 109 17 Foreign Affairs Committee Ev 112 18 Mr Jim Cousins MP Ev 118 19 Procedure Committee Ev 118 20 Mr Richard Allan MP Ev 120 21 British Bankers’ Association Ev 121 22 Supplementary Government Memorandum Ev 122 23 Dr Doug Naysmith MP Ev 123 24 Lawrie Quinn MP Ev 124 25 Norman Lamb MP Ev 124 26 Dr Nick Palmer MP Ev 125 27 CBI Ev 126 28 Mr Kelvin Hopkins MP Ev 129 29 UK National Parliament Office Brussels Ev 130 30 Jonathan Evans MEP Ev 134 31 Derek Wyatt MP Ev 135 32 Letter from Mr Jimmy Hood MP, Chairman, European Scrutiny Committee Ev 135 33 Note from the Clerk, European Scrutiny Committee Ev 136 34 Letter from the Chair, European and External Affairs Committee, National Assembly for Wales Ev 139 35 Note from UK House of Commons IPEX Correspondent Ev 139 36 Note from the Clerk of Delegated Legislation Ev 140 37 Letter from the Chairman, Modernisation Committee to the President, European Commission Ev 146 38 Letter from the President, European Commission to the Chairman, Modernisation Committee Ev 147 976842PAG1 Page Type [SO] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence

Taken before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons

on Wednesday 5 May 2004

Members present:

Mr Peter Hain, in the Chair

Ann CoVey Mr Peter Pike Barbara Follett Joan Ruddock Mr Oliver Heald Mr Richard Shepherd Mr David Kidney Mr Paul Tyler Martin Linton Sir Nicholas Winterton Mr Patrick McLoughlin

Submission from European Scrutiny Committee (ESC)

Introduction 1. We welcome the Modernisation Committee’s inquiry into scrutiny of European matters in the House of Commons, and are pleased that the Government wishes to improve the way in which Parliament engages with European matters. We note that the Leader of the House hopes the Modernisation Committee will work with us in developing its proposals, and we will be happy to provide the Modernisation Committee with any assistance we can. 2. It is important to emphasise at the outset that the main purpose of the scrutiny system in the Commons is to make UK Ministers accountable for their activities in the Council. The scrutiny system may have other benefits, such as additional information for Members, the media and the public and influence on European institutions, but ministerial accountability is fundamental, and any proposals to change the system must be judged primarily by that yardstick. 3. We agree with the Leader that “European issues . . . should be in the mainstream of our political life”.1 and hope that the Modernisation Committee’s proposals will contribute to this and encourage more Members to participate in the House’s EU-related activities. However, many EU proposals are detailed and technical, and are never likely to interest more than a small minority; some EU matters will be suitable for “mainstreaming”, but many will not. 4. In order to mainstream EU matters in the House, it will be necessary to provide new incentives for Members to be actively involved in them, as well as to ensure they have easy access to relevant information. Such incentives could include greater ability to question Ministers and influence them, more control by the House over the Government’s policies in the EU, direct access by Members to EU policy-makers such as Commissioners, more time on the Floor of the House devoted to EU matters, and greater public and media attention to the House’s EU-related activities. 5. We emphasise the need to ensure eVective publicity for the House’s EU-related activities, including those in Standing Committees, and comment below on the resources which may be necessary for this. Members are more likely to attend debates if people outside the House are paying attention to them, and better links with the public and the media will add value in themselves, especially with regard to the Government’s objective of increasing national parliaments’ role in the EU in order to contribute to the legitimacy of the EU.2 Other advantages could include demonstrating that the Commons actively scrutinises EU legislation, making the public better-informed, helping to reconnect citizens and the EU and, in our case, increasing the range of advice we receive. The two preconditions are that the House should have suYcient ability to question and influence Ministers to make lobbying it worthwhile, and that people should be able to find out quickly and easily what EU matters are being considered in the Commons. 6. We also draw attention to the sheer quantity of EU legislation which passes through the House. We consider every document at our weekly meetings on the basis of briefing from our staV, but only a very small number is recommended for debate. In 2003, 1,080 documents were deposited, 535 were deemed of political and/or legal significance and were reported on, and 48 were recommended for debate, giving rise to 26 debates in European Standing Committees and one on the Floor (in some cases covering several documents). Our sifting role will remain essential whatever steps are taken towards mainstreaming.

1 HC 508, 2003–04, para 2. 2 See Thirtieth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, European scrutiny in the Commons, 2001–02, HC 152–xxx, para 2. 9768421001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 2 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

7. When this paper refers to “the scrutiny system” we mean the document-based system of scrutiny involving ourselves, the European Standing Committees and occasionally the Floor of the House—not the House’s wider opportunities to consider EU matters, such as Question Time in the Chamber, adjournment debates in Westminster Hall and the policy debates proposed for the European Grand Committee. A summary of how the scrutiny system works is attached at Annex 1.

The ESC’s Work and Improvements in Scrutiny 8. It may be helpful to the Modernisation Committee for us to indicate the six areas in which we have been seeking to improve the eVectiveness of scrutiny (some of them more closely related to the Modernisation Committee’s inquiry than others), and the progress made in them so far:3 (i) Ensuring that the mechanics of the system work eVectively, and particularly that the scrutiny reserve resolution is not breached. Since our series of ﬁve evidence sessions from October 2001 to November 2002 with Ministers we believed had breached the scrutiny reserve resolution without good cause, we have not had a further case where we felt it necessary to call a Minister before us. The Government’s most recent twice-yearly list of scrutiny reserve breaches contains relatively few documents (32 as far as the Commons is concerned), and we are satisﬁed that the Government is taking the resolution seriously. Other “mechanical” aspects of the system are also currently working well most of the time. Other recent changes include considering proposals for legislation at an earlier stage, mainly through an annual evidence session on the Commission’s Legislative and Work Programme, and taking more oral evidence. (ii) Improving pre- and post-Council scrutiny. We have concentrated here on improving the quality of the written material we receive (in particular ensuring that written answers indicate the Government’s stance on the issues discussed rather than simply the outcome of the meeting) and taking oral evidence from the Minister for Europe after each European Council meeting. We make a suggestion below about involving departmental select committees in this process.4 (iii) Improving debates on EU documents. We made proposals in our report of 2002 on European scrutiny in the Commons. This area will clearly be one of the main aspects of the Modernisation Committee’s own inquiry and Report, and we examine it further below.5 (iv) Closer links with the public and media. We discuss this below.6 (v) Closer inter-parliamentary links within Europe, including a reformed COSAC (the organisation bringing together the European committees of the EU’s national parliaments and the European Parliament). COSAC now has a small secretariat, providing some continuity, the main item on the twice-yearly agenda is required to relate to COSAC’s role as a body for enhancing national parliamentary scrutiny, and unanimity is no longer required for COSAC’s statements or “contributions”. We have also improved links with the UK’s MEPs, having now held three meetings with them (one in Brussels), which members of the Lords European Union Committee and certain departmental select committees have also attended. We hope to improve our bilateral links with other national parliament committees, especially those in France and Germany, to mirror the developing relationship between the three countries at government level, and have recently met our French counterparts in Paris for that purpose. (vi) A greater role for national parliaments in the EU, as discussed in our Report of 2002 on Democracy and accountability in the EU and the role of national parliaments.7 The most important aspect of this is the proposed subsidiarity mechanism, discussed below.8

The Proposed European Grand Committee 9. We strongly support the proposals by the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House for a Joint European Grand Committee. It would build on the precedents set by the successful Standing Committees on the Convention and on the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), as well as on proposals we made in 2002. We are satisﬁed that it would add value to the House’s European scrutiny by providing a relatively high-proﬁle forum for debate, and that, in the form proposed in the Leader’s paper, it would not undermine existing scrutiny procedures. The latter point is particularly important given that meetings of the Grand Committee would, under the Leader’s proposal, be called by the Government whereas the current scrutiny debates on documents are initiated by backbench Members in the ESC.

3 For more information, see HC 152–xxx, 2001–02, and our annual reports for 2002 and 2003: HC 63–viii, 2002–03, and HC 42–viii, 2003–04. 4 Para 48 below. 5 Paras 16–37 below. 6 Paras 31, 50–1 below. 7 HC 152–xxxiii, 2001–02. 8 Paras 38–46 below. 9768421001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 3

10. Much would depend on the subjects chosen for the Grand Committee. The Leader’s paper indicates that two per year would be to discuss the Foreign Secretary’s White Papers in January and July. Others would be “as need arose”. These would presumably be debates on speciﬁc areas of EU policy, such as asylum and immigration, criminal law or the EU’s external action, on the Commission’s forward planning documents or possibly on a few other EU documents of particular importance. They might include areas covered by reports of the Lords European Union Committee. We suggest that the trigger for debates other than those on the twice-yearly White Papers could be a decision by the European Scrutiny Committee and the Lords European Union Committee, subject to a maximum of four or ﬁve meetings of the Grand Committee per year. 11. We hope that the European Grand Committee will follow the precedent of the Standing Committees on the Convention and the IGC in providing time for questions as a prelude to the debate, since this would allow more Members to participate. We agree with the Leader that there should be no voting. We would be happy to be part of a core membership, but since the quorum is not intended to relate to the core members, it appears to make little diVerence whether there is a core membership or not. 12. We support the suggestion that Commissioners (and possibly other EU oYcials) should be invited to appear and answer questions. The aim should not be to involve them in general debates, and certainly not to seek to make them accountable to the UK Parliament. Instead the aim, on a limited number of occasions per year, should be to provide Members of the UK Parliament with the chance to question senior EU decision-makers and to help inform the subsequent debate, as well as providing UK citizens with the opportunity to see Commissioners answering questions in London. Such question sessions might cover the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy (produced in February) and/or its Annual Legislative and Work Programme (November). Obviously Commissioners could not be summoned to attend; we assume that the Modernisation Committee will seek to ascertain whether Commissioners are willing in principle to appear before such a Committee. We would expect the diYculties to be practical ones, especially the prior duty of Commissioners to appear before the European Parliament and its committees, even at short notice. 13. We also support the proposal to invite UK MEPs to participate, and agree with the Leader that it would help to ensure that MEPs are aware of the views of UK parliamentarians (and vice versa). This is particularly important in view of MEPs’ power in the EU’s co-decision process. We hope that the Modernisation Committee will consult the UK’s MEPs on the proposal, especially on practical aspects such as the timing of meetings. 14. We propose too that the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales (and the Northern Ireland Assembly if reconvened) be invited to send representatives to the Grand Committee. In this way members of all the assemblies with legislative powers relating to all or part of the UK would be brought together in a single forum, which we believe would add to the quality of debate and perhaps contribute to the coherence of UK policy-making on EU matters. 15. If the name “European Grand Committee” proves unacceptable to the House of Lords, we would propose something similarly short, such as “European Joint Committee”.

Debates on EU Documents 16. Our fundamental point as regards the debates or other proceedings which form part of the scrutiny system is that these must continue to be related to specific EU documents rather than becoming more general. It is through the link with specific documents that Ministers can be held accountable for the decisions they are making on EU proposals. The central feature of the present system is that if we recommend a debate a debate necessarily takes place, and any Member of the House may question the Minister with responsibility for the document concerned. Any additional debates on policy must complement rather than replace this activity. 17. We have ourselves sometimes been disappointed by debates in European Standing Committees, and in particular by the level of attendance, the extent of media and public attention and the fact that members sometimes do not pursue the points we have emphasised, and we stated in 2002 that we did not believe European Standing Committees had yet reached their full potential. However, we consider that the Leader’s paper goes further in criticism of them (in paragraphs 2 and 20) than is warranted. Some European Standing Committee debates are disappointing, whereas on other occasions the procedure works well. We give two recent examples of the latter: the debate on fisheries quotas in European Standing Committee A on 11 March (11 Members other than core ones attending, the full time taken both for questions and debate and a lively debate) and the debate on the Working Time Directive in Standing Committee C on 24 March (eight Members other than core ones attending, the full time taken for questions and again a lively debate). We provide figures for attendance in Annex 2, but the real measure (a subjective one) is not numbers attending or time occupied but whether the issues have been searchingly examined and debated. In that respect there is sometimes room for improvement, but there is also something which could be built on. We hope the Modernisation Committee will seek views from the core members of European Standing Committees. 18. There are several questions the Modernisation Committee will need to address in reaching conclusions on what should follow any decision by us that a document merits “further consideration” by the House, as follows: 9768421001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 4 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

(i) Is the purpose of the further consideration additional scrutiny (beyond that carried out by us) or debate, or a combination of the two? The present Standing Committee procedure, with questions and debate, combines the two. (ii) Should the emphasis be on a small group of Members carrying out a task committed to them by the House, or on the widest possible participation? Members may feel less commitment to a task if all Members are entitled to participate. (iii) Should the outcome of the further consideration be a substantive resolution, as now, or should the debate itself be the outcome and the resolution (if any) be purely formal (as in the case of Delegated Legislation Committees)? Or should the House go even further, as suggested in the Leader’s paper, and have a select committee-type inquiry, leading presumably to a Report? (iv) What changes (if any) would give Members an incentive to participate in debates or other proceedings on EU documents? 19. Our own views on these questions are as follows: (i) While there is scope for improving the eVectiveness of the scrutiny aspect of the Standing Committees, we would be surprised if the House were willing to abandon entirely the possibility of a debate, which provides the opportunity for individuals and parties to set out alternative views; indeed the Leader indicates that some debates would continue even if further consideration of EU documents normally took place in departmental select committees (paragraph 30). For some documents further scrutiny is more necessary than debate; for others there is little need for further scrutiny but scope for a worthwhile debate. The options are therefore to try to categorise documents in advance in this respect or to retain a combination of scrutiny and debate for each document. On balance we favour the latter. (ii) We believe that further consideration of documents is likely to work best if conducted primarily by a group of Members who feel they are carrying out a task which has been committed to them by the House and is of benefit to the House. However, we also recognise that, particularly in view of the wide-ranging nature of EU legislation, there will often be other Members with expertise or constituency or other interests in particular documents, and that the proceedings benefit from their presence. The provision for any Member to attend also permits Opposition spokesmen to participate. We would therefore favour keeping something similar to the present arrangement in this respect. (iii) The option of a purely formal motion instead of a substantive one is an interesting idea for reducing the involvement of the whips (though, contrary to paragraph 25 of the Leader’s paper we would regard it as essential for Ministers to attend in any event). However, it would not necessarily achieve this purpose, and, as far as debates are concerned, we would regard the downgrading of the motion from a substantive one to a purely formal one as too high a price for that uncertain benefit. We consider below the possibility of select committee-type inquiries instead of debates. (iv) Our views on this point are given elsewhere in this paper.9 20. The Leader’s paper puts forward the radical option of referring documents to departmental select committees, which could deal with them through sub-committees. The Modernisation Committee will no doubt receive memoranda from departmental select committees themselves on this matter, and will be aware that it would also aVect the current right of Opposition spokesmen to participate in Standing Committee debates. We assume that the suggested procedure would result in a Report, or at least a transcript, which would be intended to inform decisions on a motion taken subsequently without debate in the House. 21. We would require two safeguards before we could countenance this at all: first, it would need to be clear that a recommendation from us for further consideration would invariably lead to further consideration, as now, even if this imposed heavy workloads on particular committees. Secondly, such further consideration would need to include, as now, an opportunity for Members to question a Minister on the document. 22. In practice we do not believe such a system would work. The most important constraint on what select committees can do is Members’ time, and neither sub-committees nor extra staV help in this respect. Also, we do not see how departmental select committees could fit EU documents sometimes needing almost immediate consideration into a busy schedule of inquiries. (Annex 3 shows, by Department, the documents recommended for debate in the current Parliament.) A more workable version of this option would involve overlapping committees, with only some Members sitting both on the departmental select committee and the related European committee (similar to the relationship between the Lords European Union Committee and its sub-committees), and an enlarged ESC staV serving the European committees. However, the link between any Report or transcript and a subsequent decision in the House would be less direct even than the link between Standing Committee and House in the present system. We do not support the option of referring documents to departmental select committees.

9 Paras 4 above and 26–32 below. 9768421001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 5

23. A related radical option (in the Leader’s paragraph 27) would be referral of documents to a new set of subject sub-committees of the ESC. The Leader says this would duplicate what already exists in the Lords and might meet with the same lack of willing volunteers as the European Standing Committees. We do not see that it would duplicate the Lords sub-committees any more than sub-committees of departmental select committees would, given that in either case the sub-committees would deal with speciﬁc documents referred to them by us, and the possibility of there being not enough willing volunteers applies to all the options. The risk of over-burdening the members of departmental select committees and disrupting the work of those committees would be removed. It is therefore a more attractive option. However, we consider next whether some of the advantages of this option could be achieved though changes to the existing European Standing Committee structure.

Possible changes to the European Standing Committees 24. The deterrents to membership of a European Standing Committee are clear. Members have to consider a wide range of miscellaneous documents which they have no role in selecting. They similarly have no control over the timing of debates, which sometimes occur at short notice. Many of the documents referred, though important, are specialised and technical. The documentation made available is often extremely lengthy and, again, technical, and does not include the views of interested parties outside the House. Although core members are appointed for a Parliament, the Standing Committees have no continuity or corporate existence, since they have no Chairmen of their own (meetings are chaired by a member of the Chairman’s Panel) and no staV of their own. Members are whipped to attend, and the whips’ overriding interest is always likely to be that the Government’s motion should be agreed, preferably in as short a time as possible. No attempt is made to publicise their meetings, and press and public interest is minimal. Although Standing Committee members are whipped, what matters is only that the Committee has met and agreed a motion, not the particular terms of the motion agreed; if the Government’s motion is rejected or amended the Government could move its original motion in the House regardless, although in practice it has not done so on the few occasions when a motion has been amended. The fact that any Member can participate in individual debates that interest them removes one of the few potential advantages of being a member. 25. We therefore propose changes, in four main areas, combining several of the options in the Leader’s paper. 26. First, we and our predecessors have long argued that there should be five European Standing Committees instead of three, so that each would be more focused on a specific policy area or areas.10 In the present session, for example, European Standing Committee C has so far had referred to it documents on space policy, the Working Time Directive, genetically modified maize, the Doha Development Agenda, disposal of batteries and nutrition and health claims made on food. There would be no more debates than now, but each committee would meet less often. Each could be smaller than now (we suggest nine Members), so few additional Members would be required (45 compared with 39). They would have subject names rather than being “A”, “B” and “C”. 27. The Leader’s paper rejects this option, saying “if the Committees have not worked, it does not seem to make sense to make more of them” (paragraph 21), but this is a counsel of despair; the point of our proposals is to ensure that European Standing Committees do work. We hope the Modernisation Committee will find out from the Government what the basis is of its belief that a larger number of committees would not be successful. We note that the Leader’s paper also mentions (paragraph 25) the possibility of ad hoc membership for each meeting, which would be equivalent to creating as many European Standing Committees as there are debates, and therefore considerably more than five. No option provides a guarantee of willing Members, but we are particularly doubtful that many willing Members will be found for any committees which do not permit a reasonable amount of specialisation. 28. Secondly, we propose closer links between the European Standing Committees and ourselves. This could come about in one of two ways. Either we could make it our practice to delegate one of our Members to attend each debate, to explain why we decided a document needed further consideration. Alternatively there could be a representative of each European Standing Committee on the ESC. We favour the latter, since it would give the Standing Committee representative the opportunity to influence decisions on the referral of documents, and provide a better channel for feedback on referrals and the helpfulness or otherwise of our Report paragraphs (on which we currently receive no feedback at all). In either case it would be necessary to ensure that the ESC and the Standing Committees did not meet at the same time. 29. The Modernisation Committee might also consider whether some overlap of membership between the Standing Committees and the relevant departmental select committee or committees would be worthwhile. Also, if service on a Standing Committee came to be regarded as preparation for becoming a member of a related departmental select committee, this would provide an incentive to serve on the Standing Committees.

10 Twenty-seventh Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation, 1995–96, The scrutiny of European business, HC 51–xxvii, paras 205–6; Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, 1997–98, The scrutiny of European business, HC 791, p xxviii; HC 152–xxx, 2001–02, para 69. 9768421001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 6 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

30. Thirdly, we propose that the Standing Committees have more of a corporate existence, with their own elected Chairmen or Convenors and staV with particular responsibility for them. The Chairman could be the representative on the ESC, and could make representations more generally on its behalf. This would imply the Standing Committees sometimes meeting independently to take decisions. There could also be provision for the Standing Committees occasionally to take evidence on a document (within an overall timetable laid down by the Government), and perhaps even to visit Brussels, in advance of a debate. The debates could continue to be chaired by a member of the Chairman’s Panel, as now, while any evidence- taking would be chaired by the Standing Committee’s own Chairman (making the situation comparable to that of a Special Standing Committee); or the Modernisation Committee might wish to consider whether the Standing Committee’s own Chairman should chair all meetings. 31. The staV would be responsible for ensuring that meetings were adequately publicised, particularly to the relevant specialist press, and that the Committee had all the briefing it needed; they would also be the first point of contact for Members. We regard better publicity for European Standing Committee debates as especially important. As regards briefing, document packs relating to Standing Committee debates are already available from the Vote OYce, and always include the document, the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum and our Report paragraphs on the document. Our Report paragraphs are intended as a guide to the document and the main issues that arise from it, but it is clear that members of Standing Committees do not always see it in that light. Standing Committees might benefit from additional evidence from bodies outside Government, or from some kind of summary analysis where a debate covers several substantial documents. 32. Fourthly, members of the Standing Committees need to know that any decision they take has some significance. In practice the Government’s motion is rarely amended, and it has never been defeated. However we consider it an important principle that the Government should not be able to proceed exactly as it originally intended regardless of the Committee’s decision. This principle is recognised in the case of the Regulatory Reform Committee by varying the proceedings in the House according to whether a draft regulatory reform order was agreed to without a division, agreed to with a division or disagreed to.11 The Government’s ability to ignore decisions of European Standing Committees has been hotly debated since 1991, with various remedies proposed.12 We proposed in 2002 that the motion moved in the House should always be the one agreed by the Standing Committee, that if the Government did not wish to move it another Member should do so, and that in such circumstances a brief explanatory statement by the mover and a Minister should be permitted. However, we said we would also be happy with a provision that, if the Government moved a motion diVerent from that agreed by the Standing Committee, there should be a brief statement from the Minister and from someone opposing the motion,13 and this would presumably meet the Government’s objection at least in part. In that case the diVerence from the present situation would be only the two brief statements. Such occasions would probably be rare, but we disagree with the Government’s view that the change would not make much diVerence.14

Debates in Westminster Hall

33. We proposed in 2002 that provision should be made for us to refer EU documents for debate in Westminster Hall, with the same combination of questions and debate as in a Standing Committee.15 The advantages would be the greater prominence compared with a Standing Committee and the greater time compared with the Floor of the House. We envisaged using the opportunity sparingly. Such debates might take place on a Thursday afternoon (reducing the number of three-hour adjournment debates and potentially creating problems of timing) or at some time when debates do not currently take place, such as Tuesday or Wednesday evenings. If a vote was sought, this would take place subsequently in the Chamber, with the deferred division procedure. As there would be no core membership, subjects would need to be carefully chosen to ensure a reasonable number of Members participated. We hope that the Modernisation Committee will support the proposal that we should be able, on an experimental basis, to refer documents for debate in Westminster Hall.

Conclusion on debates on documents

34. As indicated above, we regard the Standing Committee system as capable of being built on, and prefer the option of seeking to improve that system to the more radical options canvassed by the Leader. However, we would also like to see the House experimenting with new procedures, as in the case of Westminster Hall, in order to discover what works best.

11 Standing Order No 18. 12 See HC 51–xxvii, 1995–96, paras 198–200. 13 HC 152–xxx, 2001–02, paras 71–3. 14 HC 508, 2003–04, para 22. 15 HC 152–xxx, 2001–02, para 77. 9768421001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 7

Debates on the Floor 35. The twice-yearly European debates on the Floor do not form part of the scrutiny system as such, and indeed do not usually impinge on our own work at all. Therefore we make no comment on them, though we would be delighted to be able to use any time freed on the Floor for debates on documents. 36. Debates on EU documents on the Floor are a concern of ours, and we regard it as extremely important that the more signiﬁcant EU documents can be debated there, with suYcient time. Currently we can recommend that documents be debated on the Floor, but we cannot requisition time on the Floor, and the documents stand formally referred to the relevant Standing Committee unless the Government de-refers them.16 The absence of any provision for questions and the limited length of Floor debates on EU documents 1 (under Standing Order No 16, 12 hours) deters us from referring documents to the Floor. In practice the Government often has provided time for a debate on the Floor, and sometimes, at our request, provided 1 more than 12 hours. Annex 4 lists documents we have recommended for debate on the Floor in recent sessions. If less time were allotted to general European debates, more could be available for especially important documents, such as the proposals on the EU’s new Financial Perspective for 2007–13 and regional policy, which we recently recommended for debate on the Floor.17 37. We have also recommended previously that, when documents are debated on the Floor, time should be allowed for questions as well as debate, as in a Standing Committee.18

The Subsidiarity Early-Warning Mechanism 38. As indicated in the Leader’s paragraph 31, the protocols to the EU’s draft constitutional treaty provide for individual chambers of national parliaments to put forward (within six weeks of receiving a proposal) reasoned opinions objecting to EU legislative proposals which they believe do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, and for the Commission to review its proposal ifasuYcient proportion of national parliaments or their chambers present such objections.19 We would expect such objections to be made only occasionally: the documents we see often contain subsidiarity problems, but not often in such a form that we would object to the proposal as a whole on that ground. The question arises of how the House of Commons would decide whether to present such objections. 39. That task has two aspects: ﬁrst, identifying possibly non-compliant proposals, and secondly, deciding whether the non-compliance is suYciently serious to present a reasoned opinion. Our view is that, since only the ESC is systematically examining EU documents, it is only the ESC which could systematically undertake the ﬁrst aspect, especially within the six weeks allowed. Therefore we believe the ESC would at least need to initiate the procedure for objecting to EU proposals on grounds of subsidiarity. It would also have to draw up the reasoned opinion, since it is not clear who else could do so. 40. As for deciding whether to object, the options are for the House to delegate this power to the ESC or for the ESC’s view to be endorsed in some way (or overridden) by the House. Endorsement by the House would have the advantage that the objection would carry greater weight. However, it is crucial that any wider endorsement does not require time on the Floor or in any other way require assistance from the Government, as the objections would then be as much government objections as parliamentary ones. 41. There are two possible ways in which the House’s endorsement could be given (or withheld), one involving a debate and the other not. If a debate is not needed, the ESC could place on the Future Business a motion providing for objection to be made, to be agreed without debate, and if objected to to be subject to a deferred division. The exact timing for the motion to be dealt with by the House could be left to the Government within a range (eg not more than 10 days after the ESC puts forward its motion, or earlier if the six-week period ends earlier, subject to a minimum of two days notice.) The advantages are that this would not depend on the Government’s goodwill in providing time and virtually no time would be taken on the Floor. The disadvantage is that there would be no opportunity to debate the ESC’s proposal, including the terms of the reasoned opinion. 42. The Government regards this as a reasonable suggestion (Leader’s paragraph 31), but the Procedure Committee has told us it believes there should be an opportunity for debate before the vote took place.20 If a debate is required, it would be essential that the process did not depend on the Government providing time or the whips ensuring a quorum. There appear to be two possibilities: (i) The case for a reasoned objection could be considered by the relevant European Standing Committee, which would be required to meet within a certain time of the ESC referring the matter to it, with the proviso that if the Standing Committee failed to achieve a quorum the matter would still go forward for decision by the House. If agreed by the Standing Committee the debate would be followed by a motion in the House as above. A decision would be needed on what should happen if the Standing Committee rejected the ESC’s proposal, since the House would presumably not want a Standing Committee to be able to deprive it of the opportunity to make a decision

16 Standing Order No 119 (1) and (2). 17 HC 42–xv, 2003–04, paras 35 and 69. 18 HC 152–xxx, 2001–02, para 80. 19 The draft constitutional treaty for the European Union, Cm 5897, pp 150–3. 20 Letter from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee to the Chairman of the ESC, 20 November 2003. 9768421001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 8 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

(the Procedure Committee’s view was that there should still be a vote on the Floor of the House).21 Alternatively, the motion before the Committee could in this case be a purely formal one, that it had considered our proposal. (ii) The proposal could be considered by a Committee resembling a European Standing Committee, but with the members of the ESC as core members and any other Member able to attend. It would then depend on us to ensure a quorum. We would subsequently decide in the light of the debate whether to put our subsidiarity objection to the House for a decision. 43. A requirement for a debate would make the process longer and more complicated, and the time available will always be limited. If the Modernisation Committee regards a debate as necessary, we would favour the second option—a Standing Committee with the ESC as core members and any other Member able to attend. 44. We have also considered how the devolved assemblies could have an input to the process. It would not be possible to wait for representations from them. Instead, we have proposed (i) that when our staV encounter a document to which objection may be made on grounds of subsidiarity, they alert the devolved assemblies so that the assemblies have as much opportunity as possible to make their views known, and (ii) that we indicate to the devolved assemblies that if they identify subsidiarity problems which we have missed, we will be willing to rescind clearance (if necessary) and initiate the procedure for objecting on subsidiarity grounds. The European aVairs committees in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales have welcomed these proposals. 45. We might also consider using our power to require an opinion from a departmental select committee (if time permitted), and would certainly co-ordinate closely with the Lords Committee. We do not see a need for extensive inter-parliamentary arrangements, since it is for each national parliament or chamber to communicate its objections directly to the Presidents of the European Parliament, Council and Commission, but we would inform our counterpart committees of any proposal to make an objection, and would co-operate with any inter-parliamentary arrangements which are devised. 46. We agree with the Leader that it would be premature to make a decision in advance of the draft treaty being agreed, but we hope the Modernisation Committee will nevertheless indicate its views.

Other Matters

Cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall 47. We support the proposal for cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall (Leader’s paragraph 17), and agree that sessions should relate to a speciﬁc cross-cutting issue or issues. We also agree that the possibility of questions to Commissioners in Westminster Hall should be considered.

Departmental select committees and pre-and post-Councilscrutiny 48. It is not feasible for us to carry out pre- and post-Council scrutiny for every Council meeting, but it would be a manageable task for a departmental select committee to do so for relevant Council. This could be conducted at least partly through written material. We would be pleased to co-ordinate our activities with any departmental select committee in this respect. We hope that the Modernisation Committee will encourage departmental select committees to consider undertaking the task of pre- and post-Council scrutiny.

Implementation of EU legislation 49. It is not part of our task to monitor the implementation of EU legislation in the UK, but no-one else in the Commons has this responsibility either. Some inquiries have been carried out by departmental select committees (for example the Trade and Industry Committee on end-of-life vehicles),22 but it would not be reasonable to expect them to do so systematically. In 2001–02 the then Leader of the House proposed a Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on an experimental basis to sift statutory instruments in the same way that we scrutinise EU documents, recommending the most important for debate, and the proposal was supported by the Procedure Committee.23 No such committee has been established in the Commons, but the Lords has established a Select Committee on Merits of Statutory Instruments, albeit with limited resources for such a large task. We hope the Modernisation Committee will examine how implementation of EU legislation should be scrutinised, and whether the type of committee proposed in 2001–02 would be the best method.

21 Ibid. 22 First Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, 2001–02, End of Life Vehicles Directive, HC 299. 23 HC 440, 2001–02, para 25; First and Second Reports from the Procedure Committee, 2002–03, HC 501 and 684. 9768421001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 9

Publicity and information

50. We have emphasised in this paper the importance of improving links with the media and public, as regards the ESC, debates on documents and all the House’s EU-related activities. A reasonable aim would be for the ESC and the Standing Committees to be mentioned in press reports on European matters (rather than seeking to generate stories solely about ESC’s work or the Standing Committees), and for the specialist press to take an interest. Our proposals include a press strategy for the House’s European business, easier access to relevant information through an improved web-site, a system of automatic electronic notification of Committee Reports, forthcoming debates and documents awaiting consideration on specific subjects to outside persons and organisations who have notified their interests to us, press notices each week highlighting notable ESC activity and perhaps other EU-related House activity, and carrying out more of the ESC’s work in public.

Public meetings of the ESC when deliberating

51. In December we wrote to the Leader of the House requesting that standing orders be changed to permit us to meet in public when deliberating. The reasons for wishing to do so are partly ones of principle, that as much of the Committee’s business should take place in public as possible, and partly that it could increase the Committee’s public profile and thus also the House’s profile in European matters. We do not see this as setting a precedent for other select committees, for example when considering draft Reports: the ESC is diVerent in that it makes decisions about what documents should be debated, rather than about how to conduct inquiries and what to put in draft Reports, though it is of course the case that the reasons for the ESC’s decisions are published subsequently in our weekly Reports. We recognise that arguments can also be made against deliberating in public, such as that briefing could no longer be given to the Committee in confidence, that meetings might become much longer, that undue prominence would be given to the Committee’s staV, and that the public would need to be informed of how the Committee worked (for example that it does not make decisions on the merits of documents) to make sense of it. We ask the Modernisation Committee to consider the proposal that we be permitted to meet in public when deliberating (see Ev 135).

ESC plans

52. We would welcome the Modernisation Committee’s endorsement of those of our proposals for our own work which would require funding, in particular our proposal for automatic notiﬁcation of documents and reports on particular subjects or policy areas to those who have notiﬁed their interests to us, for a more easily searchable web-site and for additional resources to increase media awareness of our work. We would also welcome any observations the Modernisation Committee may have on the extent to which our weekly Reports serve their intended purpose of informing the House of EU proposals of legal and/or political importance.

European travel

53. We note the Leader’s comments on the Members’ European travel scheme, and particularly his suggestion that it could be used for “more organised, and perhaps collective, visits” (paragraph 33). We propose that the funding under the Members’ European travel scheme be made available for select committee travel related to inquiries directly concerned with EU expenditure, policy or legislation, and for visits by select committees to their counterpart committees in other EU national parliaments.

National Parliament OYce

54. Following a recommendation by the Modernisation Committee in 1998, the House established a National Parliament OYce (NPO) in Brussels. As we stated in 2002, the OYce, which comprises one Commons Clerk and one locally-engaged assistant based in European Parliament premises, “contributes signiﬁcantly to the eVectiveness of the scrutiny process”, mainly through the information about legislative and policy developments in the EU institutions which it provides to us.24 The existence of the NPO also enabled the House to provide on-the-spot support to the UK’s national parliament representatives in the Convention. We do not see any case for a change in its functions, and assume that the Government is of the same view, as the NPO is not referred to in the Leader’s paper. Subject to resource constraints, the NPO provides assistance to departmental select committees as well as to us, and in the future it could also become

24 HC 152–xxx, 2001–02, para 109. 9768421001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 10 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

more involved in the work of European Standing Committees if they are reformed along the lines we suggest. If the House of Lords decides to send its own representative, that could be a sensible time to review the operation of the NPO to ensure both Houses receive the maximum beneﬁt from a presence in Brussels, without duplication of eVort. April 2004

Annex 1

THE EUROPEAN SCRUTINY SYSTEM IN THE COMMONS

European scrutiny in the House of Commons is carried out mainly through the European Scrutiny Committee and the three European Standing Committees to which it refers documents for debate. The system concentrates on examination of documents. The main purpose of the system is to hold UK Ministers to account for their actions in the Council, and to provide the House with opportunities to inﬂuence them, but it can also have other beneﬁts, such as provision of information and analysis for the public. The scrutiny system is in addition to all the usual opportunities Members have to scrutinise government policy.

The documents to be deposited in Parliament are deﬁned in Standing Order No 143, and range much further than legislative proposals, including for example any document published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank. Documents should normally be deposited within two working days of receipt in London, and the Government should produce an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on each document within a further ten working days. EMs are signed by a Minister and constitute the Minister’s evidence to Parliament. They are expected to cover a number of speciﬁc subjects, including the likely impact of the proposal on the UK, any subsidiarity problems and the Government’s policy towards the proposal. Departments sometimes submit an “unnumbered EM” in advance of an oYcial text becoming available if there would otherwise be insuYcient time for parliamentary scrutiny.

The European Scrutiny Committee consists of 16 Members—currently 10 Labour Members, four Conservatives, one Liberal Democrat and one member of the Scottish National Party. The Committee has 16 staV (three shared with other Committees)—more than any other select committee. It normally meets every week when the House is sitting.

The Committee’s main role is to sift EU documents on behalf of the House, assessing the political and legal importance of each and determining which are debated. Using the EM as the basis of its consideration, the Committee considers whether the document is of political and/or legal importance (if so, it is discussed in the Committee’s weekly report to the House); whether it has enough information (if not it puts questions to the Minister, and occasionally questions the Minister in person, until it is satisﬁed); and whether it should be debated (in a European Standing Committee or, more rarely, on the Floor of the House). Documents are always debated if the Committee recommends it, though the Committee cannot require a debate on the Floor. About 1,100 documents are deposited each year, of which about 550 are reported on and 60 recommended for debate. The Committee does not usually express a view on the merits of the proposal, and (once its questions were answered) would not withhold clearance because it disliked a proposal, but it often puts questions to Ministers about unsatisfactory aspects. The Committee has power to request an opinion from a departmental select committee and to require that opinion within a speciﬁed time. The time available for the Committee’s consideration is often very limited, and if it receives an EM by noon on Thursday it will usually consider the document the following Wednesday.

A crucial part of the scrutiny system is the scrutiny reserve resolution passed by the House, under which Ministers should not agree to proposals which the Committee has not cleared or which are waiting for debate (though exceptions such as urgency are provided for). If Ministers breach the terms of the resolution without what the Committee regards as good cause, it calls them to give evidence in person.

The Committee also monitors business in the Council (through parliamentary questions and sometimes by questioning Ministers in person), and sometimes conducts general inquiries into legal, procedural or institutional developments in the EU (for example producing three reports relating to matters being discussed in the Convention in 2002–03).

Most debates on EU documents take place in the three European Standing Committees. Each has 13 core Members, but any Member of the House may attend and speak and move amendments (but not vote). They can put questions to the relevant Minister (for up to an hour) and then debate the document (for the 1 remainder of the overall 22 hours). Each year one or two debates take place instead on the Floor of the 1 House, usually for 12 hours.

There is a National Parliament OYce in Brussels with two members of staV, who are regarded primarily as the European Scrutiny Committee’s eyes and ears in Brussels. 9768421001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 11

Annex 2

ATTENDANCE AT EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 (to 21 Apr 2004) No of meetings 15 14 14 32 32 15 Average attendance by 9 8 7 8 11 8 core Members Average attendance by 5 6 6 5 4 5 other Members (excluding Chairmen) No of other Members 44 64 59 83 70 55 attending more than once

Annex 3

DEBATES RECOMMENDED, BY DEPARTMENT (SESSIONS 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 to 28 April 2004) Where necessary, documents are assigned to the Department which would now have responsibility. Debates are listed here only once, even when more than one document was recommended for debate and the several documents were the responsibility of more than one Department.

Environment,Food and Rural Affairs 2001–02 18 July 2001 Sixth Environmental Action Programme 12 Dec 2001 Fisheries TACs and quotas 2002 (additional documents 6 Feb and 20 Mar 2002) 30 Jan 2002 Community strategy for dioxins etc. 6 Feb 2002 Greenhouse gas emissions trading within the Community 24 Apr 2002 Rabies: restrictions on the non-commercial movement of pet animals 3 July 2002 Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (and related documents) (for Floor) 23 Oct 2002 Sustainable use of pesticides 2002–03 18 Dec 2002 Quality of bathing water 15 Jan 2003 Fisheries TACs and quotas for 2003 (for Floor; debate recommendation withdrawn) 15 Jan 2003 CAP mid-term review; milk quotas (for Floor) (additional documents 5 Feb 2003) 29 Jan 2003 Control of foot and mouth disease 30 Apr 2003 Identiﬁcation and registration system for sheep and goats 7 May 2003 Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy (additional document 10 July 2003) 18 June 2003 Recovery of cod stocks (additional document on hake 10 Sept 2003) 22 Oct 2003 Emissions of VOCs from solvents used in paints 5 Nov 2003 Protection of groundwater against pollution 19 Nov 2003 Controls on ﬂuorinated greenhouse gases 2003–04 3 Dec 2003 Levels of certain heavy metals etc in ambient air 3 Dec 2003 CAP: reform of tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar sectors 21 Jan 2004 Fisheries: catch quotas and eVort limitation 2004 4 Feb 2004 Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals 25 Feb 2004 Recovery of sole stocks in the Western Channel and Bay of Biscay 31 Mar 2004 Protection of animals during transport

Foreign and Commonwealth Office 2001–02 30 Jan 2002 Reports on progress by applicant countries (additional documents 6 and 13 Mar 2002) 10 July 2002 StaYng needs of the Commission in the enlarged EU 30 Oct 2002 Reports on progress by applicant countries 2002–03 21 May 2003 Annual Policy Strategy for 2004 (Preliminary Draft Budget added 18 June 2003; hence FCO and Treasury) 2003–04 17 Mar 2004 StaV Regulations of oYcials of the European Communities 9768421001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 12 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Health 2001–02 16 Jan 2002 Genetically modified food and feed (FSA and EFRA) 20 Mar 2002 Authorisation of human and veterinary medicines (Health and EFRA) (additional document on herbal medicinal products 10 Apr 2002) 2002–03 19 Mar 2003 Additives in animal nutrition (FSA) 26 Mar 2003 OYcial feed and food controls (FSA) 15 Oct 2003 Quality and safety of human tissues and cells 2003–04 10 Mar 2004 Marketing of sweet corn from genetically modified maize (FSA) 24 Mar 2004 Nutrition and health claims made on foods (FSA) Home Office 2001–02 17 Oct 2001 EU Action Plan on Drugs 28 Nov 2001 European Arrest Warrant (Floor recommended but debate held in Standing Committee) 30 Jan 2002 Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents; etc 10 Apr 2002 Execution of orders freezing assets or evidence 22 May 2002 Minimum standards for reception of asylum applicants 2002–03 20 Nov 2002 Mutual recognition of financial penalties (additional document 11 Dec 2002) 29 Jan 2003 Combating corruption in the private sector 2 Apr 2003 Racism and xenophobia 16 July 2003 Asylum systems 5 Nov 2003 Security at European Council meetings etc 2003–04 17 Dec 2003 Procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status International Development 2001–02 15 May 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (additional document on “poverty diseases” 22 May 2002) 2002–03 21 May 2003 Programme for action on three major communicable diseases 2003–04 3 Dec 2003 Co-operation with the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip Lord Chancellor’s Department 2002–03 27 Nov 2002 Judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility (additional document 15 Jan 2003) Trade and Industry 2001–02 31 Oct 2001 Common rules for internal market in electricity and natural gas 21 Nov 2001 Animal testing and cosmetic products 16 Jan 2002 Amending the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive (responsibility of Cabinet OYce in 2002) 13 Feb 2002 Packaging and packaging waste 8 May 2002 Working conditions for temporary workers 12 June 2002 Waste from electrical and electronic equipment; etc 2002–03 20 Nov 2002 Security of energy supply 11 Dec 2002 Takeover bids (additional document 5 Mar 2003) 15 Jan 2003 A better environment for business in the EU (additional document 19 Mar 2003) 17 Sept 2003 Competition policy: mergers 2003–04 9 Dec 2004 European space policy 14 Jan 2004 Doha Development Agenda 4 Feb 2004 Review of the Working Time Directive 25 Feb 2004 Disposal of batteries and accumulators Transport 2001–02 21 Nov 2001 Single European Sky (replaced by new documents 6 Mar 2002, for Floor) 30 Jan 2002 Commission White Paper on European transport policy 13 Feb 2002 Promotion of the use of biofuels in road transport (Transport and Customs and Excise) 9768421001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:41:59 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 13

6 Mar 2002 Aircraft noise 20 Mar 2002 Second Railway Package 26 June 2002 Major accident hazards involving dangerous substances 3 July 2002 Allocation of slots at Community airports (additional documents 18 Dec 2002) 6 Nov 2002 Guidelines for and financing of Trans-European Networks (additional document 5 Nov 2003; hence Transport and DTI) 2002–03 27 Nov 2002 Denied boarding compensation for air passengers 8 Jan 2003 Safety at sea (additional document 5 Feb 2003) 10 July 2003 Maritime transport security 2003–04 3 Dec 2003 Trans-European transport network Treasury 2001–02 17 Oct 2001 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 7 Nov 2001 2002 Draft Budget 16 Jan 2002 Sound financial management and fighting fraud, plus Court of Auditors Annual Report 10 Apr 2002 Stability and Convergence Programmes (Broad Economic Policy Guidelines added 22 May 2002 and recommended for Floor, but debate held in European Standing Committee) 10 July 2002 Preliminary Draft Budget 2003 23 Oct 2002 Sound financial management and fighting fraud (Court of Auditors Annual Report added 29 Jan 2003) 2003–03 14 May 2003 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 2003 10 Sept 2003 Reduced rates of VAT (C and E) 15 Oct 2003 Activities of OLAF and the fight against fraud (additional documents 29 Oct 2003, 14 Jan and 4 Feb 2004, including Court of Auditors report and OLAF reports) 2003–04 3 Dec 2003 Value added tax 24 Mar 2004 Financial Perspective for 2007–13 and reform of Structural and Cohesion Funds (for Floor; Treasury and DTI)

Annex 4

DEBATESRECOMMENDED FOR THE FLOOR, AND WHERE THE DEBATESTOOK PLACE

Session in which Subject Where debated recommended 1999–2000 Fisheries: total allowable Floor catches and quotas 2000 1999–2000 Agricultural price proposals Floor 2000–01 1999–2000 White Paper on European Standing Committee environmental liability 2000–01 Establishment of permanent Floor ESDP bodies 2000–01 General principles and Floor requirements of food law 2001–02 Single European Sky Floor 2001–02 European Arrest Warrant European Standing Committee 2001–02 Reform of the Common Floor Fisheries Policy 2001–02 Stability and Convergence European Standing Committee Programmes and Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 2002–03 Fisheries: total allowable Debate recommendation withdrawn catches and quotas 2003 following Floor debate arranged independently 2002–03 CAP mid-term review Floor 2003–04 New Financial Perspective Debate not yet held 2007–13 and regional and cohesion policy 9768421002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 14 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Witnesses: Mr Jimmy Hood, a Member of the House, Chairman, European Scrutiny Committee and Mr Dorian Gerhold, Clerk, European Scrutiny Committee, examined.

Q1 Chairman: Welcome, Jimmy and Dorian. If I can why you think these matters should not go to Select go on first name terms. We tend to operate in the Committees. If they should not go to Select Modernisation Committee on first name terms. I am Committees then you talk about more committees normally sitting on the opposite side of the table to and presumably expertise. Do you think there needs you, being grilled by you and your colleagues, but it to be some cross-over between the membership of is good to have you here. As you know, we have these committees in order to bring expertise into the embarked upon a programme of looking specifically European deliberation? at the mainstreaming of European issues within the Mr Hood: Well, I thank you for your challenging House and within Parliament generally. We are very question, and I say challenging because that is the impressed with the work that your Scrutiny crux of the matter and what we are seeking to do. We Committee does and the diligence of the scrutiny would love to encourage our colleagues in that is undertaken, at least I am, and I think it is a departmental committees to get more involved. In question of seeing how the system is working and to theory it sounds fine until you examine the practical what extent we can involve more backbenchers in side of it and the truth is that departmental the wider debate because there is a poverty of debate committees do not have the resources or the time to of genuine depth on European issues. We are do the type of work that we do in sifting and interested in your ideas on that. In welcoming you, scrutinising and that is a great diYculty. Of course, I do not know whether you wanted to say anything the other side to it is that for too long—in fact I have by way of a brief opening, Jimmy, but I would like been on this committee for 17 years, believe it or to bring Joan Ruddock in on European documents not—Europe is not what I call a sexy subject, before she has to go. especially for new Members of Parliament, and they Mr Hood: Just to say I am pleased to have this want interesting Foreign AVairs, Home AVairs and opportunity to come to your Committee, Peter. It is things like that. It is diYcult. Involving our particularly strange, as you say, me being at the colleagues in doing scrutiny work would be fine but opposite end of the table, because I am usually that we feel that we are the best suited because we are side and you are usually this side and I am usually fairly well resourced in the European Scrutiny trying to convince you how helpful I am seeking to Committee. Departmental Committees do not have be. I am sure you appreciate it and I am sure you will the resources to do the type of scrutiny that we have. be helpful to me today in return. But it is so But we would welcome and do welcome interest important and I welcome the fact that there is a from our colleagues in our committee and where we change of mood both in Government and indeed in can we do collaborate and we do it mainly through Parliament about looking to scrutiny and how best we improve Government through scrutiny and I the clerks and exchanging information. But we see look forward to answering some of your questions. ourselves there to assist and help and encourage If there is anything I am unable to answer then we departmental committees to get involved where they will get the information to you, but I am sure we will feel they can. have a fair evidence session today. Chairman: Thank you. Perhaps I will bring Joan in to ask specifically about debates on European Q3 Joan Ruddock: Do you do any monitoring of documents. what happens when items are referred by yourselves to the Standing Committee and then they debate? Q2 Joan Ruddock: I am very grateful to you and My example again is very negative because on the thank you both for coming. I have had some day the debate was taking place the relevant experience of this because I am a member of the Minister was already in Brussels casting his vote Environment Select Committee and, as you will before the committee had even met. know, most of our significant legislation on the Mr Hood: Yes. Well, that hopefully does not happen environment comes from Europe. On the Select as often as it used to. We keep the statistics and I will Committee we get notified of the debates which you ask Dorian to give you the statistics side of it, but I yourselves have proposed should go to the Standing would be very surprised if we have not seen a marked Committee. I have to say, having taken part in one improvement from the previous years, and I am of those Standing Committees, not as a Member but going back a good few years, when scrutiny reserves just as an attendee, having put down an amendment were just treated as irrelevant by Ministers. I can tell myself, I found the whole process entirely you now very clearly that Ministers think very, very unsatisfactory. First of all, I would congratulate you carefully now before they lift a scrutiny reserve on having decided that it is something which should because there are consequences and our committee, have gone to the Standing Committee, but when it especially in this Parliament, drew the line in the gets to the Standing Committee there is very little sand and we said to the Cabinet OYce and all participation. Very few people would know the Ministers are aware that if they ignore the scrutiny issues, the very detailed issues—this was about the reserve then there is a fair chance, if they cannot give marketing consent for GM maize, the BT11 maize— a good explanation as to why it was necessary, they whereas the Select Committee members would have will appear before our committee in a public session been able to take that subject on and really get to and be held to account for their actions. That is part grips with it and hopefully be much more eVective in of the process where we seek to keep the Ministers questioning the Minister. So I really want to know and the Government accountable. 9768421002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 15

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold

Q4 Mr Kidney: Jimmy, on this question involving aVected treaties. But we tend to stay clear of policy Members, we have had a letter from Colin Challen, issues. One of the great successes of our committee who is the Member for Morley, and he says, “I is that we do not make judgments on merits, so wonder how many Members ploughed through therefore we can work and cooperate together minutes of the European Scrutiny Committee? By without having too many political rows, although the time they do, it is of course too late.” But he says, that is getting more diYcult these days. In fairness, “A year or two ago I asked to be put on a mailing when you have discussions about whether it is legally list to receive all their reports. I was told this was not or politically important and that judgment is that possible, you have to request each report when it something is legally or politically important then it comes out.” So there is someone saying he would be requires a judgment on whether it requires further interested to know what is going on in good time and scrutiny. Politics, the political judgment, the merit he could not ﬁnd out unless he was exceptionally judgment does not come into the scrutiny process alert in going to look at that piece of paper at the until it is referred on to the Standing Committee Vote OYce each day. Is there a way we can improve when the Minister will be there for questions, or to with e-mail alerts to people who have actually said the Floor of the House when the Minister will be on they have got an interest? the Floor of the House and that is something we are Mr Gerhold: I am surprised to hear that. We would very keen to maintain. So we do not step over into send copies of our reports to any Member who asked that policy area which may cause or be perceived to for them. We are particularly interested in sending cause friction. material to Members that relates to their particular interests, not just sending them everything we Q8 Ann CoVey: My argument is that perhaps that produce, which is voluminous and miscellaneous. So should happen in a sense. If Select Committees are I am sorry the Member had that experience. the main scrutiny committees on particular policy areas there may be an overlap, the referring of Q5 Mr Kidney: He could register then, could he, and documents to the Select Committee for scrutiny he will in the future receive what he would like to where that ﬁts in, particularly, for example, the receive? Transport Select Committee policy may help inform Mr Gerhold: Yes. that and form a better scrutiny function. Maybe there should be some overlap. I just wonder what Q6 Mr Kidney: I will go and tell him that. your comments are. Mr Gerhold: It might be better for him to register Mr Hood: My apology if I misunderstood. Going in through the Vote OYce, but we will certainly make the reverse, I would welcome it. We would welcome sure he can have that. departmental committees knocking at our door and Mr Kidney: Very good. asking for information that would help them and where we can encourage that we certainly would. It V is so important because you would expect me to talk Q7 Ann Co ey: Just returning to the issue of V departmental Select Committees, which obviously up the performance of our sta , etc, and I am always are the main scrutiny committees for policies the delighted to do so, but we have such an expertise Government is proposing, I am just interested in the which really is available there for them; not just separation where in fact there is quite an overlap in for committees but it is available there for terms of how particularly European legislation may backbenchers, such as the example we had earlier. aVect what governments can and cannot do with Any Member who wants information just has to get domestic legislation. For example, if the Transport in touch with our department and if the information Committee is doing a report on aviation policy it is is available they will get it. actually quite important in making comments on policy if you know what European directives there Q9 Ann CoVey: But does it happen? Do you get are on the ability of domestic government to impose requests from Select Committees? taxes and things like that. I was just wondering if Mr Gerhold: Yes, we do. We have even lent staV to perhaps this separation and scrutiny meant that at Select Committees to go on visits with them so that the end of the day perhaps departmental Select they can use that expertise that we do have. Committees or the members of departmental Select Joan Ruddock: I would like to ask something and I Committees were not as well informed as they could will not be back to hear the answer, but it will be be, or certainly that their scrutiny function tended to minuted. I just wanted to ask how often you, as the be over-focused on what the Government could do Scrutiny Committee, have referred documents to a in terms of national policy rather than take into Select Committee. I know you have got the power. account wider aspects. Is it a problem with the timeframe? We in our Mr Hood: One of the areas that we are very, very Committee are currently doing something which careful with—and again this is maybe my early years would be very relevant to something which is in your as the chairman of the committee—is the question of Standing Committee tomorrow, for example. Does turf wars. Why are we poking our noses into that happen? When does it happen and is there a somebody else’s business? It did not happen very problem with making it happen more? often. It was more about the Foreign AVairs, who Chairman: We will come back to that, Jimmy. I have the world to themselves, as you know, and understand from a voice on my right that there are there were grey areas where we were looking at going to be two votes on this, so on that basis we treaty issues which may aVect policy, or policy that need to come back for twenty past four. 9768421002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 16 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold

The Committee was suspended from 4.00 pm to AVairs Committee and that is one way in which 4.20 pm for a division in the House committees are obliged to take some kind of cognisance of European issues. Mr Hood: Iwonderifthisismaybeasuggestionof Q10 Chairman: I am sorry about the voting how we should be looking at it. Maybe we are looking interrupting everything, but before we all departed at the problem from the wrong end. There seems to be Joan Ruddock put a question to you and I wondered a culture in this place, and I was talking to colleagues if you wanted to respond on that? today about this, that Europe is a foreign land. We Mr Hood: Yes, I am delighted, Chairman. There treat it in foreign policy terms. It is overseas, over were four occasions: the Defence Committee, April there, when really we should be treating all European 2000, on the presidency progress report on the issues as domestic because most of it is in the domestic Common European Policy on Security and Defence; law. This is the way I would ask people to look at it the Trade and Industry Committee, December 2000, from involving departmental Select Committees. on fair trade; the Committee of Public Accounts, Maybe the demand should come from the Select March 2001, on the EC’s Financial Regulation; the Committees to get involved more in European issues International Development Committee, April 2002, rather than others saying, “Well, what do you think?” on reform of European development assistance. in Select Committees, because there is nothing worse than another committee suggesting to a committee Q11 Chairman: Fine. Thank you. Before I bring that this is the way they should be doing things. I want Martin Linton in and other colleagues, you to encourage Members and departmental Select essentially disagree with the Government’s Committees in particular to look more at what is memorandum which says that the Standing happening in Europe and maybe we have to look at Committees are not really working properly then? how Select Committees work. For instance, I give this as an example: if there is something causing the Trade Mr Hood: We feel that it is too easy to dump all the and Industry some concern, some industry up in the blame on the Standing Committees. I accept that the north-east of England, then if the Select Committee Standing Committees have not been working as well chooses they can go and visit that site and have a look as they should have been working and indeed at it and do a report on it and inquire into it and arm disappointingly so on occasions, but we fall short of themselves with the relevant information. I was just accepting the constructive criticism that we should conversing with the Chairman of the Transport do away with the Standing Committees and we are Committee on the way down to the vote and she was still of the view, and some of us have held the view telling me that she was having some diYculties with for a long time, that there should be five committees some European directive, or something was upsetting of a smaller size. If there were five committees of a her. If our colleague, the Chairman of the Transport smaller size there would be more expertise, there Committee, decides to have a look at an issue and would not be as many meetings for Members to view it, she has to get hold of her clerk to put a bid attend and we think that is an area we should look into the Liaison Committee to pay for the finance for at as a way of improving it. her committee to go and have a look at a problem. That, it seems to me, is the wrong way of doing it. If Q12 Martin Linton: Jimmy, you said in your we treat Europe as a foreign land and foreign policy introductory remarks that departmental Select issues then I think we are looking at it from the wrong Committees do not really have the time or the end and maybe we should be looking more ourselves resources to devote to European issues, yet when inside the House at how we approach European they were encouraged by the Modernisation issues because everything we do involves Europe. Committee to increase their size to 15 most of them said, “No, thank you very much.” I am just Q13 Chairman: You are saying therefore that interested in whether you think they actually perhaps a visit of say the Transport Committee to seriously want to look at European issues. If I could Brussels should be looked at in the same way as a trip just focus on what you said in the paper about to Newcastle? mainstreaming, that some EU matters should be Mr Hood: Yes, very much. Could I just say, because mainstreamed and others that were more detailed the Public Accounts Committee will already be and technical should not. I am just interested in how ringing the numbers up, that we have a policy in the we would interpret that kind of principle both to House of Commons now which is available to every Select Committees and to Question Time. In terms individual backbencher to have free visits to capitals of Select Committees, the implication would be that in Europe. That is three days’ subsistence and travel. maybe the departmental committees should be It is quite a fair amount of money. I have not looked forced to devote some of their time and energies to into the figures, Peter, but I would be surprised if European issues without detracting from the work there were more than 10%, maybe less than 5% of of the European Scrutiny Committee, either through Members who avail themselves of that. what you discussed as some system of overlapping or maybe some Members of the departmental Select Q14 Chairman: It is a minority. Committees should be obliged to follow European Mr Hood: Yes. If we have budgeted for that sort of issues, as indeed some do if they have to attend thing, why do we not use the budget we are not using meetings. I have attended the Justice and Home to do some funding for departmental Select AVairs meeting in Brussels on behalf of the Home Committees who have a diYculty and they want to 9768421002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 17

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold go and look at an area? Why should they not be able committee, I could have asked for extra staV in that to do that and look at that way of helping with the sort of situation. It is much more of a problem for budget? Members, however big the committee is, in that there is one committee, one lot of Members with one Q15 Martin Linton: I take your point. Could I just lot of time. invite you to apply that same principle to the issue of Question Time, because obviously there is a good Q17 Ann CoVey: But if you are identifying the number of questions about European matters, problem that Europe is seen as “something over Foreign AVairs and Home AVairs every Question there” and European issues are not mainstreamed in Time but it is a complete lottery about whether these this Parliament then surely improving the way that questions are actually reached and whether there are Select Committees look at European issues would any European questions at all. Do you think it might actually be very good because they produce reports be a good idea to ring-fence, if you like, a certain part which are actually read, the media is interested in of Question Time for European questions so that, those reports and Members are interested in those for instance, in Foreign AVairs, Home AVairs or reports, whereas perhaps reports just entitled DTI questions at least 10 minutes would be “Europe” they are not interested in? Is that not a guaranteed for European questions? way of mainstreaming it? Mr Hood: We have heard some discussions on this Mr Hood: Departmental committees could not do and indeed discussed it in informal meetings with the and would not want to do the job that we do, so Leader of the House. I think it is a very good idea. I anything we do is complementary; in fact we are used the phrase earlier on, turf wars, and there may there to aid and assist departmental committees with be turf wars within the Foreign OYce, but I hope all the information and all the scrutiny we do. It is that the nettle will be grasped here and maybe the the political process, the merit side of issues that the Foreign OYce can provide the House with their departmentals should be picking up. We look at the Ministers, albeit that it may be 10 or 15 minutes of document and make a judgment on whether it is Question Time, so that our Members can legally or politically important. We make that concentrate on European issues relevant to their judgment and then we say to the House, “Look, own particular expertise. here’s the report. We think this should be looked at,” Chairman: Ann, do you want to come back on and it is for the House then to decide how it is dealt something you previously asked before I bring with. Sometimes when some people talk about Oliver in? “mainstreaming” it is for all the documents on trade and industry if it is the Trade and Industry Committee, or on home aVairs if it is the Home Q16 Ann CoVey: Yes. I was going to come back on AVairs Committee. You just could not do that and the Select Committee issue and just check that what I do not think there is anybody who is seriously you were saying essentially is that you think part of suggesting that, but there is no reason why the merits the diYculty is that Select Committees do not as a of particular issues and proposals and whatever is matter of course in their inquiries look at the happening in Europe should not be picked up by the European aspect of the policy they are looking at. Is departmental committees. that what you are saying? Mr Hood: No, I am not saying that and I am pleased V to be given an opportunity to correct it if I have Q18 Ann Co ey: It does not always happen at the given the wrong impression. I am not in any way moment? criticising the departmental Select Committees. Mr Hood: It does not, no. What I am saying is that we should look at the Mr Gerhold: The Scrutiny Committee has identified culture in the House itself and whether we ought to some things that departmental Select Committees look at it from the other end of the problem. If could do because there is not so much pressure on departmental committees are encouraged to look time, looking at Green and White Papers, the more positively at European issues, I am sure they implementation of legislation and pre- and post- would be delighted to do so. Maybe that in itself Council scrutiny, rather than legislative proposals, would demand the time and the resources to do that. where it is sometimes six weeks or less. Mr Gerhold: Could I come in on the point about departmental Select Committees. Having been a Q19 Mr Heald: In the run-up to the last clerk of a Select Committee, Trade and Industry and Modernisation Committee report on this subject, Energy for seven years, I simply cannot see myself Jimmy, the European Legislation Committee (as it how some of those committees could cope with the then was) was very critical of the poor performance volume of work that the European Scrutiny by government departments in dealing with the Committee would send it. If you look at annex 3, all scrutiny system. Are there still problems with the references in this Parliament are listed and some government departments about this and what would committees would have a stream of documents, you see as the failures on the Government side? sometimes bunched together. They would have to Mr Hood: One of the things we always say is that look at a specific subject, not a policy area but a scrutiny can never be completely satisfied, so specific document, and deal with that when they therefore there is always room for improvement. I might be looking at the closure of the coal industry have said this to the Leader of the House before and or something like that. I think it is probably less of I will have a chance to put it on record again. There a problem in terms of staYng in that, as clerk of the was a quote attributed to a former Leader of the 9768421002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 18 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold

House, ie that good scrutiny makes for good in fact should we not say necessary, for the government, which is a quote which was used by Opposition Spokesman to be there? It seems to me it yours truly long before it was attributed to the would be sensible that that happens. former Leader of the House, and I genuinely believe that. If you are asking me are there still things we can improve on, well, only a fool would say, “No, there Q22 Mr Pike: A couple of things on the Standing isn’t.” What I would say is that there is a better Committees. Firstly, I have to say that while awareness inside Government now about the supplementary questions can be asked, when I have scrutiny process and I unashamedly, on behalf of my chaired them people do not try to ask them and I committee, will try and claim some of the credit for found it very odd that you go around and come back that because, as I was saying earlier, we have drawn but they do not. You have indicated that you would the line in the sand about scrutiny reserves and the still like five, but smaller committees. Of course, you Cabinet OYce itself has responded and makes sure will remember that when they were originally set up that all the departments are aware that we are they suggested five and we originally had two and watching what is going on and when we put a then we have compromised and gone to three, A, B scrutiny reserve on then we expect it to be held until and C. Would you accept that there is a very serious we are satisfied and we remove it. Scrutiny reserves problem with Members on both sides of the House, obviously on occasions need to be overridden by a particularly the Opposition, but even on the Minister and there are circumstances where, subject Government’s side, and would you accept that on to them coming back and our being satisfied with the some of the committees in the House because of explanation, the committee will accept it. But there people having moved on to other things there are on have been occasions when we have not accepted it a number of committees of the House what I would call “dead wood”, people who actually want to get and we have had Ministers in, and I am sure they will V say they do not get an easy time from us. Therefore, o but there is nobody available to replace them? Is it encourages Ministers to maybe lean a little bit that not a real problem in going for the five, even if more on their departments instead of relying on their they were smaller? departments, to be a little bit more objective and Mr Hood: I do not, because I give the mathematics stand back and watch what is happening inside the of it: if you had nine on the Standing Committee, department. It is an aid to a Minister because we can and indeed five Standing Committees instead of tell a Minister how well his or her department is three, then there would be less of a burden on the doing better than maybe some of the people who are people who were on it because they would have to near them, who are working for them. So sometimes meet less often and they would be able to specialise scrutiny can be of great assistance to Government. better. Of course, there is another thing, that we have Mr Heald: The first hour where the questioning is to make it (pardon the politically incorrect just on the Minister— comment) more politically sexy, more interesting, Chairman: This is a Standing Committee? and make sure that MPs understand that it could be assisting their career prospects to be more involved in Standing Committees and issues concerning Q20 Mr Heald: Yes. Is that a useful part of scrutiny, Europe, especially those who come in and on their do you think? first day they want to be Prime Minister, they want Mr Hood: Yes, I do. One of the things we have been to go up to Foreign AVairs, Trade and Industry and talking about as well is that maybe we should have things like that straight away. Some of us know it more supplementaries as part of that process. The takes a bit longer than one term of Parliament to be Chairmen’s Panel made a ruling on it some time ago Prime Minister and really we should be encouraging that supplementary questions can be asked in the them to start a little bit lower down. Standing Committees, but maybe we have got used to not asking the supplementary questions. So we think we should be encouraging people to use Q23 Mr Pike: Could I move on, Jimmy, to the point supplementary questions because the Chairmen’s of making it more sexy to attract people to go. Your Panel has already decided that they can do that. paragraph 32, at the bottom of p10 of your submission, really touches on a key issue. I served for a couple of years on Euro A and on a number of Q21 Mr Heald: Finally, if I may, the Opposition occasions we did amend the Government motion, Spokesman of course can attend the Standing but then of course to the House it reported not the Committee and pursue a line of questioning of the amended motion but the original motion and there Minister. Do you think that that is something which is no opportunity to debate it or vote on it. If one is important—certainly we do—that the Opposition wants to attract people to serve on a committee and has that opportunity and that of course other it is not just a talking shop, is not the point that you outsiders who are not members of the committee can are making in paragraph 32 an absolutely crucial also come in and question on important issues? one, because people will not attend or do not want Mr Hood: I most certainly agree with that and I to attend meetings if nobody is going to take any agree that both as a chairman of a Select Committee notice of what they say? I chair Regulatory Reform and as a chairman of a Standing Committee. now and you refer to the procedure there. I have two Through the Chairmen’s Panel I sit on Bills and diVerent options, of course, in a debate under statutory instruments as well and it is always helpful, diVerent situations in the House. Is that not 9768421002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 19

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold something which should be very seriously best we can improve it then we should look at how considered if we are to upgrade the importance of best we do that and I support the point about cross- these Standing Committees? cutting questions in Westminster Hall. Mr Hood: Well, we have argued that for some time now and we have pressed the present Leader and Q25 Mr Tyler: I want to get back to your very previous Leaders of the House to look at that important point about cultural change. We are all because in Parliament the Government always has busy Members and committees are very busy. its way; in Standing Committees the Government Raising the priority of European matters seems to has its majority. I would imagine it is very, very, very me to be very, very important and I love the way you rarely that the Opposition could overturn a are approaching that. Just a couple of thoughts. resolution put down by the Government but when it Firstly, to back up what Peter Pike was saying about does, that is fairly important for the report that goes the smaller but more specialised Standing to Parliament and it is something we support. Committees, surely it would be very helpful if we could adopt your suggestion of giving them proper Q24 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Could I ask Mr Hood names so that the specialisation was clear, so that a whether he would reconsider the answer he gave Member who went on the Standing Committee that earlier, I think it might have been to Ann CoVey or was concerned with transport could say to his Martin Linton, that part of Foreign AVairs constituents and to transport interests, “This is my questions should be devoted to Europe? Does he specialisation”? Could you say a bit more about really think that we should in fact further surrender that. The other issue is, which I think comes to the our interest in what goes on throughout the World same thing because we are always trying to get more for concentrating on Europe, which does get an Members more interested and more involved in opportunity of questions during Foreign AVairs these, would you like to say a bit more about your questions in any event? Does he not actually agree response to the suggestion of the Leader of the with, as it were, the memorandum of the Leader of House of a European Grand Committee (although I the House that it might be a very good idea to use think you have got a better name for it) and how that Westminster Hall for cross-cutting questions on might attract support because, frankly, if we fail to Europe, because I chair Westminster Hall and I get people to go to such a committee each failure is believe it is a splendid forum for specialising in some a step back; it is not just a stand still. of these matters relating to Europe? To get together Mr Hood: On specialisation, we went a bit further a group of Ministers who have considerable than that, as you know, in our paper. We even talked responsibility and expertise on Europe so that about that specialised Standing Committee having people could go to Westminster Hall and have an its own chair, which we think would enhance it as hour of cross-cutting questions seems to me to be a well. Therefore, we are very supportive of that. Your very positive use of Parliamentary time in last question was? Westminster Hall. I hope, of course, that that would in no way detract from the two major debates on the Q26 Mr Tyler: About the Grand Committee or re- Floor of the House each year, which I think are very named Joint Committee, I think you prefer. important, but Westminster Hall could be used Mr Hood: Well, again the Grand Committee is much more for this. Does the Chairman of the something that we have been quite excited about. As Scrutiny Committee not accept that that might be a I say, I come from an experience over the years of better way, rather than cutting down further on feeling like I am talking to myself and talking to people’s ability to question the Foreign and walls at times but I have seen—and this has Commonwealth OYce about matters relating to happened over the last maybe two or three years— every country in the World? a light at the end of the tunnel. If I can give you an Mr Hood: Sir Nicholas, thank you for aVording me example. I am sure that the Chairman, the Leader of the opportunity to come back to that issue. In fact it the House, will not mind me talking about my own has been talked about—whether it was a quarter of party. MPs at Westminster and MEPs in Brussels an hour would not matter to me, in fact I would have always tended to be distanced from one probably prefer it to be a quarter of an hour on to another and looked at each other not as a threat to Question Time, not a quarter of an hour oV the one another but they are just doing that job and we Foreign AVairs Question Time, so I was not are doing our job and never the both shall meet. suggesting for a moment that we should take it oV When one wants to look at what the other is doing that. If I did, I am pleased to be given an opportunity they would resist that. There has been a complete to retract it. As to cross-cutting questions in change now, not just in my own party terms but in Westminster Hall, I am in a position where I would the House. Over the last perhaps 18 months or so we not disagree with anything. I very much support have set up meetings, all-party meetings, including that, by the way, because Westminster Hall has been the House of Lords, with MEPs. We have had one of the better things we have been able to do. It two meetings here and one in Brussels and the has been very successful and the demand is fantastic, whole atmosphere has completely changed and obviously inﬂuenced by the excellent chairmanship we are speaking as parliamentarians who are of Sir Nicholas and his colleagues, who do an complementary and see our jobs as complementary excellent job in there. The fact that there is a great to what each other is seeking to do. We concentrate demand for Westminster Hall tells us that it is on the role of national parliaments. They do their bit working. Again, I am sure that if we can look at how in the European Parliament and scrutinise the 9768421002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 20 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold

Commission and we do our bit in looking at what Mr Gerhold: In percentage terms, no. our Ministers are doing in the Council and there has been a complete sea change. On top of all that has Q30 Mr Shepherd: Because some of the measures come along devolved government and here comes that come before your committee find their way into enlargement, and enlargement will bring in some domestic legislation to satisfy the principle of the more devolved government, and we see a need to sovereignty of Parliament and reinforce Section 2 broaden the welcome into this political forum. That and Section 3 of the original Communities Act, is why we even suggest that maybe some of our presumably? colleagues from the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Mr Gerhold: Yes. Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly be involved in the Grand Committee as well to give us all a forum to talk about how our respective Q31 Mr Shepherd: How many statutory instruments democracies and responsibilities are working. We then originate from Europe? We used to list by them welcome it and I would hopefully look forward to us the little letter “e”, did we not? going down that road. Mr Gerhold: The Scrutiny Committee does not look at implementation, that is the point of the Q27 Mr Tyler: That is very positive. The problem is, paragraph, so we have no reason to count these. We is it not, that the more people you welcome, the look at legislation before it is agreed in the Council bigger the tent you have the less likely it is that and we count that. anybody feels absolutely obliged to be there. How do we make sure that Members of this House still Q32 Mr Shepherd: So we are actually not retain the core responsibility in such a committee? scrutinising then that which becomes the law of Mr Hood: Well, I am encouraged. We had 10 MEPs this land? here to a meeting mid-week. When we went we took Mr Gerhold: We are scrutinising European six or seven MPs, and that is out and back in one legislation, some of which has direct eVect. At the day. I am very encouraged, and the quality of debate later stages it is not for the European Scrutiny was impressive as well. We were not just talking and Committee which is looking mainly at what UK it was not just, as we tend to get, everyone saying the Ministers do in the Council. same thing. There was a very good debate and because it is cross-party without any of the jostling that goes on in their own party, I think it was very Q33 Mr Shepherd: No, but we are here because of worthwhile and it is very welcome. the Leader’s scrutiny of European matters in the House of Commons, and I would hope therefore Q28 Mr Shepherd: There are just three of your your committee, which would be aware of what it is paragraphs I want to ask you about, 6/49 and 51. In generating through its 1,080 documents in one year, 6 you draw our attention to the sheer quantity of EU where you are sitting maybe 30 times in the course legislation which passes through the House and you of a year. We are looking at you disposing of a huge give the figures: in 2003, 1,080 documents were number of documents, simply disposing of them, so Y deposited, 535 were deemed of political and/or legal there must be a technical di culty in that. There is significance and were reported on and 48 were the sifting, which is presumably done by the clerks, recommended for debate, giving rise to 26 debates in is that right? European Standing Committees and one on the Mr Gerhold: The clerks provide briefing to the Floor. In your paragraph on 49, which I am Members, who go through it at the weekly meetings, conflating perhaps here, you also make reference to without necessarily agreeing it. a proposed secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee on a experimental basis to sift statutory Q34 Mr Shepherd: I am just trying to get clear in my instruments in the same way that we scrutinise EU mind the pattern of how that which has the force of documents. I am trying to get my mind around the law in Britain is scrutinised. We are very familiar huge volume of legislation now which is driven from with the domestic side in the sense of that which Europe. Delors said, famously, 70% of our originates from pledges of Government, etc, but I legislation will come from Brussels. Would you am trying to see that which creates criminal law, and think that 70% coming from Brussels is an under- you have very kindly provided us with an annexe estimate or an over-estimate on the basis of the which indicates some of the measures you have information you provide and are aware of? recommended for committees, and indeed have Mr Hood: The clerk is the best one to answer that. come into substantive English law, such as, to take Mr Gerhold: I have no idea what the figure is and I the Home OYce, the European arrest warrant? have no idea how you would calculate such a figure, Mr Gerhold: Yes. whether you do it on the basis of the number of pieces of legislation or their importance. I am afraid I cannot answer that. Q35 Mr Shepherd: That started as a European document, presumably? Mr Gerhold: It did, yes. Q29 Mr Shepherd: So the Committee or the clerks have no idea, therefore, what is the quantity of British domestic law that now is driven from Q36 Mr Shepherd: And it was recommended for a Europe? debate, which was held in a Standing Committee? 9768421002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 21

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold

Mr Gerhold: Yes. Part of the problem is the sheer Mr Hood: Yes. volume. It would be diYcult for the committee, with Mr Gerhold: Yes, that is so. its existing resources and one committee to look both at the European documents and at the domestic implementation. Q41 Mr Shepherd: That is an acknowledgement that the scrutiny is not complete? Mr Hood: As I was saying earlier, we need to look at Q37 Mr Shepherd: I accept that. how best we improve what we do and it seems to me Mr Gerhold: But it is also not within the committee’s that is an area where we can improve. terms of reference. Mr Gerhold: Just to add on the earlier scrutiny, the committee will sometimes look at documents six, seven or more times, particularly if there are new Q38 Mr Shepherd: No. So we get back to 1,080 drafts or if it is going back to the Minister several pieces of documentation which are disposed of in times with questions, if it does not think its questions 30 sessions? have been adequately answered, and so on. Mr Gerhold: Yes.

Q42 Mr Shepherd: Oh, I do not doubt from your Q39 Mr Shepherd: Is much of this done just by rote, memorandum that you are inundated, if not “Do you agree? Do you disagree?” or is there a real besieged by all these documents, but at the end of the consideration? process of this discussion I can see what you do but Mr Hood: I may be able to help you. I will tell you the wider interest we have is scrutiny of European what staV we have and how we deal with it. matters in the House of Commons, Government Obviously we are the largest staVed Select memoranda from the Leader of the House of Committee in the House by far. We have a senior Commons, who is also Chairman of this Committee. lawyer and a junior lawyer, we have a senior clerk Whatever I may think, I am just trying to elicit, does and a junior clerk and we have four specialist this House adequately scrutinise European matters advisers and the four specialist advisers I in the House of Commons when it was asserted and respectfully refer to as my poachers turned is now accepted widely in Europe that the greater gamekeepers; they are usually people who have volume of legislation now coming through the worked in the Civil Service and they have that House of Commons originates through the expertise which they are advising on. Then we have European Union? a secretariat to back it up, so it is about 16 or 17.1 Mr Gerhold: The committee is not looking at the When we come to our weekly meeting on a merits of these documents, but it is scrutinising to Wednesday, you are right, we can have a pile about make sure it knows from the Government what the this high, 30 or 40 documents to look at. What we eVects are and what the Government’s policy is. have with each document is an A4 paper from our adviser telling us the treaty base, whether it is legally or politically important or not, what it seeks to do, Q43 Mr Shepherd: This is not a question about the maybe some brief history on it and then there is a merits, as you will have understood, so there was no recommendation on whether it has been looked at need to refer to the merits of the legislation. and can be cleared or whether it is politically or Mr Hood: No, I think the hesitancy was putting the legally important and it has to be further scrutinised, percentage on because we do not know what whether to hold it back and get fuller information percentage it would be. (that is sending it to departments for further Mr Shepherd: But when we are looking at proper information, the Cabinet OYce, etc). With the other scrutiny and the use of the time on the Floor of the information it will then come back to us and the House and the use of Members through their recommendation will either be to go to debate committees it must be important to know whether because it is legally or politically important, or even we are directing our energies in the right direction. then we get some recommendations that the I am very mindful of this because the new accession information is not satisfactory and we should countries had to sign the acquis and it was said in despatch a request for a bit more information and many papers and reported as such that these now then we will make a decision to hold it back again to constitute 80,000 pages, and clearly if you are get the information, and then eventually we make looking at as many as 1,080 documents in the last Y the recommendation. It may go to debate and when year this is a vast volume that is very di cult for it goes to debate then is it cleared from our scrutiny Members of Parliament in detail to scrutinise and process. It is then in the hands of Parliament, for the even for Government with all its resources, I Standing Committees or on the Floor of the House. imagine. I am just trying to see what is the way That is why the clerk was unable to tell you what around this and where this leads to. Should, as I say, happens to the scrutiny of legislation afterwards. the time of the House be more given over to it because clearly 15 minutes questioning on the range of issues that you have recommended for discussion Q40 Mr Shepherd: That presumably is why then you and Foreign OYce questions seems to me wholly argue for another committee in fact to do the second inappropriate in this and should it not be the stage of this scrutiny? Secretary of State for Industry responding to matters which relate to industrial matters or 1 Note by Clerk: 16. industry areas? 9768421002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 22 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold

Q44 Chairman: To help you out, I think Richard has reflects the coalition of the government in the made his point, but is there anything else you want, parliament. Therefore, it is very rarely, if at all, the on reflection, to add by way of detail to what you committee will be at diVerence with the Minister of might want to briefly say now, because I am going to the government or the line the government is taking. move on to other issues? We are completely diVerent. We are a majority Mr Hood: Not in the way of detail, but on Richard’s parliament and we need to scrutinise our Executive last point, of course the Secretary of State for Trade a lot more vigorously than the Folketing Committee and Industry will deal with Trade and Industry does, and we do that. As I say, we might not do what issues and the consequences of European legislation we would like to do because we will never be that is reflecting on her department and Parliament satisfied, but I happen to think that our system of but, as we say, once it has left her decision or whether scrutiny is probably one of the best. I do not know it is recommended for further scrutiny then that is of any better in Europe than ours, even though we passed on to us and that is the business of this House, accept we have got room to improve it. The thing is and that is what our standing orders from the House now that a lot of the new Member States want to mandate us to do. come and talk to us on how we do our scrutiny, and indeed through the good oYces of the clerk and his staV many of the Member States do so and we meet V Q45 Ann Co ey: I have a question about the regularly and advise. One of the things that maybe domestic implementation of directives. There has we as a scrutiny committee could look at to improve been a view that has been around for a long time and it is to get involved more in the bilateral experiences I am sure you have heard of it on many occasions, than we seem to get. The only possibility we have to which is that UK Parliament tends to implement meet our colleagues from other Member States is directives with all the “t”s crossed and the “i”s that there is a COSAC meeting every six months in dotted and other European parliaments do not the Member State of the presidency where we meet necessarily do that, which means that basically it and I am like the father of the COSAC; I must be, I puts us at a slight disadvantage. I wonder what your do not think there has been anybody who has been a view on that is from your experience of how chairman there longer than I have. So I am the Tam directives are implemented in other parliaments and Dalyell of the COSAC probably. That is not a bad if there is another parliament which does either description. We meet but it is only twice a year and scrutiny or implementation, or discussion of merits we tend to meet and discuss agendas and we sit in a V in a di erent way which in your view may make it conference hall. We tend to maybe have a couple of much more mainstream in that parliament, and if so hours with each other and maybe have tea, coVee, what suggestions you had on that. dinner or something and exchange views. I honestly Mr Hood: The question of whether we implement do not think that is good enough. I think we should them better or more rigorously and other EU have more bilateral exchanges and a lot of the new Member States do not has been going around for a members now are coming to the UK to meet with the long time. I feel that we are probably as good as any committee. It is very rare that somebody will come and not as bad as most. I have always considered us on European issues without wanting to meet our to be about average. I have no way of telling you committee. how I work that out, it is just a feeling when you talk Chairman: If you feel you have anything more to say to other colleagues in other parliaments. On your to us on the bilateral points, if there is anything you V end point you make there about di erences between would like us to take up in terms of more exchanges the parliaments and how we scrutinise, if I go back please let us know. to when I first came onto the European Legislation Select Committee and the system of scrutiny that was held up, that was the Folketing Committee in Q46 Martin Linton: I think it is very important that Denmark. Here was a committee which met four we should draw you out a bit further about how times a year with the Prime Minister. They met the significant you feel European issues should be in the Ministers the week before they went to the Council mainstream, if you like, and particularly at Question meetings and indeed if there was any change in Time, because we had Sir Nicholas suggesting that negotiations during Council meetings then the he did not want any Foreign OYce questions being Minister would leave the room and go and phone the taken on European matters and Richard made the Chairman of the Folketing Committee to explain the perfectly apposite comment that if it is true that 50 new change in circumstances and they would discuss or 70% of legislation actually originates in Brussels it and come to a common position. We thought that then the argument should be for maybe more than was great, and I thought it for some time in fact. half. I agree with Dorian that it is probably pointless Someone was supporting it in some proposals as to to try and put a precise percentage on this, it is how we scrutinise in our own Parliament when we certainly very diYcult to, but just in terms of were in Opposition. I have to tell you my experience Question Time what do you think would be a tells me that is not the case. The Folketing reasonable proportion? I am thinking not just about Committee has an excellent way of scrutinising and the FCO, which is the least of the concerns, but I do not in any way criticise it, but it is a system for departments like DEFRA, Transport, the Treasury, a coalition government; it is not a system for a Health, which all have considerable European majority government. They meet and their interests. What proportion of Question Time would committee meets to mandate their Minister and you say in an ideal world ought to be ring-fenced for when they meet it is under the Prime Minister. It European related issues? Is that a useful exercise? 9768421002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 23

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold

Mr Hood: Well, you take your choice. I would think Mr Hood: Yes. it would not be unreasonable to have the European Mr Pike: I am not agreeing with Martin’s view on Minister for say half an hour on the Floor of the the departmental ones, but we did used to have House. Foreign OYce European questions.

Q47 Chairman: Could I just interrupt here, the Q51 Mr Shepherd: My concern about this is that, for European Minister rather than the Transport instance, in the list of papers that you referred to, Minister negotiating the transport constitution? and you talked about a conversation with your Mr Hood: No, I think it would be interesting to have colleague, the Chairman of the Transport the European Minister available for questions. Committee, the European single sky policy has a direct bearing on the work and responsibilities of the Q48 Mr Tyler: Surely that flies in the face of what Secretary of State for Transport? you were saying earlier. Europe is not a foreign Mr Hood: Yes. country. We must not ghettoise it. I think it is Mr Shepherd: It is indivisible in fact. Once one has extremely important that this is part of the acceded that this is the responsibility of elsewhere, I mainstream of the department, is it not? I cannot see why the Europe Minister would understand where Martin is coming from but I think necessarily be competent to discuss or answer this in it actually could be misleading. the context of how it is translated into domestic Mr Hood: In fairness, if you departmentalise it—and policy or legislation, whether by statutory I am not suggesting that for a minute because then instrument or not, and this is why you cannot really you say that what is happening now is satisfactory comment, as you say, on downstream, what happens because that is the status quo, surely. Anybody could beyond your committee, and I accept that. So all of put a question that is relevant to you on transport this is really a debate within this Committee that you issues, on Trade and Industry and on Foreign are listening to, unfortunately, whilst we try and AVairs. We are arguing how we are going to involve grapple with it. people more in addressing the issues and lifting Europe further up the political agenda for people to be more aware of that and we have a Minister whose Q52 Chairman: I think there should be some tougher responsibility is to Europe. It is not for me to tell the chairing then in that case! Prime Minister how he should be running his Mr Hood: I was tempted to do the politician’s bit Government, but even though it is not a Cabinet and bat it back over the net by saying that is a position I think it is important enough a position to challenging consideration for the committees! have a Question Time. Chairman: Jimmy, we have covered a lot of ground. Mr Tyler: I understand that point, but I thought Are there any issues we have not specifically covered Martin was suggesting some ring-fencing. One which my colleagues briefly want to press you on? I man’s ring-fence is another man’s ghetto. I think do not know whether there are. there is a real danger, if we are not careful, that we do push it to one side, with dangers, I think, from the point you were making much earlier, which I think Q53 Mr Heald: Could I just raise one matter. In is absolutely right. The cultural need is to see these paragraph 17 you say that the Government’s European issues as being domestic issues and I think memorandum is a bit tough on the Standing there is a danger there. Committees and you mention two very good debates on important issues, the Working Time Directive and the fisheries, and then at the bottom of that Q49 Martin Linton: About the need for Question paragraph you say: “We hope the Modernisation Time for the Minister of Europe, he is an FCO Committee will seek views from the core members of Minister, but what about DEFRA, what about European Standing Committees.” Is that something Transport? Many of the day to day issues are that in the light of your evidence you still think we actually about Europe. What I am probing is should do? whether it would not be helpful as a discipline within Mr Hood: Yes, I do, and I will tell you why. We have those Question Times, which are 50 minutes or 60 got a core Member on our committee who has got minutes, to have a part of that ring-fenced so that some really strong views, quite radical views, that I during that period only questions about Europe can would recommend you seek out on this question of be asked. That guarantees that at least some part of Standing Committees. That is Michael Connarty. It that Question Time will be devoted to these issues. was because of Michael’s input into our discussions, Mr Hood: So what you are suggesting is that five or I suspect, that comment. You are welcome to have a 10 minutes of that time be allocated for European word with Michael and seek his views. He has issues? experiences of being on the Standing Committee, Martin Linton: Yes. which are some good experiences, some bad experiences and some frustrating experiences, but he Q50 Mr Pike: Surely we did used to have a Foreign is keen to seek to improve it. OYce Question Time for Europe? We did have a Chairman: Jimmy, we have tried your patience and specific time. When I came into the House there was you have been very good. Martin Linton has got a a question period for European questions? brief question. 9768421002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 24 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

5 May 2004 Mr Jimmy Hood MP and Mr Dorian Gerhold

Q54 Martin Linton: Just one brief question. In that Ministers will say they always enjoy their paragraph 48 you talk about pre and post-Council experiences and the present Chairman might even scrutiny and you say that that could be done by tell you he enjoyed the experience. departmental Select Committees. Have there in your time on the Scrutiny Committee been any examples Q56 Chairman: Yes, indeed. of departmental committees engaging in pre- Mr Hood: We are a very friendly bunch, but we are Council scrutiny, in other words seeing a Minister a friendly bunch of people with considerable before he or she goes to the Council meeting and expertise on our given subjects. I have been studying European issues for some years and we are always have you yourselves as a committee ever done it? pleased to have Ministers there but we always have Mr Hood: Yes, we have. to make sure we ask searching questions, as indeed you have done today. Q55 Chairman: The Foreign AVairs Committee has. Chairman: Well, that is a note to conclude on. Could I just emphasise that from my own experience you Mr Hood: Yes. One of the other phrases I coined have to do a lot of homework before you appear in that any Leader of the House has not stolen as yet is front of your committee as a Minister and it is a that when we got these new powers from the change useful discipline. I am very grateful indeed. If any in standing orders in 1998 I said to the committee, other issues occur to you for further clariﬁcation— because they were really enthusiastic and they had if I may say for my part on behalf of the Committee, Ministers in all the time, we have to be selective to be we see this as a collaborative exercise with you and eVective. If we have Ministers in all the time then your own memorandum is very helpful. So as we that power or right of calling them before you will develop our thinking we will keep in touch on our just be seen as a run of the mill thing. I can tell you own suggestions. Thank you.

Supplementary submission from the European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) 1. This memorandum responds to points raised in the evidence submitted to the Modernisation Committee and also reports recent developments. We have not, in general, repeated points made in our original memorandum. (We refer here to the Modernisation Committee as “the Committee” and to ourselves as “the ESC”.)

The Central Problem 2. The central problem the Committee has been grappling with is how to encourage Members to take a closer interest in the House’s handling of EU matters. Among the proposals set out in our original memorandum, we believe the single most important step would be to provide that, on the rare occasions when a European Standing Committee amends the Government’s motion, it is the amended motion which is put to the House, with a short time for debate (eg as a minimum, ten minutes each for the mover of the motion agreed in Standing Committee and the mover of any government amendment). There would, as always, be the opportunity for a vote. It would not be consistent for the Government to state that it wishes to improve the scrutiny system while at the same time insisting on retaining the aspect of the system which most discredits it in the eyes of Members. Moreover, Governments have accepted a procedure under Standing Order No 18 for Regulatory Reform Orders which goes much further than we suggest here for European documents.

The Purpose of Scrutiny 3. The view has been put to the Committee that a scrutiny system is ineVective if it is not able directly to change the Government’s policy.25 This is a more demanding criterion than is usually used for the House’s handling of UK legislation, and we believe that the House would not in practice support what would in eVect be a mandating system. In our view the main purpose of the scrutiny system is to enable the House (and through the House other organisations and individuals) to seek to inﬂuence Ministers before decisions are taken and to hold Ministers to account for their actions in the Council.26 That is why the scrutiny reserve resolution, which constrains Ministers from agreeing to proposals in the Council before they have been cleared from scrutiny (or before any debate recommended has taken place) is so fundamental. We believe any proposals for change should be assessed according to whether they make it more or less likely that the purpose stated above will be achieved.

25 QQ 190, 209. 26 The fuller deﬁnition set out in our Report of 2002 is: “to ensure that Members are informed of EU proposals likely to aVect the UK, to provide a source of information and analysis for the public, and to ensure that the House and the European Scrutiny Committee, and through them other organisations and individuals, have opportunities to make Ministers aware of their views on EU proposals, to seek to inﬂuence Ministers and hold Ministers to account” (HC 152-xxx, 2001–02, para 25). 9768421003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 25

4. We do not accept the distinction drawn by several witnesses between “scrutiny” and “influence”.27 It appears to be based on the mistaken view that scrutiny in the Commons is backward-looking, “downstream”28 and generally late, a matter we consider below. It is largely through the scrutiny process, including the information it requires the Government to provide, that the House can determine what is planned, what the Government’s thinking is and how it wishes to influence Ministers, and the House’s main way of seeking to influence Ministers is through the debates which form part of the scrutiny system. For the House to seek to influence EU policy formation across the board29 would be extremely ambitious and almost certainly unrealistic, but we consider below how it might increase its involvement in the earlier stages of EU proposals and thereby its opportunity to influence.

Making Scrutiny as Early as Possible 5. Starting the scrutiny process earlier is a major theme in the Committee’s evidence. We agree that scrutiny should begin as early as possible, but not all the witnesses making this point appear to be aware of how early it begins at present.30 In particular: — Many proposals are mentioned in the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy and its Annual Legislative and Work Programme, and in recent years we have taken evidence from Commission oYcials on the Work Programme.31 — The Commission often produces a Communication or a Green or White Paper initiating a consultation process, and these are deposited in Parliament and considered by us. — Council Conclusions, though not deposited, are publicly available, and sometimes include significant programmes of legislation. — When the legislation itself is published, it is deposited in Parliament within two days of an English text becoming available. Having begun early, scrutiny continues throughout the process as new documents such as draft Directives and Regulations, amended proposals and draft Common Positions are deposited, and there is often a lengthy process of written questions and answers between the ESC and the Minister at each stage. 6. Consequently, to describe the scrutiny process as “downstream” is far from the truth. Even less accurate, given the existence of the scrutiny reserve resolution, is the suggestion that the system “largely looks backwards rather than forwards”.32 7. It is also not true that EU proposals are “set in concrete”33 as soon as the Commission publishes them, as a glance at any of our weekly reports will demonstrate. Some Commission proposals make no progress at all in the Council, or are radically changed—a recent example being the removal of the provisions outlawing gender discrimination in insurance from the draft Directive on equal treatment in the supply of goods and services.34 However, we accept that the principles underlying proposed legislation (as opposed to the detail) may be harder to change once the Commission has published the first document. 8. Beginning scrutiny even earlier would mean doing something at the stage when the Commission is consulting prior to producing the first formal paper setting out its thinking. There is no systematic way in which we could be involved at that stage. The Commission sometimes consults widely and sometimes does not, and rarely circulates informal drafts. We propose that the Government should take the initiative in informing us of EU proposals at that stage, which we would then follow up on a selective basis. We have also been discussing with business organisations how they could keep us informed about their views on EU proposals at that stage. We could then request information, possibly including an “unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum”35 from the Government, and in some cases might recommend a debate. We could provide information to the relevant departmental select committee. It would remain primarily the Government’s job to influence the Commission in the interests of the UK; we would regard the main purpose of parliamentary scrutiny at this stage, as at other stages, as being to influence the Government and to hold it to account. 9. As regards the timeliness of the debates we recommend on documents, we draw the Committee’s attention to the recent debates on the Commission’s proposals for the EU’s new Financial Perspective and cohesion policy, the proposed programme for justice and home aVairs measures for the next five years and

27 QQ 58, 181, 198. 28 4 QQ 198. 29 5 See Q 190. 30 See eg the reference to Commission consultation papers as documents at an early stage and not scrutinised (written evidence from Mr Jack); see also QQ 120, 153. 31 For the 2004 Programme, see Sixth Report from the ESC, 2003–04, The European Commission’s Annual Work Programme for 2004, HC 42-vi. 32 Q 128. 33 QQ 203, 190. 34 See HC 42-xxxiv (2003–04), para 15 (27 October 2004). 35 ie an Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Government before a formal numbered document is available. 9768421003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 26 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

proposals for the next stage of creating a single market in ﬁnancial services36—all at a very early stage. It is true that diYcult decisions sometimes have to be made between earlier and later debates. An early debate may relate to proposals which have not been fully thought through and may be largely rewritten or never agreed by the Council. Also, the form of the legislation may be a moving target, in which case the Minister may give little away about the Government’s thinking (as in the Standing Committee debate on 15 December 2004 on reform of the sugar sector).37 Debates at a later stage can have the advantage that there is something more speciﬁc to discuss, enabling the debate to focus on the more diYcult or controversial aspects. Each case has to be considered on its merits. It is of course open to us to recommend more than one debate on a proposal, and we sometimes do so.38

APossible New Model for the European Standing Committees 10. The Leader’s paper mentions the possibility of a new format of committee (replacing the Standing Committees) which would involve the taking of evidence (para 26), and our own paper referred to the possibility of the Standing Committees occasionally taking evidence (para 30). We set out in Annex 1 a possible model, in which the Committees would take evidence from a Minister on every document referred to them. This would combine the select committee approach favoured in the Leader’s paper with the advantages of the present system.

Learning from the Danish and Finnish Scrutiny Systems 11. Admiration of the Danish and Finnish scrutiny systems seems to reﬂect a number of aspects: (i) The mandating of Ministers. It is diYcult to envisage any UK Government agreeing to this, or the House being willing to delegate such a power to a Committee. Moreover, evidence from Ministers on negotiating mandates would need to take place in private, as in Denmark and Finland. (ii) Calling in a Minister before every Council meeting. In the Danish case this is scrutiny at a late stage, and would be wholly inconsistent with calls for earlier scrutiny; the Danes have had to set up separate procedures for Commission Green and White Papers, and the suggestion that they scrutinise earlier than us is untrue.39 In the Finnish case, where the mandate is given before consideration of proposals in Council working groups (but only for selected proposals), the scrutiny is earlier, but there is no reason to believe it takes place earlier than in the Commons; the Committee will be able to investigate this further in Helsinki. Moreover, unless there is a realistic prospect of Members being willing to attend meetings every Friday throughout the year (except August), there would be little point in proposing the taking of evidence from Ministers before each Council meeting. (iii) The involvement of subject or departmental committees in the scrutiny process. This does not apply in Denmark, and in Finland appears to be achieved by requiring subject committees to give precedence to European matters over all other business. (iv) The principle that Ministers have to answer in person about every EU proposal subject to scrutiny. It appears to be the latter aspect which is being praised in most comments on the Finnish and Danish systems, mainly on the grounds that it would result in Ministers leaving less of the negotiation of proposals to oYcials.40 However, it could in principle be accommodated within the Commons’ existing system, and we consider this in our next section. 12. The Committee should note, however, that neither the Danish nor the Finnish European committees take evidence from Ministers in public.41 In terms of questioning Ministers on EU matters in public, the Commons, through ESC evidence sessions and European Standing Committee debates, is ahead of the Danes and Finns. 13. The Committee should also be aware that the Finnish system is highly selective as regards the documents which receive separate consideration, and that it is the Government which selects (according to set criteria). About 220 documents are dealt with each year, compared with the 1,100 or so dealt with by the European Scrutiny Committee each year and the 500 or so of these reckoned to be of political and/or legal importance. It is true that any document can be discussed with Ministers when it appears on a Council agenda, but that is scrutiny at a late stage.

36 Respectively, 15 June and 14 October 2004 on the Floor of the House and 20 October 2004 in European Standing Committee B. 37 Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee A, 15 December 2004, especially cc. 5, 17, 20, 31. 38 eg on waste electrical and electronic equipment, Galileo, Trans-European Networks, Reach and environmental liability. 39 Q 59. 40 QQ 86, 128, 173. 41 It is not clear whether the subject committees in Finland take evidence from Ministers in public, and if so how often. 9768421004 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 27

More Evidence from Ministers

14. The ESC has already increased considerably the amount of oral evidence taken both from Ministers and more generally. The number of evidence sessions with Ministers was 11 in 2001–02, nine in 2002–03 and 11 in 2003–04, compared with a total of 25 in the previous four sessions combined. (There were 10 appearances by Cabinet Ministers in the two most recent sessions, including the Foreign Secretary three times and the Chancellor of the Exchequer once, compared with only one in the previous ﬁve.) The reasons have included discussion of the Convention and Constitutional Treaty, explaining scrutiny reserve breaches, reporting on Council meetings and explaining the Government’s policy on particular documents. Ministers also have to appear before European Standing Committees. 15. There is a limit to how much more the ESC could do itself, and its core task is anyway to examine the importance rather than the merits of documents. We could send more documents to European Standing Committees, though this too could create problems. Greater involvement of departmental select committees (DSCs) would help spread the workload, but their time too is under pressure; one step we have already suggested is for them to conduct pre- and post-Council scrutiny (para 48 of our earlier paper). 16. What is really needed is to increase the number of Members able to devote time to questioning Ministers on EU matters, as with our suggestion of a new form of European Standing Committee taking evidence from Ministers (para 10 above and Annex 1). The most important thing in this context is to get the structure of the European Standing Committees right.

Implementation and Transposition of EU Legislation

17. Although implementing and transposing legislation has been little discussed in the Modernisation Committee’s evidence so far,42 we hope that the Committee will nevertheless recommend that it be subject to some form of scrutiny in future. We do not believe we could ourselves carry out this task in addition to our existing work. We draw attention to the proposal made by the then Leader of the House in 2001 for a Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee,43 and the establishment by the House of Lords in 2003 of a Select Committee on Merits of Statutory Instruments.

Information on EU Proposals and Scrutiny of Them

18. Several of the Committee’s memoranda discuss diYculties in obtaining information about the House’s handling of EU documents.44 We have been examining how such information could be made more accessible. For example, one recent change is the addition to our website of a list of Ministers’ reports on Council meetings, with links to the text of such reports. The PIMS(Parliam entary Information Management System) project, which includes a new version of the European Scrutiny Database (recording each deposited document and the progress of scrutiny of it), opens up new possibilities, but these will only become available if funding is provided for them. At present we understand that the main priority is to introduce the PIMSsystem successfully, and we recognise that we must awai t this before desirable additional features can be added (though some changes could perhaps be made through the website instead). However, what is needed now is decisions on funding. There are two additions we regard as particularly important. First, it needs to be possible to search our Reports for paragraphs on specific documents. At present the parliamentary website has an extremely poor search facility,45 and the only way to find the relevant paragraph of one of our Reports is to use Google or a similarly powerful search engine. Secondly it is not reasonable to expect people interested in only one or two areas of EU activity to search all our papers regularly for what interests them, and we need to be able to send information on specific subjects to anyone inside or outside the House who registers their interests with us, which requires a system of e-alerting. It would also be helpful if the Database itself were accessible to the public. We ask the Modernisation Committee to recommend that funding (through the PIMSproject or otherwis e) be provided for (i) on-line indexing of the ESC’s weekly Reports, (ii) a system of e-alerting relating to EU documents and ESC reports, and (iii) making the European Scrutiny Database available to the public through the website. 19. Mr Allen’s paper proposes a database linking the EU and UK stages of legislation. This could be based on the existing European Scrutiny Database, and would be a valuable tool, but it would require co- operation from the Government, including a clear indication of the relationship between EU legislation and subsequent UK legislation. We note the Chancellor’s recent commitment that all Departments will publish annual implementation plans for European legislation.46

42 But see QQ 120, 221, 226. 43 HC 440, 2001–02, para 25. 44 20 Notably those by Mr Allen and by the City Remembrancer. 45 Ibid. 46 Pre-Budget Report 2004. 9768421004 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 28 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Subsidiarity Early-Warning Mechanism

20. The Modernisation Committee may wish to consider how the subsidiarity early-warning mechanism should be operated during parliamentary recesses, and whether at such times (especially in the summer) the right to make a reasoned objection to an EU proposal on subsidiarity grounds should be delegated to the ESC.

Departmental Select Committees (DSCs)

21. We are keen to increase co-operation between ourselves and DSCs. Recent developments have included: — two requests to DSCs for opinions (from the Science and Technology Committee on nanotechnology and from the Health Committee on pharmaceutical products for children);47 — attaching to the recommendation for debate on the proposals for the next stage of the Financial Services Action Plan a request that time be allowed before the debate for the Treasury Committee to take evidence (which meant that the Treasury Committee’s evidence was available in time for the debate on 20 October);48 — following informal contact between our staV and those of the Transport Committee about the likelihood of a further debate on the Galileo project before December 2004, the Transport Committee decided to gather evidence to inform that debate and to produce a short Report;49 and — meetings between the ESC’s Clerk/Advisers and staV of the relevant DSCs to improve the ﬂow of information. 22. It has been suggested that the House should contribute views as part of the Commission’s consultation exercises.50 This would be diYcult for the House itself, given the time it would take to consider and amend a substantial text, but is feasible for DSCs and other committees, and we note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has recently responded to a Commission consultation exercise on the proposed Fundamental Rights Agency.

Debates on the Floor

23. Our two recent debates on the Floor of the House, on the new Financial Perspective and cohesion policy and on the Justice and Home AVairs programme for the next ﬁve years (for each of which we produced a separate Report),51 have strengthened our view that an hour and a half is inadequate for such debates. For the former extra time was requested and granted and there was a useful debate; for the latter there was time for only the Minister, the Opposition spokesman, our Chairman and two other Members to speak. As a direct result we decided in October to recommend the decision on Turkish accession to the EU for debate in a Standing Committee instead of on the Floor because of the greater time available.52 Almost by deﬁnition, if a document is important enough to require debate on the Floor, it needs more than an hour and a half.

Media Coverage

24. Media advisers are a recent innovation for the House, and we have only just begun to use them to generate interest in European debates. Following work by one of the Committee OYce media consultants, coverage of the Justice and Home AVairs debate on the Floor on 14 October included the lead item on the BBC’s Today programme after the 8 am bulletin. Obviously not every debate lends itself to such treatment, but we believe there is considerable potential to publicise debates on EU documents, and now the means to do so.

47 See, for nanotechnology, HC 42-xxix (2003–04), para 3 (21 July 2004), and HC 42-xxxii (2003–04), para 24 (13 October 2004); for pharmaceuticals, on which the opinion has not yet been received, HC 42-xxxvii (2003–04), para 6 (17 November 2004). 48 See Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee B, 20 October 2004. 49 See Eighteenth Report from the Transport Committee, 2003–04, Galileo, HC 1210. 50 Written evidence from Mr Jack. 51 Fifteenth Report from the ESC, 2003–04, The EU’s Financial Perspective for 2007–13 and reform of the Structural Funds,HC 42-xv (31 March 2004); Twenty-eighth Report from the ESC, 2003–04, The EU’s Justice and Home AVairs Work Programme for the next ﬁve years, HC 42-xxviii (22 July 2004). 52 HC 42-xxxiv (2003–04), para 1 (27 October 2004). 9768421004 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 29

The Scrutiny Reserve Resolution and Debates 25. Reference has been made to the Standing Committee debate in 2004 on GM crops which took place after the decision had been taken in the Council.53 This, however, was an exceptional case: the Minister had previously postponed the debate in order to attend a family funeral. But for that, we would have called the Minister to give evidence on the scrutiny reserve breach, as we have done previously.54

Percentage of UK Legislation Originating from the EU 26. The Committee has been interested in the percentage of UK legislation which originates from the EU. The only written statement we are aware of that is founded on any evidence at all is the one in the Cabinet OYce’s “Synthesis Report” of October 2002, Improving the way the UK handles European legislation, page 2, where it is stated that around 50% of significant legislation enacted in the UK originates from the EU. However, a written question to the Cabinet OYce has elicited the fact that the 50% figure does not relate to “significant legislation” but to a narrower category of legislation which is more likely than legislation in general to have originated from the EU. According to the Cabinet OYce, “The evidential base for this statement was an analysis of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs), which showed that about half of all measures that imposed non-negligible costs on business, charities and the voluntary sector originated from the European Union”.55 This suggests that, while a significant proportion of UK legislation originates in the EU, it is much less than 50%. January 2005

Annex 1

A POSSIBLE NEW MODEL FOR EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES Under this proposal, what are currently European Standing Committees (and which could be renamed European Document Committees, or EDCs) would (for an experimental period) take evidence from a Minister on each document referred to them and produce a short Report, in place of the existing procedure of questions and debate. They would become more like select committees, and would have their own Chairmen. The procedure would be as follows: — The Government would put forward its draft motion, and a date by which the EDC should report (see below). — The EDC would take evidence from the Minister for up to an hour (the same time as is currently allowed for questions). — The EDC would then produce a short Report to the House, the main purpose of which would be to comment on the Government’s motion, which the EDC could, if it chose, amend. (Since the Committee would have a Government majority, we would expect amendment of the Government’s motion to be rare.) — The House would decide on the motion—without debate, if the Government’s motion was not amended, or with some time for debate, if the Committee amended the Government’s motion. As now, there would be an opportunity for a vote. We would suggest retaining the provision that any Member could attend and participate in the evidence- taking. Consideration of the EDC’s Report, including any amendment of the Government’s motion, would be restricted to the core Members. The time available between debate recommendation and Council decision varies greatly, and is often short. At present the Government determines when the Standing Committees sit, and it would need to retain much of its present control over the timetable. We suggest that the Government continue to determine the date and time of the meetings and that the EDC be required to report within a certain time after the meeting. If the Committee failed to produce its Report by that time, the Government would be entitled to put its motion to the House for a decision without debate. The Chairman of the EDC could be an ex oYcio member of the European Scrutiny Committee, to improve the links between our Committee and the Committees to which we refer documents, and we believe should be paid on the same basis as select committee Chairmen. We believe the system described here would be capable of working well only if the EDC had the possibility of amending the motion which is to be put to the House. We have previously indicated that, if the Government chose to move an amendment to the Committee’s motion, there should be 10 minutes each

53 Q3. 54 See European Scrutiny Committee, Third Report of 2002–03, Scrutiny reserve breaches, HC 63-iii. 55 HC Deb, 22 July 2004, cc. 490–1. 9768421004 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:42:00 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 30 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

for a speaker for and against the Government amendment (following which there would be, as always, the opportunity for a vote). On past experience, this procedure would not be invoked more than once a decade at most. The advantages of the system set out here would be as follows: — evidence would be taken on the merits of every EU document referred for further consideration, and the proceedings would have more of a consensual character; — a greater likelihood that members of the EDCs would feel they were performing a service on behalf of the House; — retention of the right of all Members (including Opposition spokesmen) to participate in the questioning of Ministers; — removal of the risk in the Leader’s proposal of overloading the departmental select committees with EU-related work, at the expense both of their other activities and of eVective European scrutiny; instead the members of what are at present standing committees would be drawn into select committee-type work; and — the Government would retain control of the overall timetable and would have the same degree of certainty of getting its business through as at present. 989871PAG1 Page Type [SO] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 31

Wednesday 23 June 2004

Members present:

Mr Peter Hain, in the Chair

Ann CoVey Mr Patrick McLoughlin Barbara Follett Mr Peter Pike Mr Oliver Heald Mr Richard Shepherd Mr David Kidney Sir Nicholas Winterton Martin Linton

Submission from Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP

SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN LEGISLATION—RESPONSE TO THE MEMORANDUM FROM THE LEADER OF THE HOUSE

1. An important factor which defeats the present scrutiny system is the sheer volume of EU documents, reports and legislation. Last year, the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, examined over a thousand such EU documents of which less than 5% were subsequently debated. There is no sign of this volume diminishing. Occasional calls for the EU and the Commission to, ‘do less and do it better’, come to nothing. If the European Constitution ever comes into force the volume will greatly increase because of the new Union competences, the establishment of a majority voting as the norm, and the expanded powers of the Commission to enact delegated and implementing legislation without reference to national parliaments. The Memorandum is silent on this issue of legislative overload, but it should be addressed if we are to achieve a workable system in which the public has conﬁdence. 2. At present the European Scrutiny Committee meets in private unless taking evidence from witnesses. It cannot be right to exclude the public from the scrutiny process in this way. The Committee last year requested that standing orders be changed to permit the Committee to meet in public but nothing has been done. Any new or reformed committees must be open fully to public scrutiny. 3. One prominent reason for disillusionment and lack of participation in the present European Standing Committees is their lack of power. If a Committee rejects or amends the Government motion put before it, the Government simply ignores this and puts the original motion before the House forthwith without debate. The committees in any replacement system must have the power to reject proposals and at least insist on a debate in Government time on a substantive motion. I am sending a copy of these suggestions to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. May 2004

Submission from Gisela Stuart MP

I just want to make one brief observation. I think publishing the Commission’s Annual Programme as a White Paper was an important step in the right direction. Ultimately, we should get to a position where the Special Committee which was set up for the Convention—a Joint Committee of both Houses and one where evidence could be taken from non-Ministers—should be extended to be used for questioning individual Commissioners on the Annual Programme. April 2004 9898711003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 32 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Witnesses: Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory, a Member of the House, and Ms Gisela Stuart, a Member of the House, examined.

Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. The doctors is an example. By the time I got involved in style of this Committee is perhaps a little less formal 1999 this had been going on for 10 years. The second than other Select Committees. One of the things I is the way negotiations are conducted: very often it wanted to emphasise is that what we are trying to do comes back to the House as a package and you is to look at the European business more eVectively cannot unravel the package. An example is that within the Commons as opposed to it being a topic when we had to get the lifting of the beef ban there for expert consideration amongst a limited group of was a whole package which had to be agreed in terms members. I am interested in the procedural issues of how we deal with slaughterhouses and you simply rather than whether you think the Constitutional could not unravel it. So I think there is a real Treaty is a good thing or a bad thing, or whether you procedural problem in terms of scrutiny, the think the existing policy on Europe is a good or bad timescale we operate within and what the House thing. What we are interested in is really the scrutiny does. One of the suggestions which would be helpful and accountability issues involved in the is if when the Commission puts forward the relationship between the House of Commons and proposals it could actually also have a timescale by the European Union and how we operate as a which agreement has to be reached, which would House. Having set the scene for that, I would be allow the House to scrutinise much more eVectively. grateful if you could focus on the procedural issues given your own experience both as Members and also your experience of the Convention and your Q59 Mr Kidney: David’s points and yours about the experience in Europe, especially yours, David, as a unravelling of a package seems to me to be the same, former Europe minister and Gisela as well. Perhaps which is that MPs here are only going to be David Kidney could ask the first question. interested if they feel they can make a diVerence to the process. Is that what you are saying, the same as Q57 Mr Kidney: Is it worth trying at all to improve David, that we just do not have the power anyway? the procedures for scrutinising European legislation Ms Stuart: We would have to get involved at a much or is it just inevitable that Members here are going to earlier stage. You may want to look at the way both regard our business as more immediate and that it is the Danish Parliament and the Finnish Parliament far too remote and we will never engage the majority scrutinise their ministers much earlier and in a much of Members at all? David, what do you think? more specific and co-ordinated way. Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I do not think that Mr Kidney: I think someone else wants to ask about institutional reform will do the trick here unless we how other parliaments do it so I will leave that to tackle the question of the sheer volume of legislation them. coming our way at the same time, which of course is going to accelerate enormously with the Union going into new areas under the Constitution, with Q60 Chairman: You mentioned the attendance issue Qualified Majority Voting becoming general and at Standing Committees, but if you are a minister with the Commission getting explicit delegated appearing in front of Standing Committees, as we powers to legislate under Article 35 of the discussed as a committee earlier on, it can be quite Y Constitution. So any problems we have now will be challenging. In some ways you face the most di cult enormously magnified. The other qualitative issue questioning in principle anywhere in the House in we must address is that of giving Members a real those committees. feeling that they can make a diVerence. I think one Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I think it is very important to reason why our colleagues do not turn up as often as keep that quite intimate committee structure so that they should to the Standing Committees is that, ministers can be pinned down with supplementaries frankly, it makes no diVerence if they pass an and it is useful that the committee I am on now, the adverse motion, the Government still passes the Scrutiny Committee, does have a handle in that we motion forthwith on the floor of the House. People have to clear documents under the scrutiny system are not stupid, if you cannot make a diVerence you and we can refer matters for debate and I would not do not turn up. I think simply altering the numbers wish to lose that. I think this is a fairly inadequate of committees and their specific expertise will not check because, as Gisela Stuart just said, we are right tackle this growing problem by itself. at the end of the feeding chain here and even if we do object, governments can ignore it. Of course, there is Q58 Mr Kidney: Gisela? the growing problem when the minister goes to the Ms Stuart: I think the House needs to make a final negotiations in that it is usually by majority decision as to whether it wishes to scrutinise, to be a voting anyway, so the feeling of real influence is not place which is for wider information about what there. We hope to circumvent that on my committee goes on or whether it wishes to be a House to by cross-examining the Commission about its influence politically. Assuming we only scrutinise, annual work programme, but this year they have we face two very specific problems, one of which is declared a measure to tackle violence in the the timescale. The negotiations in Brussels are long workplace which I consider to be an obvious breach and at times they may go on for 10 years. It is very of subsidiarity, they showed no contrition about this diYcult for the House to key in at an appropriate and in subsequent correspondence with the time to have any influence. The now negotiated opt commissioner concerned she has not even conceded out for the Working Time Directive for junior that subsidiarity is relevant. Even our attempts to get 9898711003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 33

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP in right at the fountain head have so far failed to are not, they can take all sorts of briefs and go and make the subsidiarity principle anything more than negotiate, but Parliament has no real opportunity to an empty phrase. go and to register and to have its views properly taken into account. Would you agree with that, Q61 Chairman: I am just a bit puzzled by this. David? Gisela, you said about the package point. You have Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Chairman, I would simply on a process where you have meetings of the Council of the basis of the record. References to the importance Ministers and that is the way it works, we go with of national parliaments has been in the Treaty for our negotiating brief, so do the 14 others, now the 24 years now and subsidiarity has been a Treaty others, and you reach a common position. To requirement since 1992, but it has not been eVective unravel that common position is then to start oV the in stopping this torrent of legislation which dipped whole negotiating merry-go-round again. slightly after the completion of the single market, Ms Stuart: You are quite right. What you are although it is now accelerating again because the highlighting is a problem we have got across Union is getting into new areas like home aVairs and Whitehall as to “What is Europe?” One solution justice and immigration. The European Scrutiny would be that you have got a Cabinet post for a Select Committee is really completely inadequate for Europe minister who would also be responsible for the task of even looking critically at this volume let coordinating the policies across Whitehall which alone doing anything about it, and then when we do have got a European dimension. The package I disagree on an all-party basis on something there is referred to was actually negotiated by what was precious little can be done about it. So we are MAFF, but at that time we were transferring part of confronted with this huge dynamic, this over- food to the Department of Health, so you had within government above us which we feel completely Whitehall a process by which the departments powerless to arrest. I have to say, Chairman, agreed the package but it did not come to Parliament although I will obey your strictures not to discuss the before Whitehall had agreed it and that was too late. merits of the Constitution, I really think that the yellow card system, which I know the Government Q62 Mr McLoughlin: If you had a Secretary of State tried to strengthen, is unequal to the task. for Europe and you then had a departmental Select Committee that was monitoring what that Q65 Chairman: We are going to come to that. department was doing, do you think that would be Ms Stuart: Two very quick observations. What a positive move forward in scrutinising it and getting Parliament lacks is a collective memory when I see particular Members to concentrate on a longer- these very long timescales in which debates are going term basis? on. The second thing is, it is for Parliament to Ms Stuart: It would allow you to know at a much question what the political consequences of earlier time what that pulling together which disapproval are and ultimately the Government can happens in Whitehall actually amounts to, it would always, whatever the committees do, prevail on its allow Parliament to be aware of that much earlier. will and I think that is right, but Parliament needs to address that process. Q63 Mr McLoughlin: David, would you share that view? Q66 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Do you know how they Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It might work at this end, but should do it? I think it would be a mistake for all the departmental Ms Stuart: We will come back to it when we have responsibilities across Whitehall to be united in a looked at other countries. single minister in Brussels because I think we need the expertise from each of the departments of state, Q67 Ann CoVey: You are saying that Parliament has we need them to be standing up for their own and to make up its mind whether it is going to scrutinise British interests in negotiating legislation in or to provide information. One of the things that Brussels. I am not in favour of a single Europe occur to me from time to time is how little we minister doing the job for everybody. actually know what is happening in terms of things that are being debated in Europe which may have Q64 Sir Nicholas Winterton: I think Gisela got it in consequences for us, and within our current one and picking up on what David said in his parliamentary system how that information could opening remarks, it is not that ministers do not have be better provided to MPs. Do you think providing every opportunity, it is that Parliament does not information to Select Committees which do have any real opportunity and that is why inquiries would be a good way of doing that? Parliament is really rather lukewarm, if not very Ms Stuart: Unfortunately the press headlines were chilly, about Europe, because we carry no influence. dominated by the announcement of a referendum, We can scrutinise, we can even object and refuse to but what should have made the headlines on that take note of it, but at the end of the day that makes day was that for the first time the Government had not the slightest diVerence because the Government published the Commission’s annual programme as a of the day ignores that decision of the Scrutiny White Paper. That was a very significant step of Committee and merely puts down the original informing Parliament, but we did not take much motion on the order paper of the House to be notice of this at the time. I think departmental Select nodded through without debate. This is really where Committees ought to make it a bigger part of their I think we are stymied. Government and ministers inquiries to look at that annual programme and then 9898711003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 34 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP take on board those topics which are being covered Ms Stuart: The Chairman may be surprised to hear in there. When we table questions to various that I entirely agree with him. We have been ministers we ought to take much more notice of what immensely amiss in doing so. We have largely happens in Europe and then ask questions on the ignored what happens at a European level in our departmental side. debates, and unless we actually anchor those decisions here and explain to the people what we are Q68 Mr Kidney: I think it would help if I came in on doing together with our MEPs on their behalf we a question I was going to ask later because we have will always have this massive disconnection. The touched on it so much and it is the issue that David duty on us is at every level, whether it is in ministerial referred to in his letter as item 3 and it is the question question times or in any other debate, to bring the of what happens at the Euro Committees, and I used European topics in. The problem we have here is a to serve on Euro A. You mentioned that the lack of awareness of what happens until the very end proposal could be changed, but the Government when it is really too late and then you have the tables in the House the original motion and we have danger that national parliaments are perceived as been touching on that question in response to grit in the oyster. We started debating only at the David’s point, which is an absolute nonsense and very end. I think another key thing, other than the does not encourage people to go. Have you studied Government publishing the Commission’s annual the Regulatory Reform procedure where if that programme as a White Paper, is also the change that Committee divides or votes against something there when the Council of Ministers act as legislators they has to be a debate on the floor of the House? Would will now meet in public. I think there is a duty on us it not be more appropriate if the motion carried by to take more interest in what that Council does at an Euro A, B or C was to be tabled and the Government early stage. had to put down an amendment to it? Would that not make the procedure a little bit more meaningful and follow through what you are suggesting in your letter? Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Chairman, I agree with that. Q71 Mr Heald: At the moment we tend to debate On at least an occasional basis these committees documents rather than broad policy issues which are ought to be able to refer the matter for general coming up in Europe. Do you think we need to debate, a kind of emergency brake system. The change that? Constitution has come up with a similar procedure Ms Stuart: I think so. In our Select Committees we for the Council of Ministers. Maybe the committees need to ask MEPs to give evidence more and I think of the House on an exceptional basis should be able we ought to have commissioners giving evidence on to insist either that the minister provides more their programmes. One of the real advances of that information for a subsequent debate or to check the special committee which was set up whilst the minister’s performance in subsequent Council Convention on the Future of Europe was operating negotiations, or perhaps a debate on the floor of the was that we had a committee where the Commons House and the minister having to defend a proposal and the Lords could take evidence from non- against a recommendation of the Standing ministers and I think that should be looked at in Committee. This would all give a feeling that these future. committees have teeth and then I think you would Mr Heathcoat-Amory: We have here ‘rule by get genuine interest, including the public interest strangers’. We have more than half, some say two- because they can at least watch these debates. Can I thirds, of UK legislation now originating in just slip in one problem we have in relation to a Brussels. We have no realistic chance at our level of previous question about the public right to know? It influencing it or even knowing what is going on in is bizarre that the European Scrutiny Committee, many cases. So we are failing in our task which is my committee, meets in secret. We are supposed to to defend our constituents and remedy their be doing this on behalf of the public, they pay for it, grievances. I was stopped by a Somerset farmer last they wonder what is going on, but we do not year who said, “Mr Amory, the Physical Agents admit them to our deliberations which I find Vibration Directive, which is about me sitting on my extraordinary. tractor, would you be in favour of that?” I had not even heard of it. He said, quite rightly, “But we Q69 Mr Pike: It is stupid if a committee sits for two elected you and you’re telling me you’ve not even and a half hours, amends a motion and that is not heard of it.” I checked, it is a Directive, it does not even reported to the House. yet apply to British agriculture, but it will. The entire Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree about that. system had let it through without anyone even Having been on both sides, a minister and an knowing about it. We have here an entrenched and ordinary member of the committee, it renders the enduring failure and on my European Scrutiny thing nugatory. Committee I watch this volume going through this tiny pipe, this half or two-thirds of legislative Q70 Mr Heald: The Chairman of this Committee proposals, with me, at best, or our distinguished has said that the House of Commons has a key role Chairman, being the little boy trying to keep his to play in bringing the European Union closer to our finger in the dike. We meet in private, so the public citizens. Do you think this is something that is are not even allowed to see what we are trying to do correct and, if so, how would that work? even if we could succeed. 9898711003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 35

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP

Q72 Chairman: I just want to pick up on something tackle in our various ways, but it is hardly a matter that Gisela said on the question of ministerial for the EU when they have got all these other questions. How do you think that that could be problems. They showed no real sympathy or better focused? You implied that there was not understanding of that. As I mentioned, the suYcient focus on the main departments involved, Commissioner’s subsequent letter did not even refer whether it is home aVairs or health or whatever, with to subsidiarity. We literally feel powerless and the European dimension. How could that be done slightly angry. We have written again as a better in your view on the ﬂoor of the House, apart Committee, but what is the point in writing when from people tabling more questions on these issues? one just gets the brush oV? Ms Stuart: This is where I think it is helpful to look at what other countries do. For example, in Finland Q76 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Do you like the every Friday morning you have the Grand Danish scheme? Committee where the various ministers come and Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Maybe Denmark has an simply inform Parliament as to what the major ability to mandate their ministers to take this up on broad areas are they will be discussing at European their behalf because, I have to say, in another matter level. before us to do with crime prevention, dealing with street robberies and anti social behaviour, which is a Q73 Chairman: In the following week usually. separate initiative which we also regard as a Ms Stuart: Yes. It is a regular slot. The minister subsidiary breach, the Home OYce is sympathetic to changes, but it is about what is happening at the aims of the legislation and is not willing European level. The Dutch have more hearings to challenge it on subsidiarity grounds. The where you would have ministers and MEPs together Committee—and I genuinely speak for Labour who serve on the committees with their specialist Members here as well—do not feel in this case that committee structure coming together again on a the Government are really fully behind us on regular basis. The Danish go to another extreme, subsidiarity, so again there is awfully little we can do they mandate their ministers. It is actually a system about it. which ties ministers in much too tightly and becomes counter-productive. Other countries have found Q77 Martin Linton: I would like to ask Gisela about ways of bringing national parliamentarians together the experience of committees in other countries. You and they know the subject areas on a regular basis have mentioned the Finnish system and we have also and therefore parliamentarians know this is where asked about the Danish system because we are going they go to know what is going to happen next. to go and have a look at that. Are these not committees that have executive power rather than Q74 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Can Parliament just scrutiny committees? Do they not perform a inﬂuence that? You said they will be able to learn. rather diVerent function in their parliaments? It is Learning is one thing, but as a Parliament you are something that we could not quite replicate here, is supposed to have some decision-making ability. that right? What if we disagreed with that, would Parliament Ms Stuart: At Westminster we operate on a system have any authority? where the Government has a majority and its will Ms Stuart: The Danish system is such that if a prevails and that is a system I am quite attached to. minister breaches the mandate given by Parliament In virtually all the others we deal with coalitions it becomes a resigning matter. I think it neutralises which are formed between diVerent political parties the ministers to such an extent that if you go into a and, therefore, parliament and those coalitions meeting and your colleagues know your position become an alternative source of power. I think they do not have to negotiate with you. So I think it ultimately even this Parliament needs to stick with is too strong and sidelines you. The Finnish and the the system that the Government of the day’s wish Dutch model is one where you have an exchange and can ultimately prevail providing it has got the you agree what the mandate is, and no minister majority and every so often the public at large can would go on a negotiating position if they knew that make up its mind whether it still wishes to have that their Parliament substantially disagrees with it. It is Parliament and it knows what it gets when it votes that early stage of negotiation which I think then for it. I think the Danish system is far too becomes much more powerful. prescriptive in that sense, but I think earlier information which allows for that public debate, Q75 Sir Nicholas Winterton: David, do you agree where the Parliament’s view is made quite clear— with that? because at the moment Parliament’s view is not Mr Heathcoat-Amory: We went as far up the chain made quite clear at an early stage—is one we should as we could last year and interviewed two look at and that is where I would suggest we should Commission oYcials about their work programme. look at the other models. As the Committee knows, they have the sole right of initiative, so when they launch something it happens Q78 Chairman: I was told by the Europe minister for and when they do not launch something it cannot Sweden when I was Europe minister about the happen. We picked up a number of objections, experience of the Nice Treaty negotiations where including what we thought were the obvious they had an open line to their European Committee subsidiarity breach, bringing forward measures on sitting in Stockholm for seven hours seeking a violence in the workplace, which we all want to negotiating mandate as the European Council 9898711003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 36 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP progressed on the Nice Treaty. There are limits on that there were no whips there, although sometimes nailing down a mandate. I just wonder if you have we wish there had been and then we might have got any observations on the practicality of this if we a better quorum. There was a feeling that Parliament move away from a document based scrutiny system was asking us what was being done on their behalf. to determining a mandate not just before you go out As a long-term structural change I would have there but a mandate while you are out there. certain doubts. It could eventually become rather Ms Stuart: That is why I warned against a system ceremonial, perhaps not very well attended and fall that becomes too restrictive. Again, I think the victim to the problem I have mentioned of not Government actually made real progress when it having any real power. It would not even have the published its White Paper on the proposed existing Scrutiny Committee’s ability to question Constitution. For the first time the Government put ministers closely with supplementaries and perhaps its negotiating mandate as a document to the House pass critical motions. In the case of the European of Commons. We actually knew what this Scrutiny Committee we have this very important Government was going into in its final negotiations. right to hold up measures before the scrutiny reserve So it is that much earlier precise information and an is lifted. That is not always observed but it is at least ability to debate it that is important, but telling a weapon we have. I think it is very important to ministers they have to keep checking with retain all those features in any replacement. The Parliament before they make final decisions I do not overriding need here is to turn pious expressions of think would be very helpful. concern into reality. Governments of all sorts, Parliament and occasionally the Commission say Q79 Ann CoVey: I was not aware of the fact that it is they must do less but do it better, but it never the first time the annual report of the Commission’s happens, instead this engine of regulation is work has ever been published. I shall go immediately practically out of control. That is why there is this and find the report of this work and look at it with feeling of despair and alienation by the public. It has great interest, particularly in view of what David was got to get back to the idea that there are important saying. Do you think that maybe what we should do measures which can only be done on a cross-border is start giving earlier and regular information to international basis. That ought to be reflected in the Parliament and ask the business managers to make work programme, but I am afraid there is no sign of time available for a debate on that annual report that message having been learned. I would like to be on the floor of the House so that Members able to go to these negotiations as a British minister of Parliament might have a view about the with the House of Commons as an institution Commission’s work? backing me up. So I will not agree to things because Ms Stuart: And preferably not on a Thursday on a I will say, “I can’t convince Parliament and through one line whip. them I cannot convince the public.”

Q80 Chairman: I think we are anxious to grapple Q84 Ann CoVey: There is a lot of domestic with the central dilemma. The issue of making legislation which goes through this House, but bits Parliament’s view clear, can this be done by a back and pieces of it people do not know about and the bench committee? How does that compare with public are not aware about it, some issues are of doing it by a parliamentary motion? more interest than others. Could you not argue that Ms Stuart: It has its practical problems. If you take that is actually the same with European legislation? a closer look at the Grand Committee system in The EC Directive on vitamins aroused a great Finland, which is cross-party, it is a regular slot, so amount of interest and lobbying and MPs suddenly people keep engaging on a very regular basis and it became concerned about what on earth this EC is the ministers who give evidence depending on the Directive was about and started writing letters and business that comes up, that is really the best way stuV like that. Maybe if we had a Grand Committee forward. that was open ended so that Members could come and go and have equal status in speaking and things Q81 Chairman: But there are no votes there. like that, the lobbying groups outside, which at the Ms Stuart: No, there are no votes there. end of the day perform a very important function in bringing things to MPs that they are interested in Q82 Chairman: A private consensus emerges. because they follow legislation quite closely, would Ms Stuart: Yes. see it as something that was of value to do, to write to MPs about particular Directives they did not like Q83 Martin Linton: You mentioned about the value or things that were coming out of Europe and MPs of the Standing Committee on the Convention and would then be engaged in the process because they how helpful it has been to you in fulﬁlling your role would have to justify to their constituents what they as representatives. Could you say whether you think were doing about it. They could not say it was all of that experience can be transferred or retained nothing to do with them because there would be a in a Grand Committee which is largely based on the committee they could attend if they wanted to. experience of that committee? Would that not raise the whole awareness issue Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I thought it was very useful about what was happening? By not engaging MPs for us as a Committee to report back to the House but by engaging a wider audience. That EC Directive so that interested Members could get a feel for what lobby was very eVective. I did not know anything was happening. It was not party political in the sense about this EC Directive at all. 9898711003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 37

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP

Ms Stuart: That brings me back to my point about the day before you are told you are going to Brussels the two things we should not lose sight of. The first and you get the briefing by the civil servant. If one was that it was the Commons and the Lords. My months before that I have to go to a committee experience of giving evidence to both Houses is that which starts raising the vitamins Directive and those the Lords have far greater long-term memory and kind of debates, if we engaged much earlier then I am technical expertise which was very helpful on sure that would influence the position the minister European matters. The second thing is again the would ultimately take on occasions. ability to take evidence from non-ministers and to look at the Lords and the Commons and to look at, Q87 Chairman: Can I probe a little more on that? On for example, bringing rapporteurs from the the question of the European Grand Committee European Parliament on certain Directives here to proposal from the Foreign Secretary, you have in a give evidence because these are immensely sense discussed it in general. Do you both think it is influential people, that would be a very helpful way a good thing? forward. Ms Stuart: Yes, I think so. Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I think it would have a role to Q85 Mr Shepherd: What diVerence does it make? play in ventilating the system and giving us an The fact that you have got these committees and opportunity to question not just ministers but they sit and deliberate, whatever their deliberations, maybe Commission oYcials and perhaps put on an what diVerence does that make to the outcome? emergency brake system. If we were seriously Ms Stuart: The real diVerence at the end of the day concerned about the system we could insist on is that as MPs we can no longer go back and say, getting somebody over to explain it here. The “We’ve never heard of it, we’ve never been asked Commission’s idea of Government is that you have about it, no one told me”, and what is more to the to go there; they like lobby groups to go and explain point, we can no longer say, “It’s nothing to do with their concerns over there. This does not work for me, guv, it’s them out there,” because it is not. It is small businesses and for people—to take the earlier like with any other legislation, ultimately the will of example—running food supplement shops. They do the Government with the majority in the House of not have the time or the knowledge, the contacts or Commons prevails, that is the bottom line of our the money to do that, they like us to do that, that is system and I am extremely attached to that one. what they elect us for. Therefore the decisions have There is contentious domestic legislation where an got to come back to us, not all of them but certainly opposition MP can say I do not agree with the the filter has got to operate here, we must have a real Government and you still may say so, but at the influence on the programme and on an exceptional European level for the last 30 years we have been basis we ought to be able to pull an emergency brake able to deny all responsibility because we closed our and stop something and unless we have that power eyes to it and we have blamed others for it. there will be a general disillusionment with the entire system. No one really believes that this is our Q86 Mr Shepherd: I understand what you are government at the moment—I am talking about the saying. The fact is that in half of life we do not know European Union. That is going to reach epidemic what is happening and we try to get up to speed. I am proportions unless we can be seen to act on behalf of talking about outturn. What diVerence does it people who have got well-founded concerns and at make? Before your time, Gisela, but certainly within the minute that is not operating. As well as a Grand David’s time we had a Merchant Shipping Act and Committee to find out what is happening we also there the Government of the day thought it was need to strengthen the smaller scrutiny Standing working along the lines suggested and agreed by the Committees’ system, you will have your own idea European Commission; it enacted a Bill. It was about that, so that we can pin down specifics and get acting within what it thought was its own something done about it at that level. competence and authority in this matter, our High Courts and on appeal it ultimately overturned the Q88 Mr Kidney: I would like to ask David about our eVect of the law, ie it was the European Court that involving commissioners in our work and Gisela enacted it but still recognised parliamentary about our involving MPs in our work. David, first of sovereignty so that we could indeed assert the law, all, how realistic is it for the Member States’ because all this is only directly in British law through parliaments to demand the commissioners come to an Act of Parliament and yet we have somehow got be scrutinised in person when there are 25 disparate this omerta`, which is the very point that David national parliaments? If it is realistic, where is the started oV and you reinforced, which is that it does right place in our system for it to be? If there were not seem to make any diVerence and there is no this European Grand Committee, is this the right outcome. place or are you talking about your Scrutiny Ms Stuart: I will tell you where it would make a Committee sitting in public or the Select Committees diVerence. If you are a domestic minister—and I individually making bids for a commissioner to have been to the Health Council as a minister in the attend? How would you see it working? Department of Health—what happens in health, for Mr Heathcoat-Amory: There are 25 Member States example, is it is very much on the periphery of your but there are also 25 commissioners and I do not radar, it is health questions, waiting lists and know what they are all going to be doing. Perhaps intensive care beds which drive you. As a minister some of them could spend at least part of their time you only really take notice of what you have to do travelling round Member States’ parliaments 9898711003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 38 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP listening and taking instructions from us for a domestic level, we need to make them aware of what change before they draw up their annual the impact is domestically of what they are programme. We do find it diYcult to get actual suggesting. commissioners to come here. In fact, in my own Committee I do not think we have ever done that, we Q91 Chairman: What if they were not British MEPs? get their more junior oYcials. I think that is not good Ms Stuart: I think if it is not British MEPs we should enough, particularly when I do not detect any real still be able to ask them to come, because the sympathy for this concept of subsidiarity. The rapporteur’s function on that occasion is not a dynamic to over-govern is something in modern national one. That would pull together what the societies we suVer from down here, but at least at European Parliament does. national level there is a countervailing force, which is you have got to raise the money to do it, you have Q92 Mr Pike: I wanted to push a little more on the an electorate watching you and your constituents UK MEPs if we did have this Grand Committee and and your lobby groups are active and have good joint attendances. Is it a good idea and how should access to you here. That is rather absent at the we develop it? I know when I came into the House in European level. I repeat, the decision-making must 1983, one of the first debates we had when I came be redistributed, must be devolved back down, here was should we allow MEPs into the building or unless of course it is a genuine emergency in foreign should we treat them as totally members of the aVairs where everyone has to act quickly. At the public, and it was decided to give them some limited minute, the agenda and timetable is set wholly access. If we are supposed to be working together in artificially by people who want to get these things this country’s interests, is it not important we do through either in the European Parliament or the have them on the Grand Committee and that we do Commission and we are often seen as irritants. I do look positively to ensure we are both working on the not think we are irritants, I think we ought to be an same wave band? absolutely indispensable element in this because we Ms Stuart: I remember the debate about whether hold the popular consent. MEPs should be given dining rights in the House because we were afraid of them flooding our dining rooms. I do think they ought to be given the same Q89 Mr Kidney: The Leader of the House had this access to the House, just as we have access to the idea that the European Grand Committee would European Parliament as MPs. We ought to much have joint attendances by the appropriate Minister more, as a matter of course, as we debate something, of the Crown and the appropriate Commissioner. think of the relevant MEPs even if it is no more than Does that not therefore suggest to you that is the an exchange of information. I think it is right place in the system for Commissioners to extraordinary that the European Voice, which is the appear before us? gossip sheet of Brussels, is not available in the House Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, provided one can get the of Commons, in the Library, together with the Times close follow-up, the supplementary questioning, and and the FT, we ought to be able to pull it out and see even an adversarial relationship developing with a what happens there. Commissioner wanting to do something and perhaps a general feeling that this was peripheral to Q93 Mr Pike: What do you think, David? British interests. If you could recreate that in a Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I am afraid I do not agree Grand Committee, I think that would be suitable. with this. By all means let them into the dining rooms and let’s talk to them and meet them and Q90 Mr Kidney: Gisela, you mentioned the allow them to come to our party meetings, but this rapporteurs, who did you have in mind back here is a separate institution, it is a self-regulating parliament, and one of their tasks is to stand up for who would be asking the rapporteurs to join them? their own institution. Certainly on the Convention Is that Select Committees, the Grand Committee on the Future of Europe the 16 MEPs did proposal, or Scrutiny Committees, Standing unmistakeably fight for their own institutional Committees? How generally should we involve interests and they succeeded in getting a lot more MEPs in the work we do as a national parliament? powers for the European Parliament. I think to have Ms Stuart: The European Parliament as co- them as members of a very grand committee, legislator has extensive powers. An impact including the other place and them, would just assessment for any of their amendments does not dissipate the focus or intention, which is that the really happen at the moment, which is why I think House of Commons or Parliament should exercise our Select Committees ought to have MEPs here but the scrutiny function. I think it would complicate also rapporteurs, who would either report to that that to include members of another Parliament. Grand Committee or the particular Select Even if one interviewed them, I think it might be Committee. That would bring that rapporteur in. resented that we were getting another Parliament to Also there are government departments—we always come before us to explain itself. So I think there is a try this but somehow it never works out in practice— division of powers here, we all have separate duties when you have ministerial meetings you could bring and I think we ought to concentrate on our own. in some of your MEPs. The key thing is to have a link Ms Stuart: May I just mention one practical when the European Parliament makes amendments experience I had with the Working Time Directive. which ought to have proper impact assessments at It was negotiated in the early 1990s, it then came to a 9898711003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 39

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP point where we would have a problem in the Health Ms Stuart: I think that, combined with the Council Service if that Working Time Directive was applied of Ministers meeting in public when they legislate, to doctors without a phase-in period. The opens it up, because we need to know what positions Commission was not very sympathetic to that phase- people take to hold them to account. in which we were negotiating and we only succeeded Mr Shepherd: I think it would educate too the wider in getting that phase-in by getting the support of all public in the processes which take place, and maybe MEPs, irrespective of their party, because it was on the sheer volume, which exercises David very an issue which they realised had tremendous much, of the burdens being placed on Parliament. significance to the United Kingdom which went David also mentioned the quantum of legislation, beyond narrow party politics. That was a practical the clerk to your own committee was unable to say, example of where we actually benefited from because it is an outcome rather than a preliminary working with our MEPs. stage, what is the volume of legislation, and we have a paper from the Cabinet OYce website no less which says it is only 40%. Whichever it is, it is a huge Q94 Mr Pike: If there is a British interest, sometimes and important part of our domestic legislation that British interest should be equally shared by MPs which does not receive scrutiny. I go back to the and MEPs? point, what is the outcome? Even if the Government, Ms Stuart: Indeed. David and I managed to work on the Committee, the entire backbenchers of all the Convention on the Future of Europe on some parties, are united in opposition to a matter, it points when we did know what the British interest breaks that link— was! Chairman: I think we have the point, Richard. Mr Shepherd: You always say that, Chairman, but it is a point which is often obscured. Q95 Mr Shepherd: To revert to something David said at an earlier stage about meeting in public with Q97 Chairman: I think our witnesses take the point. his own committee. He put in a submission to this Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It worries me actually that Committee in which he says, we meet “. . . in private not all legislation from Brussels does come through. unless taking evidence from witnesses. It cannot be There are statutory instruments, complicated right to exclude the public from the scrutiny process implementing regulations which do not even come in this way.” More important, “The Committee last through, so I am not sure we are getting the full year requested that standing orders be changed to count. Certainly the volume is enormous and permit the Committee to meet in public but nothing growing. We are talking here not always of has been done.” Why is that? important things but quite a lot of them are about Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot say. It requires a the coercive force of law whereby the state will in change of standing orders, which is not up to our time require compliance of our constituents, and committee. We requested this be done and I imagine that is what Parliament is for, to at least check this the issue has been subsumed into this inquiry. There is desirable and if it is not get something done about is a slightly bizarre contrast between our own work it. We are not doing that. The main thing is that not and what we have been urging in Europe, and indeed only can we not influence it very much but in many we succeeded in getting into the European cases we do not even know it is happening and we are Constitution in Article 49 a requirement that Union often taken by surprise afterwards. People say, “You institutions shall conduct their work as openly as are on the Scrutiny Committee, did this go through possible. quickly?”, and I look back and that was one of the matters that went through, I am afraid, rather on the nod because its full implications were not apparent Q96 Chairman: You mean there is something in the at the time, and that rather shocks me. Constitution you approve of, David! Mr Heathcoat-Amory: We worked together on that Q98 Chairman: Can I follow up Richard’s point one, Chairman, on a rather exceptional basis in the about the technicalities of this. What do you think British interests! We at least partly succeeded on that this would do? Do you think it would make the one but we have not amended our own procedures. Committee more partisan if it was in public? Do you We sit in public when we take evidence, as we did think there would be more grand-standing? Given from the Commission, but when we are deliberating the fact there is an enormous volume of work here, about what to do about things, about whether the and that the clerks are involved in providing expert Treaty bases are valid or whether the Commission advice on the documents and their roles are very, has exceeded legal powers, whether it is important to very critical to the whole process—as I understand recommend for debate, all of that is still in secret. it, I have never sat on a committee—how would The only reason we are given is that it would all be those two factors play into making it public? misunderstood by the public and oYcial advice Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I am aware of that danger would not be as candid. Frankly, these are the sorts and one of the problems with the Standing of arguments we used to keep reporters out of the Committees is that at that stage there is a whip on House of Commons in the 18th century, so I think and the Committee lines up traditionally across the we do need to move forward here and start to trust floor and only very exceptionally do people work the public. Maybe not many of them would turn up, together on behalf of the House of Commons. The but at least they would have the right to do so. European Scrutiny Committee is rather impressive 9898711003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 40 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP in that people on occasions at least do put party a dozen or 15 legislative proposals on bits of yellow politics aside and take a House of Commons’ view. paper with a brief, and the Chairman goes through So there is a suYcient grit and abrasion there which them and you have to put your hand up if you have comes from party political considerations, but an objection, if there is something you wish to add, nevertheless we do on many occasions pull together if the subject matter is one someone knows a little bit particularly on aspects of subsidiarity and so on. So about, if it is an example of something which is more I would not wish to lose that but I do not think important than it seems or the legal base you believe allowing the public in would seriously jeopardise is wrong, but it is done on an exceptional basis. that. What would attract me is to try and make Otherwise the Committee simply rattles through Standing Committees in some way adjuncts of the them. scrutiny committees so one retains this feeling it is the House of Commons doing a scrutiny job on Q102 Chairman: There is no actual example you behalf of the public, without it becoming excessively can give? party political. I think the other place does Mr Heathcoat-Amory: You have unsighted me, something along these lines. That is the balancing except I did bring one along, which is on crime act we must all achieve. We cannot ignore the party prevention, which came to our Committee very divisions, but if one can somehow also feel we are recently on 14 May. It is to tackle anti-social collectively doing a job on behalf of everyone, I am behaviour and street robbery. I and others said these sure at least greater openness would not seriously were very important issues which the Government jeopardise that. was legislating about already, we could not see the case for the EU proposals, but there is nothing we Q99 Mr Heald: How accessible is the programme of can do. In fact I am looking now at the work which the Commission produces on an annual recommendations because the Minister broadly basis? Is it possible to use it as an early warning agrees with the proposals and we have decided to system or is it utterly impenetrable? clear the document. So I am afraid in a few months’ Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The programme we had was time, or maybe a year’s time, when one of our very long. It was rather general but it did contain in constituents says, “There is a new complicated our view some breaches of subsidiarity, of which I Directive to do with street crime passed by majority have mentioned one. I should say in the Constitution voting, have they got it right?” I am afraid I will have now there is another one, where there is a to look back and say, “Yes, I did complain but there declaration we must all tackle domestic violence. I was nothing we could do about it.” am sure it is highly desirable to end domestic violence but it is there in the text now so we start oV Q103 Chairman: I would be rather surprised if we with the problem and we must do something to got a Directive on that but that is another matter. correct that. To answer your question, the annual We have two more areas we need to cover. First of work programme—and the Council also has one— all, on the Constitutional Treaty’s subsidiarity early could be used but they should be required to make it warning mechanism, and perhaps I can ask you, more detailed and to stick to it, and in my view it Gisela, since you were very instrumental in helping should be cleared formally by all the European to achieve this. How do you think it will actually Committees of all Member States at least in make a diVerence to the compliance with the principle before they launch the initiatives and turn principle of subsidiarity and how should the them into legislative proposals when in many cases Commons implement it? Should it be through the it is already too late. Scrutiny Committee or some other mechanism? Ms Stuart: Either the Scrutiny Committee or, if you Q100 Mr Heald: When do they come out? Is it a have it, the new Grand Committee where the House particular time of year? forms an opinion. The problem with that Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I cannot answer that. We mechanism is actually not within this House, I think interviewed the two Commission oYcials at the end the problem is what is the body where that one-third of last year about this year’s working programme, of national parliaments reaches a view, and the only we then wrote to complain about the matter in body which is in existence at the moment is COSAC. January, we got a letter back in March, we have written again and we are still waiting for a reply, so Q104 Chairman: Meaning? it is almost half way through the year. It is basically Ms Stuart: The Committee on—some French term. too late now but the initial scrutiny did take place in The clerks will know this.1 A committee which is time to do work last November. largely only known of by those who attend its meetings. The committee itself has no history of Q101 Chairman: You mentioned, to go back to the actually being able to reach any conclusions and, issue of the European Scrutiny Committee, much more significantly, it has as its membership legislation going through on the nod and through also MEPs who, whenever national parliaments are V the Scrutiny Committee on the nod, and the in danger of reaching a conclusion, are very e ective implications only being made clear later. What practical examples can you give of that? 1 Conference of Community and European AVairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I do not think I am betraying (Confe´rence des organes spećialise´s dans les aVaires the confidence of the Committee, which does meet in communautaires et europeénnes des parlements de l’Union private, if I say we start oV our weekly meeting with europeénne). 9898711003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 41

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP in preventing a unanimous decision being reached. because the timescale is very compressed—I think So I think this House, how it reaches a decision, quite needlessly compressed. I do not see the need for whether it breaches subsidiarity, is not a problem, it hurry, we are not talking about fast-moving is what is the body by which national parliaments international negotiations, we are talking usually form a view, and the current vehicle is I think an about a process of domestic legislation where unsuitable one. Just as an observation, when during deliberation on a very long timescale is often much the Working Group I asked the Commission for more desirable to give outside interests, lobby evidence of a single example on which they groups and our constituents, an ability to respond. abandoned a proposal because of breach So I do not think we ought to dance to an artiﬁcially subsidiarity, they could not come up with a single imposed timetable from the Union, but I also feel it example of where compliance with subsidiarity must be a collective decision of the House of made them think twice. Commons as a whole to formally complain when the subsidiarity principle is breached. Q105 Chairman: Just to probe a bit because it is quite Ms Stuart: One observation. I think the end to the important and we may well be confronted with this six month rotating presidencies and much greater question when the Constitutional Treaty goes stability on a two and a half yearly basis will aid us through, exactly what is the mechanism we might on that, because part of the urgency is quite often at want to adopt. The problem with the European the end of a particular presidency (which keep Grand Committee is that it may well not meet as changing every six months) people want to push frequently as the Scrutiny Committee. things through, and that on occasion gives an added Ms Stuart: This is where we come back to the point unnecessary urgency, so the new structure might I was making at the beginning of the session, the help us. diYculty we have as the House of Commons is that we have a delete process for proposals, and that is Q108 Mr Kidney: I am concerned. David talks about the Queen’s Speech or a General Election, so either the rush to legislation and Gisela was telling us something goes through and is agreed within a year, earlier about when she was a minister and inheriting or, if it is modernisation, we might extend it for two a ten year old legislative process on one measure, so years, but certainly every ﬁve years we say, “Stop, there seems to be some rush and some delay. How do you have to put it back on the table.” There is no you put those two together? There must be an similar delete button on Commission proposals and optimum, I would have thought. David, do you that is the problem for us in terms of the collective agree with Gisela’s proposal that if there was an end memory of this House. At what point do we key in? date for all Commission legislative initiatives that I would suggest we make some fairly strong would sharpen their act up, but do you not agree proposals to the Commission to actually ask them, that also means there would be a rush which you and in any negotiations with the European have just said is a bad thing? Parliament, that they put on a time frame by which Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I think there is a problem agreement has to be reached, and it comes to an end. because the Commission has to pick up old That will then allow us with whatever committee proposals and try them again. They did this with the structure we end up with to have a time frame where Directive of the marking of precious metals where our views have an eVect. Without that we will always they came back and back and back until they found be operating in a kind of fog. a friendly presidency to help them get it through. I think that is a form of abuse, so there ought to be a Q106 Chairman: Leaving aside what happens once procedure whereby proposals can be buried as well our Parliament decides, along with others as resurrected. When one has got a proposal, presumably, and maybe reaches the third threshold particularly an important one where there is general to object to some new Commission legislative agreement, it has to be done at Union level, and I proposals, do you have anything to add to how we think we have to accept we must act more slowly and handle it at this end? allow our constituents to engage on this. It may Mr Heathcoat-Amory: You need to combine an mean less legislation but it would be better. I expertise about the subsidiarity principle, in other remember the Santer Commission saying in terms, words some committee needs to examine the “The Union must do less but do it better”, and it has Commission’s proposals and— never been taken seriously. Unless we do, all these institutional changes are not going to work. Q107 Chairman: With oYcial advice presumably from the clerks? Q109 Martin Linton: There is one other small item Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It can be, or oYcial advice on our agenda which is the members’ European from the clerks and compare it with other proposals. travel scheme. I am one of those few who actually A committee, in other words, which has some uses the new entitlement of three, in fact I was at the knowledge of the subject and can take an informed French Parliament only yesterday, which was very view. But also it is important that the House as a interesting. Does it worry you that certain people whole or at least some particular committee is able make use of this? Do you think it is important for to engage on it and given in public an opportunity to Parliament’s eVective scrutiny that individual express an opinion. So you need a double system. members should actually make use of the travel But it has to be done very quickly because we need scheme to visit both institutions and the Parliament to assemble other national parliaments in parallel on a more regular basis? Maybe you have some 9898711003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:44:37 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 42 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

23 June 2004 Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP views about the proposals to extend the list of places things, and we are interested in the practical beyond the EU or indeed to include language procedural issues here, that on reflection you want to training? drop us a line about you are very welcome to do so. Ms Stuart: I think one problem is that the way the Thank you very much. business of the House is organised, we know about Ms Stuart: Chairman, may I just make one two weeks in advance, it is actually quite often observation. One of the most extraordinarily helpful diYcult to know when it is safe for you to be away. things I found was the legal expertise of the House of The second thing is we all know that in terms of our Commons. The reason why it is so helpful is because constituents they regard us going away as a junket so they are not bound by the veil of the previous you try and keep quiet about it. The third thing is government. If you are a minister you only get the there is very important work to be done. I think the expertise and advice that is given to the current scheme at the moment is too restrictive. It only government, you are never told what advice was allows you to go to the capitals and sometimes there given to the previous government. The House of are organisations you want to see to discuss issues Commons is not bound by that and I think we ought which may not be in the capital. to make much more use of that legal expertise which goes beyond the narrow window than we have done Q110 Chairman: EU agencies? so far. Ms Stuart: Yes. I think language, again, is absolutely important. My suspicion is, certainly Q115 Chairman: That is a very interesting point. from my practical experience, that what has stopped Can you just elaborate on that? In terms of your own me from using it is simply the time to do the language role I think you were supported by the Speaker’s training and the travel but the key thing I think Counsel, were you not, representing Parliament on ought to be extended to not just the capitals, the Convention specifically in the praesidium? particularly regional centres ought to be within the Ms Stuart: Legal advice from the House of scheme as well. Commons could on occasion tell me “that is what Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I was in Brussels yesterday happened under the Major Government; that under the scheme so I am grateful my travel costs are is advice which was given to the Thatcher reimbursed. I think euro tourism/euro travel is Government”, a Foreign OYce lawyer could not tell important but it is not a substitute for bringing the me that. decisions back here. Q116 Chairman: You found that helpful? Q111 Chairman: Tourism. Ms Stuart: Extremely helpful, yes, because there is Mr Heathcoat-Amory: There is a tendency for them an element to the European debates which is like a to always say: “Come and visit us. Come and lobby time warp, things keep coming back, and it is very us. We are just here”. Then one arrives and one has helpful when the same thing is being brought back to one’s input. That route may be important but it is you again and you as the individual thinks this is all not a substitute for doing what the Laeken new and they can say “Careful”. Declaration told us to do which is to create a democratic Europe closer to its citizens. To me that Q117 Chairman: This is House oYcers’ collective means bringing powers and decisions back nearer to memories over the Members’ collective memories? the people and to their parliament. Ms Stuart: Yes. It was one of the greatest discoveries of that process, a resource I was unaware of. I had Q112 Chairman: You were not, I assume, describing never used and I was very glad to find. euro tourism as what MPs do when they meet their Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Could I just add to that? I did counterparts in Brussels, as presumably you were not receive that level of advice because Gisela was on doing yesterday? the praesidium and I was not. The advice both legal Mr Heathcoat-Amory: As I was in Brussels myself and from the clerks that we get on my committee is yesterday I would not characterise myself as a of an incredibly high standard. I just wish it was tourist there. more generally available. One of the reasons I am in favour of openness and the public coming in is that Q113 Chairman: Everybody else. it ought to radiate out, that quality of advice ought Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Our constituents can easily to be generally available. I hope they would not feel caricature our visit as a kind of euro tourism if we compromised if they knew that advice was to be engage in that as a substitute for addressing their generally available. If we can tread that ground I concerns here. I think what they want to do is elect think it will be doing a service to everybody, if it is people who represent their interests, including their not, as now, rather restricted to a narrow band of European interest, here. I think if we do that then of specialist members who get it but cannot make more course an adjunct to that is we must obviously find general use of it. out what is happening in Brussels. Chairman: That is a very interesting point, David, thank you for that as well. We will perhaps take Q114 Chairman: Any other issues, colleagues? We some advice ourselves in our subsequent are very grateful indeed to both of you. That was a deliberations, many of them in private, as to where very interesting session. Your expertise was very we go with this whole inquiry. Your appearance evident and welcome. If there are any other practical today has been very helpful. Thank you again. 989893PAG1 Page Type [SO] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 43

Wednesday 14 July 2004

Members present:

Mr Peter Hain, in the Chair

Ann CoVey Joan Ruddock Mr Oliver Heald Mr Martin Salter Mr David Kidney Mr Richard Shepherd Martin Linton Mr Paul Tyler Mr Patrick McLoughlin Sir Nicholas Winterton Mr Peter Pike

Submission from Mr Chris Huhne MEP (UK Liberal Democrat); economic spokesman, European Liberal Democrats The proper scrutiny of EU legislation by the House of Commons is crucial. EU legislation is important particularly for business, as business and environmental regulation is largely undertaken now at European level. Bad legislation can fail to meet its objectives, and can add unnecessarily to business costs and hence the costs of goods and services bought by consumers. Moreover, EU legislation designed to create a single market across 25 member states and 450 million people may unintentionally disrupt existing national practices and customs. If there is not clear scrutiny by parliament, the quality of eVort made by British oYcials and ministers is likely to be less eVective. Proposals are also less likely to be considered at a political level, since ministers will not feel that there is any political disadvantage in leaving negotiations to oYcials. Scrutiny is essential to quality. Secondly, scrutiny is a key part of involving the electorate in EU decision-taking. One of the reasons why British public opinion is so skeptical about the EU is because it does not understand how we are represented in the EU legislative process. Most British people do not understand that the Commission has only the power to propose, and its proposals have to be agreed by the Council and left unamended by the parliament to take eVect. It doubts the power of MEPs, even though many leading organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, Trades Union Congress, Friends of the Earth and the Consumers’ Association have testified to the eVectiveness of MEPs in amending EU Commission proposals. And public opinion does not understand that British ministers are always involved in every legislative decision (whereas MEPs have power only over some eight out of 10 cases that are determined by co-decision of the Parliament and the Council). A proper system of scrutiny could perform a key role in showing that EU decisions are being monitored and influenced. Britain must not just be represented, but we must be seen to be represented. The failure of scrutiny is partly a failing of Brussels, in that the Council of Ministers still meets secretly even when discussing legislation, a democratic outrage that finds parallels only in Cuba and North Korea, and that will be put right only if the EU constitutional treaty is approved. It is therefore diYcult to see ministers doing their job in the Council, and to understand that the Council is the body that represents the interests of the member states. Without openness, no-one can know for sure what their democratic representatives are doing. And without information, there can be no informed choice and no accountability1. The Council’s secrecy is particularly damaging for countries like Britain with a long and proud history of nationhood, precisely because the Council is the institution that represents the nations. To hide the Council is therefore to hide the institution with which most British voters would most readily identify. But public misperceptions are also a problem of our system of scrutiny in the House of Commons, which has signally failed to hold British ministers to account when they argue and vote in the Council of Ministers. The existing system of scrutiny is lower profile than the scrutiny performed by the House of Lords, which I would judge to have had marginally greater eVect. However, both systems are predominantly backward- looking, so that the Commons is repeatedly surprised to discover that some piece of EU legislation that is about to be enacted through a statutory instrument has already been agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, and is therefore too late to change. This is a recipe for impotent rage among MPs, which is neither in the interest of the Commons nor of a healthy British relationship with the European Union2.

1 The Council is now embarrassed enough about its own position that it holds feeble “open sessions” in which ministers give boring set-piece speeches, which are therefore ignored by television except as wallpaper to a voiceover about what the journalist thinks actually happened. Then the ministers go back into hiding for the real work. They justify this furtive behaviour rather as some people used to justify Mussolini: nasty little man, but he makes the trains run on time. Secrecy is said to make the deals easier. 2 A measure of the House of Commons’ interest in the decisions taken in the Council of Ministers is the paucity of written questions about its activities. A study for Chris Davies MEP showed that of 40,000 parliamentary questions tabled in the Commons in the 1999–2000 session, just 79 questions were tabled about the 92 meetings of the Council of Ministers. Most of these appeared to be planted questions from the whips so that ministers had an opportunity to make written statements. 9898931001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 44 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

The Nordic Model of Scrutiny The most eVective systems of scrutiny in national parliaments are those operating in the Nordic countries. The pioneer was the Danish Folketing, which introduced a forward-looking scrutiny system whereby ministers report on upcoming items. But the state of the art is probably represented by the Finnish Eduskunta merely because it has been able to take account of best practice elsewhere thanks to relatively recent Finnish membership. Under the Finnish system, ministers who are to attend a Council meeting in Brussels the following week appear before a grand committee of the Eduskunta each Friday. They report on the agenda items, and they inform parliamentarians of any likely subjects of sensivity. This grand committee is a highly prestigious committee of the house on which many former ministers and current chairs of specialist committees sit. In parallel to these regular hearings, the grand committee also asks for views from specialist committees on the content of particular proposals as they aVect Finnish interests, an important improvement on the Danish or existing British system. Another diVerence with the Danish system is that the grand committee give more flexible negotiating mandates to ministers. In Denmark, the mandates are so strict that other member states’ ministers may not bother to engage them in debate, since they know that they have no room for manoeuvre without referring back to the Folketing3. This cannot be in Danish interest. By contrast, the Finnish system certainly limits ministerial room for manoeuvre, but gives ministers the opportunity to depart from their mandate if they deem it necessary, and so long as they then report back to the grand committee at the earliest opportunity to explain their actions. In my view, a strict system of mandating would be counter-productive in the British case, and the Finnish flexibility is preferable. Clearly, any such system in Britain would require a substantial increase in the resources—not least the time of MPs—if it were to be made eVective. The committee would have to meet almost weekly if it were to take evidence from ministers about to attend the Council. More research resources would be needed in the specialist committees, particularly those dealing with business regulation, farming and the environment where most EU legislative activity is focused. However, the extent of public concern about EU legislation, as demonstrated in the vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party in the June 2004 European elections in Britain, seems to me to justify the adoption of Nordic-style system. In my experience dealing with EU legislation as a rapporteur4 on particular legislative proposals, it would be crucial for the Commons to be kept abreast of all stages in the development of EU legislation. Clearly, a Commission proposal for legislation5 should be lodged with the relevant committees within a week of dissemination to the Council of Ministers. This is usually the beginning of a process that takes two years (but can take 13 years as in the case recently of the Takeover directive). Once the Council has received a proposal, the Council will then typically appoint a “council working group” of oYcials from the member states’ domestic ministries who will meet regularly in Brussels to consider the proposal under the chairmanship of the equivalent oYcial from the current six-monthly rotating presidency. The presidency will then submit occasional redrafts of the Commission text including agreed amendments and with any controversial parts of the text put into square brackets. There is no more formal process of amendment within the Council. The Clerk and oYcials of any new Commons scrutiny committee should, as a matter of course, be sent these revised texts as soon as they are available to the departments. Although in theory these drafts are confidential to the Council, they are as a matter of course made available to interested MEPs and also to lobbyists so that oYcials can sound out interests that may be aVected by the new drafting. It should therefore be a legal requirement that departments supply the House of Commons with council working group texts during the consideration of EU legislation, although this might have to be on a confidential basis. After all, these British oYcials are proposing and agreeing amendments to the EU Commission proposal that are then likely to become British law. Like the Finnish grand committee, a new Commons scrutiny committee should also be able to call on the expertise of specialist select committees. Clearly, this would do some violence to the usual way in which the Commons considers legislation in committee, but it is likely to be the only practical way of bringing in expertise. This is because most proposals will not merit a special committee, and also because in particular areas (notably environment and consumer aVairs) there is a steady flow of small pieces of legislation. There is one stage of EU legislation that merits scrutiny. Where the EU legal instrument is a directive, the general objectives are agreed, but the detailed implementation is left up to the member states to ‘transpose’ the directive into their own law. During this process, it is quite possible for departments to hang all sorts of their own decorations onto the Christmas tree before it arrives as a statutory instrument. One notorious case was the UK implementation of the EU requirement for veterinary inspection of abattoirs. The UK insisted

3 An exception is made for foreign and security policy issues, where the Danish government is only required to confer with the European AVairs Committee. My focus in this memorandum is on legislative scrutiny, but scrutiny of policies and of the budget could follow a similar model. 4 The rapporteur is the MEP chosen to assemble a majority in the parliament for a particular proposal, as amended. He or she is usually best informed about the proposal, and also leads negotiations with other institutions on that proposal. 5 Either a regulation which has direct eVect once approved in all member states, or a directive which sets out objectives that have then to be transposed into national law by means in the UK of statutory instruments. 9898931001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 45

on full-time inspection plus the full cost of such full time inspection being met by each abattoir, however small6. The result is no small abattoirs left in Britain, in stark contrast to other member states. The British Chambers of Commerce recently estimated that the British civil service implemented EU directives with more pages of national legal text than any other member state7. There clearly needs to be a commons scrutiny procedure that examines the UK implementation of EU directives. In summary, the four key features of an eVective scrutiny process should be: First, regular appearances of ministers attending council meetings to brief the committee on the subject matter and any controversial issues. This has the eVect of making the scrutiny forward-looking rather than backward-looking, and should eliminate the element of surprise in EU legislation. Secondly, there should be a requirement to lodge Council texts with the committee as a consideration of Commission proposals proceeds. This would allow the committee to scrutinise in even greater depth when there are particularly controversial proposals such as the working time directive (with implicaitons for junior doctors’ hours inter alia) or the current agency workers directive (which could eVectively prohibit “temps” in the British labour force). Thirdly, there should be a way of bringing specialist expertise to bear on the legislative proposal through the specialist commons select committees. EU legislation is a domestic not a foreign aVairs matter. Fourthly, there should be scrutiny of the way in which EU directives are put into British law, with the committee formally comparing the directive with the statutory instrument and considering any additions to avoid “gold-plating”.

Co-operation with MEPs A number of proposals have been made for more actively involving British MEPs in the Commons scrutiny process. There would certainly be advantages in promoting the co-operation of MEPs and MPs. They have many mutual interests, not least in ensuring that EU legislation fits British concerns. At present, there are various minor niggles which former members of the House of Commons who are now MEPs seem to feel: not having dining rights, having restricted access passes so that there is only entry through St Stephen’s entrance and so on. A more serious advantage for MEPs would be to have access to the Commons research facilities—particularly the library—when researching British interests aVected by a particular EU Commission proposal. Otherwise, there are informal party contacts that depend on the interest of individual MEPs in their party policy process. However, there are serious limits and practical diYculties to the extent that MEPs can be expected to be formally involved in the Commons scrutiny process, particularly if it is as intensive and regular as it should be. The first diYculty is that the timetable for consideration of EU legislation in the Council (which the Commons should be monitoring) and in the European Parliament is diVerent. Once a Commission proposal lands, both Council and the European Parliament will look at it. The Parliament will tend to have a first reading in which it puts forwards amendments that have been voted by a simple majority of the house. It therefore takes a first canter at the proposal before the Council. At that stage, the Council may take these amendments into consideration in drawing up its own “common position” in which it adopts its own amendments by qualified majority (some 71% of the votes). Then the Council common position goes to the European Parliament for amendment, and can only be amended by the parliament with a majority of all its members (not just those voting). If the two branches of the EU legislature fail to agree, there is then a time- limited conciliation procedure, and a joint proposal of that conciliation committee may be put to both branches again. MEPs who are particularly involved with legislation will tend to be following a number of proposals, and may well have moved on to something else by the time that the commons scrutiny committee looks at the same proposal on the Council timetable. The second diYculty is that the best-briefed MEPs are the rapporteurs, and there will not be a British rapporteur on most EU legislation. Nor is it reasonable or workable to expect either EU rapporteurs from other member states or EU commissioners from other member states to attend Commons scrutiny sessions, since that is not something that they could conceivably do for 25 member states while continuing to perform their main duties. Therefore the main focus of commons scrutiny should be on holding British ministers to account when they perform their legislative and other duties as members of the EU Council of Ministers in any of its current 17 specialist ministerial forms8. Moreover, there are transport diYculties in getting MPs and MEPs together. We see very few MPs in Brussels, even where we have made extensive eVorts to invite them to participate in sessions where there is a direct interest (and even though there is now an explicit allowance enabling MPs to attend). This, indeed, was the experience of the old mandated European Parliament before 1979: national MPs who were also MEPs tended to ditch their European duties whenever national excitements intervened. As a result, the parliament was not only poorly attended but also wholly inconsistent as diVerent national crises took a toll

6 By contrast, France implemented this legislation by levying a charge per animal that covered the whole national cost of the scheme, and did not disadvantage small compared with large abattoirs. 7 “How much regulation is gold plate? A study of the implementation of EU directives” by Tim Ambler et al, British Chambers of Commerce; available at www.chamberonline.co.uk 8 The Council of Ministers meets in various conﬁgurations, such as the agriculture ministers, ﬁnance ministers etc. There are currently 17 of these diVerent councils. 9898931001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 46 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

on diVerent delegations at diVerent times. Equally, most British MEPs will ﬁnd it diYcult to visit London without making a special detour. They tend to ﬂy directly from their home regional airport to Brussels or Strasbourg, and MEPs are made no payment for any travel within their own member state. For all these obstacles, it is worth attempting to improve formally the links between MEPs and the Commons, not least to ensure that MEPs remain aware of public feeling in the country in which they are elected. A formal involvement in any Commons grand committee—with speaking if not voting rights— could in turn reinforce the commitment of MEPs to the principle of subsidiarity, whereby decisions should not be taken at European level unless there are very clear advantages in doing so.

Conclusions Parliamentary scrutiny of the European Union is vital, not least to reassure the British public that EU legislative decisions are being taken with the full participation of British ministers and the oversight of the House of Commons. Many of the proposals from the Leader of the House of Commons are welcome as ways of improving Commons scrutiny, but they may underestimate the extent to which the Commons has to commit resources to the process if it is to perform on a similar level to the Nordic parliaments. Ministers should report to a commons committee before they go to the Council of Ministers, and report back afterwards. Select committees should bring specialist expertise to bear on Commission proposals for directives and regulations. The scrutiny process should be aware of on-going changes to draft legislation in the Council of Ministers through receiving relevant presidency texts. There should also be a formal monitoring of the diVerence between the text agreed by ministers in Brussels and the statutory instruments that give that directive eVect in UK law.

Witnesses: Dr Richard Corbett, Member of the European Parliament, Mr Timothy Kirkhope, Member of the European Parliament, Mr Chris Huhne, Member of the European Parliament, and Dr John Whittaker, Member of the European Parliament, examined.

Q118 Chairman: Good morning and welcome to the problems are and also having been an MEP now— Committee; I think it is a novel occasion. We know coming into my second term—I know that the you have had to rearrange your diaries at some relationship between MEPs and MPs is, to say the considerable awkwardness and we are very grateful least, imperfect. Whatever one’s views on Europe that you have come. As you are aware we are might be, it is very unsatisfactory that there is such looking at the issue of the scrutiny and handling of an apparent lack of interest in the matters in Europe European business in the House. There is a lot of in terms of the detail and in terms of the legislative concern that it is on the one hand not properly processes and so on by members of Parliament; there scrutinised and there is no proper liaison between is so little take-up on the opportunities available to the progress of legislation through the European members of Parliament to visit us in Brussels apart Parliament and the Commission with what is from when they come on committees—which happening here. We are very interested in your own they do—but otherwise not at all. I think that views from your perspective and I wondered if I may relationship is very dangerous because it does not start by saying ﬁrst of all that we tend to have these allow this House to have advance warning of what is sessions, although they are on the record, as fairly happening in Europe and the criticisms which occur informal so this is not a kind of interrogation; we are often in the tabloid press—but certainly pass around interested in your own ideas. Could I start by asking among all of us as representatives of the people of what your impression and your knowledge of Britain—get completely misunderstood because Westminster are from your vantage point as MEPs there is not a basic intervention by our national and how much you know about how we operate to Parliament at an early enough stage in the give us a view on how we can elicit from you how formulation of policies. I conclude by saying this, things could be improved? that I am very much in support of some initiative being taken here. I put down amendments as you Mr Kirkhope: First of all, thank you very much for may know, Chairman, while I was a member of the this opportunity for all of us. From my point of view, Convention, asking for joint committees of MPs and of course, I was a member of this House. Indeed, MEPs to be put in place. Indeed, it is Conservative whilst I was a member of this House I had some very Party policy—it was in our manifesto at the interesting jobs including a period of incarceration European elections—that that should be something Y in the Whip’s o ce, as Mr McLoughlin knows. I we would press for so that we could deal with this was, in fact, the Scottish Whip responsible for the matter. I believe that in your memorandum you are operations of the Scottish Grand Committee. What not going nearly far enough when you talk about you are doing at the moment is quite interesting to merely attendance of MEPs. I think attendance at me in that regard as I was always excluded from the anything is something which is often declined by processes, not being a Scottish MP. I see that in those who are being oVered the opportunity if they your own memorandum, Leader, you are actually are not having a useful role. I hope it is going to go referring very clearly to what may happen in future. much further than that and I would like it to be very No doubt we will get onto this later. I was, of course, much along the lines of what we suggested. I am very not only a whip here but a Home OYce minister too happy to assist you with any further questions after so I know from a ministerial point of view what the my colleagues have spoken. 9898931002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 47

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP

Q119 Chairman: That is actually very helpful, Tim. regular meetings and asking us when you think it is I think we would like to come back later on to this useful for our expertise and sometimes detailed idea of liaison between MPs and MEPs and your knowledge of things. It is up to you to make the proposal for a joint committee which I guess you are evaluation of that but sometimes we have knowledge making formally as a good proposal and we would that we should share with you on a more regular like to explore that with you. Richard, do you want basis. to add to that? Dr Corbett: I would like to say that the link between Q121 Chairman: Could you give an example of that us is important. I think the roles of the national because it is a very interesting point? and the European Parliaments should be Dr Corbett: It is a general point that quite often we complementary. Your role is particularly important are examining issues that come up in Brussels before because when all is said and done nothing of great you have had a chance to do so because it hits us significance is decided in Brussels without it going first, as it were, in pre-discussions with the through the Council and the Council is composed of Commission or when the Commission initially national ministers who are members of national makes a proposal, very often we are discussing it the governments accountable to their national very next day in one of our committees. So across a parliaments. That accountability is vital in terms of whole range of areas we are looking at things and making sure the European Union is doing what it because we are only dealing with European should do and doing it correctly. The link between legislation—you are dealing with a whole range of the national ministers and their own national other things—we have often gone into things in parliaments is something that should be vital to the more detail at an earlier stage than you have and we whole process. We come in in a complementary way ought to make our experience there available to you. as the European Parliament deals with the Council The fifth and final point is a very general one: please as an institution and with the Commission and there treat EU legislation not as foreign policy but as should be two sides of the coin rather than any domestic policy. It is about domestic legislation, the conflict. I do not think it is my role to comment on common rules for our common market, the areas how you go about that in terms of a grand where we benefit from having common European committee, improving the role of select committees, legislation; a limited number of areas, but significant re-organising the Scrutiny Committee or whatever; ones from the environment to consumer protection that is up to you. However, I would put forward five to some aspects of legal co-operation and so on. very brief ideas to think about. One is, should you They are limited areas but important ones; they are look at the practice—notably in the Nordic matters of domestic legislation, not foreign policy. countries—of having ministers appear before Chairman: The Committee always welcome really whatever seems to be the appropriate committee practical suggestions and those were really very before they go oV to Council meetings in Brussels. valuable and I think will probably come back to some of them. Does anybody want to ask Richard Q120 Chairman: In other words, pre-scrutiny; giving any probing questions at this point? them a mandate. Dr Corbett: Whether you want to go that far and Q122 Mr Heald: This idea of the European Scrutiny how precise any such mandate should be is a matter Committee sitting in public of course is something for debate. Some people think that the Danish that they have asked to do and it would mean that system used to go a bit too far; it was very strong the vast pile of documents that are sifted every when they had a series of minority governments of month, the whole process would be in the public course but it is somewhat changed in practice now. domain. Do you think that that is the most At least that pre-scrutiny would highlight the key important practical measure that one could take issues on the Council’s agenda before they came immediately to open up this whole question of how up. The second thing is whether, as a national we deal with European legislation? parliament, you should enhance your scrutiny of Dr Corbett: I do not think it is the single most national implementing measures after the EU important measure; it is one of five that I mentioned. legislation is adopted, in these cases where this is not I think it is more a question of principle and allaying done by legislation but by statutory instrument. We, fears. The public is increasingly suspicious of as MEPs, often—and I am sure you do too—get procedures that go on behind closed doors when complaints from constituents on what is commonly they are dealing with legislation after all. Legislation called “gold plating” where Whitehall, as it were, in most democracies is a process which, at the adds bits to European legislation. We get the blame parliamentary level, is in public. for it, everyone else is quite happy to leave us taking the blame for it, and I think that is something that Q123 Mr Heald: One other idea what has been needs attention. The third thing you may want to suggested to us is that when the work programme for consider, in this era of openness and transparency, is the Commission and the Council comes out in April whether the Scrutiny Committee should meet in that we ought to have a major debate in this place public. The fourth thing you might want to consider about the work programme for the coming year so is what Tim has touched on already, the relationship that our view point can be expressed at a really early with MEPs. Whether or not you want a special stage and we would perhaps have more influence on committee for it I do not know. You have made a the process. Is that something you would be start; the Scrutiny Committee has made a start with interested in? 9898931002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 48 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP

Dr Corbett: That is up to you, but I think that would Q126 Mr Tyler: Could I just ask Dr Corbett because be something you should look at as a good idea it arose out of something that he said. For instance, because it gives you early warning about what issues a regulation, and I think you must have been talking are going to come up for the next year. about the regulations they decided in the Commission and you may know about it the following day. Did I misunderstand you? Q124 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Could I just slip a Dr Corbett: When they propose legislation, be it a question in here both to Tim Kirkhope and to regulation or a directive, we know about it because Richard Corbett? Do you not think too much it comes straight to us. material, legislation, directive, regulation comes out of Europe because certainly when the Scrutiny Committees meet here they have piles of papers that Q127 Mr Tyler: This is a terrific rate because we have been gone through by the clerks but which digest in Whitehall, it comes through here and it is a members of Parliament do not have a cat in hell’s much slower process. Regulation has a direct eVect chance of scrutinising? Do you not think that the here so should we be sweeping away our own European machine should slow down and only domestic consideration of these regulations? What is actually pass directives, instruments—or whatever the point of us doing it? How do we interact with you like to call them—in much fewer numbers? you? Mr Kirkhope: I think the answer to that is of course, Mr Huhne: I will not go into the business of how but the answer also lies in the powers of our own much I know about the House of Commons scrutiny Government in the representations it makes through because I do not have the experience that Tim the Council and so on. We have an awful lot of stuV Kirkhope has, but I have been dealing as the pan- being churned out and as Richard indicated this European liberal group co-ordinator with the whole country is pre-eminent in gold plating; it is pre- financial services action plan programme and eminent at taking things that come from Europe and directives designed to create a single market and I turning often very innocuous things—regulations am certainly very much concerned with the points and so on—into something which becomes a burden that have been made about the level of overall on the public of Britain more than it is a burden on legislation. I would point out that one of the first the public in other countries. We have quite a lot of things I did when I was elected was to ask about the evidence of that and I think we have to be very, very stock as opposed to the flow of directives and careful that this legislative machine does not actually legislation on the statute book at the end of each grab what comes from Brussels and I know there is year. I was rather reassured to find that actually the a shortage of legislative time here and I know the use number of directives and regulations is actually of statutory instruments, statutory legislation is lower than it was 10 years ago. There was a decline something which we are quite keen on, but it is and there has been some rise again. I think the point inevitable that we—this is what our colleagues in that Richard makes about revision is terribly important and I think the role of the House of Europe think too—seem to enhance a lot of things Commons in doing that is absolutely crucial. in a way which they do not. Dr Corbett: Can I just add that notwithstanding the general perception that too much comes out of the Q128 Mr Tyler: As revision? European Union system you need to bear in mind a Mr Huhne: Revision of existing EU law. It is very number of things. A lot of what we deal with as, important to look not only at new proposals in new quote, legislation, unquote, in Europe—ie going areas but also to look at these revising proposals. In through Parliament and Council—are subjects the financial services area, for example, the which, if they were dealt with at a national level, U.C.I.T.Sdirective (which was about unit trusts) would be statutory instruments. A lot of them are was basically a repeal of a former directive and a technical and regulatory in nature. Secondly, a lot of replacement by a revised directive which was European legislation is not about the Union designed to meet some of the faults of the previous legislating in new areas for the first time as it was in directive and actually open up the market. It is still the 1980s and 1990s; increasingly European very important, of course, to have scrutiny. I want to legislation is about amending existing legislation to make some practical suggestions whereby the House update it, to improve it, to learn lessons from it when of Commons could have much greater impact on it is not working. It is about changing the existing this. I very much agree with almost everything that body of law rather than extending it. There are some Richard said on this. It seems to me that this is extensions still but the shift is now in that direction. particularly important in a Euro-sceptic country like The third thing is to remember that when we have the UK. It is actually not an accident that given our this image of “Brussels” spewing out laws all relative lack of scrutiny—compared particularly the time, who is “Brussels”? It is the national with the Nordic countries, and I entirely agree with governments together meeting in the Council, what Richard said on that and I entirely agree with double checked by the MEPs elected in every what Gisela Stuart said in her evidence to you member state; it is not the Commission deciding, the previously on that—we do actually need to open up Commission merely proposes. the whole process and particularly hold ministers to account. I have come to that conclusion partly because I have seen as a rapporteur on a lot of EU Q125 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Are you sure? legislation that actually ministers do not devote the Dr Corbett: Yes. amount of time which I believe they should devote— 9898931002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 49

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP particularly on directives and legislation—precisely involvement of particular select committees in the because there is no political downside for them in House and the specialist select committees— ignoring it. EVectively they leave matters to Sir Environment, Treasury on Financial Services or Humphrey; they are bureaucratised not merely at whatever—should be brought into the process. the Brussels end but procedures are bureaucratised at the British end and we need to see our ministers V being held to account openly in open scrutiny and, Q129 Ann Co ey: When I was reading the of course, in an open Council of Ministers meeting. background information on what other parliaments I am sure one of the parts of the constitution that Mr do there seemed to be a distinction between what Shepherd in particular will welcome is the decision they called document based examination scrutiny to open up the Council of Ministers whenever it and the ones that were more mandating. It occurred Y deals with legislation because that will make it much to me that it is very di cult in terms of time because easier for the national parliaments to scrutinise what obviously there is a process, the process changes, to is going on. I think that is terribly important. There try to connect that inextricably into the process of Y is a lot of information on the Nordic system and I this Parliament is very di cult in terms of time and, think that in addition to the points that Richard has indeed, ministers’ time. The idea that you just made I would merely like to say that the UK system proposed about the select committees having a more currently largely looks backwards rather than major input in this is very, very interesting, but how forwards. It is an ex post system rather than an ex do you think that would actually work because the ante system and I think it is absolutely crucial that if select committees are not legislative bodies. How our voters are to see ministers being held to account would that work in terms of making that process for the decisions that they take, they actually come accountable to Parliament? before you openly and describe what is going to be Mr Huhne: The way they do it in the Finnish on the agenda and say what they are going to do. It Eduskunta—which is the best model of this—is that does not have to be a firm mandate like Denmark the Grand Committee asks for the opinions of but it can be, for example, the rather softer system specialist committees by a particular deadline and that operates in either Sweden or in Finland. I think the whole process has a much higher political profile that is an absolutely crucial part of connecting up and the people involved in it tend to be former British voters to EU decisions. Secondly, so far as I ministers and other committee chairs, so on the can see, there is no on-going system whereby the Grand Committee in Finland you actually have Government informs the House of Commons of other select committee chairs involved in the process subjects under discussion which would separate the and it means that there is much more political wheat from the chaV. That is partly obviously commitment to actually dealing with legislative ministers coming before a grand committee before a proposals when ministers are dealing with that. I Council of Ministers meeting, but also during the think that is absolutely crucial. process of discussion on a directive or a regulation. The process of amendment in the Council of Ministers is for the presidency to come up with new Q130 Chairman: Do you think it is better to see drafts on a repeated basis. Those are usually ministers before Council meetings rather than to available to the rapporteur in the European examine documents as the European Scrutiny Parliament; they are always available to the Committee does which should actually be at a much lobbyists because civil servants and ministers earlier stage? actually need to get lobbying input. But I think as a Mr Huhne: My own experience, partly as a matter of course they ought to be tabled with you for journalist—having been a journalist in Brussels for your consideration on an on-going basis. One other three years—is that the EU has developed a point which is very crucial, if you look at the debate particular form of censorship by mass; the sheer within the Nordic countries not only is there this volume of paperwork is such that separating the point about appearing before committees ahead of wheat from the chaV is extremely diYcult. Therefore the Council of Ministers, but also there has been an you need—if you are going to focus your activities in improvement in both Finland and Sweden relative terms of things that are seriously important—a way to Denmark because in both Finland and Sweden of getting to the nub of the issue. I think the best way they involve detailed scrutiny of the select you can do that is latching onto what the civil service committees on particular departments, in those has already done by holding ministers to account for areas where the departmental minister is actually what they think is important. appearing before the Council. I think that is crucial Mr Kirkhope: I agree entirely about this. I think it is because the core expertise which is necessary in essential. There is so much paper that it has to be considering domestic legislation—and this is filtered. You can get yourself into a real twist eVectively what it is—is a knowledge of the area over something which actually probably has which actually only exists in departments rather no consequence whatsoever—or very little than in the Foreign OYce. In other words, the core consequence—whereas something which is actually expertise is not the way the European Union runs; rather critical is slipping through almost unnoticed. the core expertise is, in the case of abattoirs, the way I think it is important, as early as possible, that the abattoirs are run, the way the veterinary system for most senior people who can be involved should be inspection of abattoirs actually operates. And involved in order to discriminate for this and also to therefore it seems to me that there has to be an take account of it. 9898931002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 50 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP

Q131 Chairman: John, do you want to add anything work much more eYciently for the UK. At the at this stage? moment I think it is a bit of a mess and I think the Dr Whittaker: Really I wanted to come back to the Council of Ministers—the ministers themselves— question you started with. You were asking about would be greatly served if such an arrangement or the interaction between this Parliament and the such a committee could exist because I think they European Parliament and would it not be better if would then get a much better feel for what they were we came to you or you went there. I have to ask doing in their negotiations following that. myself, what is the point of this exercise? There could be two, really. One point would be for European Q132 Ann CoVey: I think there is another aspect to parliamentarians to come here and explain what is it which is particularly to do with the public going on; the other thing would be for your members perception of MEPs. I had a constituent who came to go there and find out what is going on. But what to see me and they came as a result of an Oxfam is the objective of this? Is the objective so that we can lobby which was basically about an issue of food see more quickly what is going on there so that we subsidy in the EU. I suggested to them that the best can actually change things? The whole conversation thing they could do was approach their MEP who going on round this table so far has been about the would know far better than me the problems in the inability of this Parliament to actually have any European Parliament. They pulled out the Oxfam meaningful eVect on the flood of European lobby thing and they said, “But why have Oxfam legislation, so people here are naturally reluctant to asked me to come and see you to actually write to take an interest in what is going on in Europe so Margaret Beckett about this?” What you have as an there would be—there has been already—reluctance MP is that people do come and see you as a point of for people from this House to go over there. call about issues whether it is lobby groups or Similarly, if European parliamentary members are constituents, but clearly they do not have a view of coming here, what is the point of this? Is it to give us where that fits in with issues that are perhaps better early warning or is some idea of trying to taken up with their European MPs because there are Europeanise what is going on here, to try to make actually issues about what goes on in the European people here more aware of what is going on in Parliament. Do you think that the suggestion of Europe? If that is the case then I am afraid to say that having a joint committee that would involve MEPs I have doubts about that agenda because it seems to and MPs would draw much more the focus of those me that members of this Parliament when they are lobby groups into a kind of more relevant lobbying confronted by their constituents as to the problems of European MPs and also focus the attention of the associated with this or that piece of legislation, they public on that because it appears to me that there are do not want to declare the impotence of this House a lot of issues around but one of them is an issue of to look after European legislation. They do not want the way in which you are seen to be accountable as to broadcast in their constituencies the fact that this members of the European Parliament for things that Parliament has so little influence on European you clearly can influence. legislation. So that agenda, too, I would say is Mr Huhne: There is one reason why your constituent unlikely to bring any fruitful result. may well have come to you on that, and have been Mr Kirkhope: Can I just add something on this asked by Oxfam to come to you, and that is because because it does seem to me—again we are going back MEPs do not have control over the agricultural almost to where we started and the purpose of the policy in the same way they do over other matters. work you are doing—that is absolutely vital that the On this area of food subsidy, actually the only way work that is done by the United Kingdom MEPs is of getting a grip on it is through the Council of linked directly to where our priority is given in this Ministers and therefore going to MPs to try to hold country to legislation, ie this place. It is important to ministers to account. get that quite clear in both the minds of the MEPs themselves but also, I think, in the eyes of the public. Q133 Ann CoVey: I understand that and you could At the moment we have diVerent democratic say that about every single thing. bodies—it is just as well we have democracy Mr Huhne: About 80% of the new legislation is now applying as it does in Brussels as well—who are by co-decision. Parliament does have a real influence trailing along in diVerent directions, not liaising but it so happens in that particular agricultural area properly. You have various things happening but unfortunately we do not. If the constitution is not enough and unless you actually bring these adopted, of course, we will actually be able to start democratically elected representatives together— hacking away at the agricultural budget which we whether it is under the umbrella of an Indian style cannot do now. grand committee—I do not know how you get round the legal points but you must have a certain Q134 Ann CoVey: I am using that as an example. equality here. The MPs, the Lords (if you can Dr Corbett: That is absolutely right, but nonetheless arrange it) with whatever title it can be because of the organised lobby groups—Oxfam, Greenpeace, grand committee diYculties and ourselves as MEPs NFU, all sorts of groups—want to do both routes. must come together at an early enough point in the They come to see MEPs, because they know that we legislative process so that everybody is quite clear have at least some influence—it varies on the subject and indeed the political parties can then take their matter at European level—but they also know at views on how they treat each of these items at a very European level the Council matters as well, so they early stage in order to be able to make this process want to get at the national government and they 9898931002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:45:50 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 51

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP come via MPs to pursue that route. Rightly, from Q139 Chairman: In addition the proposal has been their perspective, they pursue both ways. We put for us to consider and change is that it may only have two checks, two safeguards, two scrutiny meet a couple of times a year; that needs to be borne opportunities but also two lobbying routes for in mind. anyone who wants to make a point on a subject. Mr Huhne: I think there are some practical issues Mr Kirkhope: When people come and lobby you here which are worth airing. I know from the other here about something almost inevitably MPs will side in the Economic and Monetary AVairs write to the minister. In a diYcult case you always Committee in the European Parliament, we have pass it on in order to please. made a big eVort to invite our counterparts from the Treasury Select Committee or equivalents right the way across the EU. We are very lucky to get Q135 Chairman: Could I seek some clarity—I think anybody turning up, even the clerk. There is not a this is the point that Ann might have been probing— great track record in people getting on the Eurostar V about your own take on the di erence between what and shuZing backwards and forwards because they Tim was proposing, a joint committee, and what has do not see it as a core part of their job. Secondly, the come from the Foreign Secretary via me to this timetables are diVerent. Yes, the Commission Committee—but it is a proposal for discussion—of proposal lands with both Parliament and the a European Grand Committee on which MEPs Council at the same time, but in my experience in would be invited to take part. fact the consideration of particular legislation is not Mr Kirkhope: Can you clarify first, Chairman, what at the same time. Therefore, if the MEPs are busy you mean by that? You said in your memorandum with legislation they are going to be focussing on the that MEPs might be able to attend. I was never thing that is actually in front of them. For the House allowed to speak or vote in the Scottish Grand to come and say, “We would now like you to think Committee even though I was a government whip about something that you thought about six months because it was only Scottish members of Parliament ago” is potentially problematic. I think a lot of it is and they were very strict about it. I want to know something that I suspect you have to do yourself. I really, could this be extended? You mentioned think that the House itself needs to build its own attending; could it be speaking, could it be voting? scrutiny rather than rely on MEPs to help them do it. I think it is a very good idea to improve relations between MEPs and MPs in the House, but I do not Q136 Mr Pike: Participating. think that is a magic ingredient. One of the reasons Mr Kirkhope: That is the word. why it is not is because if you look at the way my colleagues work, given the development of regional Q137 Chairman: It could be any of these things and flights and regional airports, most British MEPs do we are not specific in the recommendation because it not come through London. It is actually quite a would require changes to the rules of the House if detour getting them to come. If you are from the you went down that road. north-west or Yorkshire or Humberside or Scotland Mr Kirkhope: I do not think attendance is a very you fly directly to Brussels or Strasbourg. London is attractive idea. not a natural port of call and therefore it is a special trip and I think you will necessarily get the attendance you would expect. Q138 Chairman: What I am interested in is your Mr Kirkhope: I disagree totally with that. view, your take, compared to the proposition you Dr Whittaker: I listen with some incredulity to the put on this particular issue. arguments going on round here. We are talking Dr Corbett: I am very sympathetic to the idea of a about changing the format of committees—larger focal point. It is up to you to organise your committees, smaller ones, diVerent ones—and the Parliament how you wish, but if it is a grand objective seems to be to get a better spread of committee it is a focal point where MEPs could information but then that is only of value if participate, not in votes, of course, because that something can be done about it. I have to make the would be mixing the two roles. There are some observation that if there were to be meaningful national parliaments that do this. The Belgian scrutiny of European legislation either ex ante or ex Parliament I believe has a committee of 10 members post by this Parliament, by the parliaments of the 24 of the House of Representatives, 10 from the Senate other members of the European Union, the whole and 10 Belgian MEPs who are full members of that jolly thing would grind to a halt. In the opinion of committee. I think the right balance is to have MEPs my party that would probably be a very good thing able to be invited to attend with a right to speak but because it would mean that this House could not to vote. You should not mix the role of the two actually get back to the duty for which it was elected, diVerent parliaments. To get the information cross- which was to make the laws of this land. On the other fertilising and the ideas going across, yes, that would hand, that is also the very reason why there never be welcome. However, bearing in mind our will be the opportunity for thorough scrutiny of respective parliamentary timetables you are not European legislation because if that were the case, as going to be inundated with MEPs at every meeting. I say, the whole thing would not work. What are we We have seen this vice versa, about you coming trying to do here? Moving the deckchairs, as in the across to Brussels. It is not always easy to fit it into old proverb? I do not believe that we can honestly busy timetables. make any meaningful improvement of what goes on. 9898931002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:45:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 52 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP

Yes, more information, but that is only going to be arguing in the way I am—that what might help is if of value if we can actually make some meaningful there is, if you like a closer relationship between diVerence and I have severe doubts about that what we do as MEPs and what is done in this place. being possible. I believe in the primacy of the national Parliament here but I think working together in a suitable vehicle—committee, whatever—would not just be a Q140 Mr Tyler: I want to come back to the “what” waste of time. I think people would come to London rather than the “who” and it actually follows on very to be on that as long as they have at least the right of well from what John was saying. Surely the speaking. No-one is going to go just by an invitation perception of impotence, the perception of overload, that you can come if you want; they will not come. the perceptions that have been referred to by all four They have to have some reason to be here. I am not of our witnesses actually apply just as much to the necessarily pressing voting, but I do think we need to relationship of Parliament with the UK Government have something and it needs to be done quickly as they do to anything that comes out of the EU. My because the faith of people not only in Europe but concern is not who is going to come into this also in politicians generally is something we have committee, but what it is going to do. That should to tackle. determine who comes, how often it meets, whether it Dr Corbett: In response to what my new colleague is a voting body, whether it follows the Finnish from UKIP said about it being “just more model that Chris has referred to which sounds to me information but what is the point”—information is to be very practical. The critical issue is not going to the basic raw material that you need in order to hold be to spread the load over a huge number of people governments et cetera to account. It is vital. I do not so nobody feels responsible; the critical issue is to think that members of the Finnish Parliament who give it some political imperative. What I get from all have this rather good system think that, having got four is that the Government’s role in this is the that information, are not doing anything with it. I critical question. (And I notice the former minister think they are having real influence over their nodding.) It is the relationship of the Government to minister who goes to Council meetings. I think we, this place coming at the right moment, telling us in the European Parliament—you will soon discover what is coming through the governmental system, this Dr Whittaker—have real influence over the giving it the priority that it requires, identifying content of legislation. It is not all the Commission, where there is a suspicion of gold plating. A former V far from it. The Commission just proposes and that minister—from a di erent committee—has told us is the central thing we need to get across. I think the previously that he wanted to know in the then Constitution can help with that. I disagree with Tim Ministry of Agriculture what exactly was being on that. added in his department to what had to be done as Dr Whittaker: May I just say that I do accept that I a result of the legislation coming in. He had columns am the new boy here. I have not spent time yet in the and this minister—I am prepared to give his name in European Parliament; I am looking forward to due course because we are in open session—said that doing so. I would just add though, as I said before, the day he left the Ministry the civil servants shut if we are to have meaningful influence on ministers that system down. I think this is very important. I and get things changed by the ministers, how the hell think that what all our guests are really saying is that are the ministers going to cope with the huge flood we have to make sure that the ministerial interface of stuV that is continually coming forward? I with Parliament is right then we have a chance of understand that they get briefed by their civil influencing the whole process through the Council of servants the day before or something, go over there Ministers and co-determination. with a few points that they are allowed to bring up Mr Huhne: I think it is very important to separate in the Council and that is just about all that they can the two parts of the procedure though. One is do. They cannot cope with all the detail. How on holding ministers to account when they are earth are we going to do it? negotiating a directive or a regulation and then there is the process of implementation of a directive which takes place maybe in the following 18 months Q141 Joan Ruddock: In response to what John following the agreement of the directive. You need Whittaker has said can I just say that ministers are to have scrutiny of both of those, the second one to making intensely political decisions. They are not stop the gold plating but the first one to make sure actually going with a back of the envelope brief and that actually ministers are taking these directives going over there and saying the few words they are and regulations seriously and there is a real political allowed to say. They are actually making very, very downside if they get things wrong. significant political decisions. Some of us disagree Mr Kirkhope: In all of this I do not think we should with some of those decisions and actually want to be lose sight of one basic principle, and that is coming able to influence them. From the evidence we are out of Laeken—and I am afraid this is one of my getting today, we need to have some clarity which I gripes with the Constitution—where it was clearly am not sure we have quite got yet. Perhaps it is the laid down that we really have to do more to try to Finnish model, perhaps we just need to know in explain to the citizens what is actually going on in detail and not, obviously, now at this session. I Europe. The Constitution failed to do it in my view foresee that we could have a joint European as a member of the Convention and the new draft committee but I think the people coming from that you are looking at now equally fails to do it. Europe and the people from the UK Parliament What might help, I still believe—and this is why I am have to be fixed persons; I do not think it could be 9898931002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:45:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 53

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP on the basis of anybody could come because I think Mr Huhne: I think that is actually the Grand you have to get some real working practices, real Committee. dialogue going, a real commitment from people and Dr Corbett: One of their functions is as a scrutiny that is the way you would do it. I think there is a need committee. to bring ministers to account. I am sick of being Mr Kirkhope: There are certain points in the course confronted with things in my field which I work on of the year where it is pretty clear that the work of so much, the environment, where we get the such a committee would be much more valuable and opportunity to have a debate after everything has I think that is what one should look at. been decided, where ministers have not taken the expertise of those of us who are on the Environment Select Committee, they have not taken account of Q145 Mr Kidney: Could I just try to get over this the views of the public which we could bring to them question about how many times we can meet via that process and I think it is time that we ended together to talk about the flow of information this farce which I see it as being. Dr Whittaker nods. between parliamentarians. Richard Corbett, one of It is not the farce in the sense that he observes; it is your five suggestions right at the beginning was that the farce that we have something that is meaningful, you give us the benefit of your knowledge and we have a European Commission, a European expertise about what is the right issue and when is Parliament and we are not making the best use and the right time that we should be interested. I wonder we are not having the best linkage. I think we have how we can make some use of that flow of to get to the bottom of this and how can we do it. I information from our UK MEPs to our UK MPs so just wonder how often it would be feasible for such that we can make use of your expertise. Must it be a joint committee to meet given that it had fixed the happenstance of a good MEP or within one members and also whether we, here, could suggest political party, or can there be some institutional that commissioners should come to that joint way so that it is a flow of information rather than committee as well and how you would feel about another set of meetings? It seems quite simple to me that because many of us would like that if we could set it up. opportunity—and we sometimes get it by going Dr Corbett: You touched on party relations and it is there—but in a much more formalised structure. I true a lot happens within parties as well, but the think this Parliament has a right to ask for central point I was trying to make was simply this, commissioners to appear in the UK. that we have, by the nature of things, some advance Dr Whittaker: If we have meetings twice a year of warning, some expertise, some in-depth knowledge this grand committee, that is never going to fit in sometimes in areas where you might not yet have it. with any timetable that goes on, surely. By the time Can we not find a way to communicate that? A right that thing meets it is going to be too late. for us to attend and speak at committees would be helpful, but I think what is more important is for you to invite the right person at the right time, typically Q142 Joan Ruddock: It should be possible surely. a rapporteur or a person who has been a rapporteur That is the question. We know when the if there is a time lag. Commission is going to publish work programmes. Mr Huhne: I do not agree with that. It is completely This is an event which is clearly signalled, can be unrealistic. Having taken a lot of legislation through planned for and if we did have fixed membership and Parliament in the last session, on one particular maybe if the term of membership is limited so that occasion when I needed German MEPs on board in people are not overburdened, maybe it is for one the coalition to get particular amendments through year or two years. I made a big eVort to go to Germany but you cannot Mr Huhne: I very much agree with what Joan conceivably go to 25 member states. If you start with Ruddock has said and the implications. There is one member state then you have to do it for actually a very good pamphlet which I hope you everybody and we have had exactly this problem already have on democracy in the Nordic region with holding the European Central Bank (ECB) to produced by the three main parliaments there. It account. The Treasury Select Committee wants to does seem to me that the key thing is that you are interview the President of the ECB. If that principle going to have to meet much more often if you are is established the poor guy is going to be spending his going to hold ministers to account on a regular basis; whole time out of Frankfurt visiting national you cannot just do it twice or three times a year. I parliaments in 25 countries. I really do think in think realistically, given the clash of timetables, it practical terms once a commissioner has established has to be reliant primarily on MPs rather than on the principle that they appear before one national bringing in MEPs. I think that is absolutely crucial. parliament, how can they conceivably turn round and say, “I’m sorry, we’re only going to London Q143 Sir Nicholas Winterton: How many times a because the UK is a big country; we’re not going to year? go to Estonia, Lithuania et cetera”. Mr Huhne: In Finland they meet every week on a Dr Corbett: That is taking an idea and stretching it Friday, which of course is another outrage to the to the absurd degree. I suggested that the committees House of Commons. It would be bringing in may wish to invite MEPs where they think it would ministers before they go, every Council meeting. be useful and among the people they might typically choose from could be a rapporteur—sometimes that Q144 Chairman: That is a scrutiny committee rather will be possible, I have done it myself on occasion— than a small strategic body. it could be the lead spokesman for the main British 9898931002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:45:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 54 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP political parties on that committee; it could be the is being open to trade organisations which are political group’s co-ordinator; it could be the actually concerned about pieces of legislation and chairman of that parliamentary committee. Usually making sure that you are monitoring the civil at least one of those people might be available and service. The only British body that actually has the willing in those cases that you choose to prioritise. resources to do this job properly is the civil service Obviously inviting every rapporteur from every and the question is really lifting issues up out of the member state on every subject would not work; it civil service to a political level. That is what is not needs to be targeted. happening at the moment. Mr Kirkhope: The way in which we actually deploy Dr Corbett: Peter, when you were Minister for our MEPs from the British political parties does Europe you were involved on the Labour Party cover the work of all the committees and I do think side—other parties may well do the same for all I that we should try to walk before we run on this. We know—of setting up a scheme whereby on each V should not be put o because enhancing here is European parliamentary committee there is a labour Y di cult to implement practically. I think we ought MEP responsible for links back home to the party to look at getting this started; I think that is very and to the relevant minister. Why not build on important. I do not think that these extra items that something practical like that? Those people from Richard is going on about are necessarily our each of the parties could, when you feel it is priority. appropriate, be brought in when you think it is helpful to help on particular items. It is not rocket Q146 Mr Kidney: Can I ask about the flow of science, it is practical day to day contacts that we are information from you to us so that we know the talking about. right issue at the right time to have an input. I do not Dr Whittaker: Can I get back to the means of agree with Paul. Why should we wait for a minister influence here; we actually have two, do we not? One to tell us which is the right issue? We should suss for is through the ministers, through the Council and ourselves; quiz the minister. the other is through the European Parliament. Mr Kirkhope: If the relationship develops because of Those are the means we have of influencing a joint committee in which we are involved, I think European legislation. The Council of Ministers does it would follow then that there has to be some kind have time only to look at the major over-arching of clear liaison from a secretariat point of view as concepts of the legislation that is coming up. It does well. I think that would be perfectly achievable so Y not have time to look at the detail; it never will do. that in fact o cials, whether they are here or with us, The way that detail is actually influenced is via the can actually work to some extent together because Commission, by lobbying it. There are loads of we are not talking about Commission oYcials, we anecdotes around about how this or that statutory are talking about parliamentary oYcials. instrument is about to put some unfortunate businessman out of work. The way the thing has Q147 Chairman: That is a very interesting point. sometimes been solved is by a representative going Parliamentary secretariats could almost engage with direct and finding at great pain the appropriate our secretariat here on whatever subject. person on the appropriate commission and getting Mr Kirkhope: You are looking very sceptical, Chris, some amendment made at that point, not through but I do not see why it could not happen. I do not any parliamentary system. Is there some way that we think it would be too much. The truth of the matter could actually latch onto this to get round the whole is that a committee of this kind—we are not talking parliamentary system so that when something comes about mammoth numbers of personnel—to have up which is irksome and is going to put people out of some kind of liaison is going to work. Who is going work—totally unnecessarily, like so many directives to be that joint contribution, then of course it do—we actually go back to the root because that is follows, I think, that that would have to be the way I believe I have seen this actually working, acceptable in terms of the secretariat as well. not through the parliamentary system. Mr Huhne: I know Tim and Richard have been very heavily involved in the constitutional side and I do not have that perspective; I have a perspective of Q148 Mr Heald: They do have this annual work having to deal with the legislation and trying to amend it. We are very, very short in terms of the programme for the Commission and the Council has support within our own secretariat; we have a very an annual work programme so it would not be poor research system by comparison with yours; beyond the wit of man for our European Scrutiny the library, for example, is actually based in Committee to liaise with MEPs, produce a report to Luxembourg rather than in Brussels or Strasbourg the House on the work programme that is coming up where it would actually be useful. When I first for the year and then we could have a major debate became a member of the Economic and Monetary in the Commons on the work programme for the AVairs Committee it was far easier for me to get hold year. Then we would be getting in right at the of relevant reports as to the performance of EU beginning with our views. economies through my old firm in the City than it Dr Whittaker: Then what happens? What do we do was through the secretariat of the European with that information? Parliament. The idea that we can provide an early Mr Heald: That informs our ministers when they warning system to you is a false trail. We are not set are going to Council meetings, it informs the up to do that and I think that the key way to get that Commission of what our views are at a very early 9898931002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:45:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 55

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP stage and we can, of course, use our political Financial Services Authority (FSA) or whatever and contacts in the parliament to bang the drum, form you can now go to investors throughout the member alliances and see if we can really make things move. states. That would not have been a practical proposition unless the Parliament had actually Q149 Mr Pike: I can well understand that it would introduced important elements of choice for bond be nonsense for us to talk of rapporteurs coming issuers and share issuers in doing that. You can go here because I can see the demand from the 25 other on and on. The Parliament has actually made very countries, but you are saying quite clearly that practical changes. within the British MEP representation across the Dr Corbett: Sometimes we throw out proposals parties there is somebody on every subject area that entirely, like the Port Services Directive. should be able to come here and speak with an air of Mr Huhne: That was an unfortunate one. authority, recognising that that type of liaison, if we Dr Corbett: There are diVerent views of it! are trying to represent you in Europe and us here in Dr Whittaker: Was it not the case that when those London, is in the best interests of this country. amendments were approved by the Commission that Mr Kirkhope: Absolutely. Because of the way in one of the main causes was that those who would which things work in the European Parliament we suVer under the legislation as proposed were do tend to find that spokesmen—certainly in my themselves lobbying? Are you claiming that the party and the other main parties—do tend to stay in whole of the reason for the change was in fact the position of spokesman for quite a long time as through Parliament, that the Parliament was opposed to here where people are switching around responsible for bringing about these changes? all over the place. They do stay put and they do Mr Huhne: The Parliament lives in a pond where concentrate on those areas and they do build up a people can come and lobby it and obviously that is very high level of expertise. I think that what Peter what happened. The Commission makes the said really would be very useful. proposal and the Commission does not have the power to legislate without the approval of both the Q150 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Tim, could you Council of Ministers and the Parliament in 80% of comment on what Dr John Whittaker has said. He legislation. We look forward to having UKIP says he believes that by going into the Commission members of the committees of the new parliament, and the particular secretariat you are more likely to which they were not in the last parliament, because get changes which are helpful—ie the legislation as it they did not actually get involved in any of their stands is unhelpful—rather than going through work. Parliament. How much say, in fact, does the European Parliament have when they are debating a matter that has come from the Commission? Q152 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Can I ask whether you Mr Kirkhope: I think far more than I anticipated think it is more eVective to lobby the Directorate of when I went to the European Parliament in 1999. the Commission or whether it is more eVective to Obviously there have been changes as you know in lobby the Parliament? terms of co-decision and so on. In reality the Mr Huhne: I think it would be a dereliction of duty commissioners are now much more aware of their as a lobbyist if you were not to operate on all parts own vulnerability. of the process. You begin very clearly by trying to influence the Commission. Q151 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Can you give any Dr Corbett: Just as with domestic issues you examples to this Committee? begin with Whitehall and if necessary go on to Mr Kirkhope: Not without thinking about it, no, but Westminster. my colleagues probably can. Mr Huhne: When the Commission has made its Mr Huhne: I can give you some very clear examples proposal you then shift your lobbying activities to from the financial services area where, over the the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. You last five years, we have dramatically changed attempt to get the Parliament and the Council of Commission proposals and taken things on from Ministers to make amendments to the original where they were left in the Council of Ministers. proposal. You operate at all levels and throughout Most recently on the Investment Services Directive—which is eVectively a constitution for this you are trying to get a piece of legislation at the financial markets and determines how stockbrokers end which is as near as possible to what you wanted treat their clients, in trying to get a big single at the beginning. market—if it had not been for the changes in a Mr Kirkhope: Anti-lobbying mechanisms deployed liberal direction introduced by the Parliament I by the Commission—partly of course because they think this country would have had a very serious are not democratically elected—are much more problem. The common position actually agreed by eVective than the anti-lobbying provision that we ministers last December would have introduced very might think of. We are more vulnerable to lobbying; onerous requirements on stockbrokers which would we are more likely because we are democratically have substantially changed British practice. That elected as opposed to the Commission which is is one example. Another example was on the definitely not and does not need to listen to lobbying Prospectus Directive where now we only need on in the same way. prospectus to issue shares or bonds throughout the Mr Huhne: And we have less independent research 25 member states, one regulatory approval from the support. 9898931002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:45:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 56 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP

Q153 Ann CoVey: This idea of bringing MEPs and and having the chance to amend it. We are, with co- MPs together here to discuss and make some decision recently extended, now finally getting into connection with each other as a way forward—or at that position where people know that if it is least beginning a sort of basis of information—that European legislation then the MEPs will approve is not voting it would be in an informal setting, there of it or not as the case may be. That basic have been informal meetings already. Have any of understanding is gradually getting through. you participated in those informal meetings? If you have, do you think they have been successful? How Q157 Mr Tyler: I do not think our witnesses have do you think that compares with the MEPs who seen the note from the British Parliament have gone on to do a similar thing? representative in Brussels which I think is very Mr Huhne: I think it is a really good idea the MEPs interesting on the whole question of mandating and MPs should talk to each other as much as versus a document based system. I wonder if I could possible. I would really caution you against thinking ask if that document could be sent to our witnesses that this is a magic ingredient for solving our and we might have a written note about it because I problem; it is not. It is a very small added extra. The think it is very interesting. I have a couple of real issue to my mind is to move your scrutiny of practical questions now. At the moment how much ministers towards a Nordic model which actually of the work done in this building by the scrutiny holds ministers to account much more directly, it V process actually filters through to you? Do you have allows you to separate the wheat from the cha and any impact on it? Does it have any impact on you? actually allows you to get involved in the process Secondly, at what stage do you tend to see where the rather than, as at the moment, when you are UK Government has got to on a particular constantly surprised by the results of a legislative legislative process? process and not actually involved with it Dr Corbett: On the first thing I think we get more beforehand. from the House of Lords, much more. They also have more regular hearings with MEPs, by the way. Q154 Ann CoVey: The point I raised with you We get their documents very quickly. On your previously about people having a very clear idea second question, the Government, as soon as it has about what MPs are and what they do but not thoughts and a position, communicates it to all having such a clear idea of what members of the MEPs. It does that quite well. European Parliament do, in terms of helping people Mr Huhne: I entirely agree with what has just been in the country to understand what you do, those said about the House of Lords. I have come across sorts of informal discussions which might attract the House of Lords in terms of scrutiny; I have never attention and discussion and publicity, do you think come across the House of Commons in terms of that would help? scrutiny despite the fact that over the last five years Mr Kirkhope: It would help but we are stuck with a I have dealt with at least 12 pieces of EU legislation. system in terms of our election, in terms of the areas I find that rather worrying. On the government issue, that we represent. I represent five million people I think it is quite interesting that the British compared with MPs representing, say, 60,000. Government is actually relatively advanced compared with other member state governments in realising that if it loses a battle or it only wins half a Q155 Ann CoVey: Not personally. battle in the Council of Ministers who are Mr Kirkhope: I am one of the people; I do have a establishing a common position on a particular piece little bit of help occasionally! I have to say that it is of legislation, it can then open up a new front in the a mammoth thing to try to get a concept that I am a European Parliament. Therefore we often get representative of people from Northallerton and the members of UKREP—the UK Representation— Tees down to Derbyshire. The Government has coming round to rapporteurs or to British members changed all this and it is much more diYcult now. if there is not a British rapporteur and, indeed, MEPs are up against it also in the media. We do not ministers. In one particular case, the Investment obviously get as much attention except when there is Services Directive, the Treasury messed up big time some very strong story. and did not negotiate well at all with the result that the common position last December was very bad. Q156 Sir Nicholas Winterton: You need to have a We had a cabinet minister, Mr Boateng, actually word with Chris Davies. How he gets it and why he sitting at the back of my committee listening to the gets it I just cannot think. debate because he was worried about us pulling the Mr Kirkhope: I know there are exceptions in both chestnuts out of the fire for him. We did that and the MPs and MEPs. amendments which we got through were absolutely Dr Corbett: The ratio of MEPs to population of crucial so the British Government is, I think aware, course is diVerent but we are dealing with a smaller of the importance of using all means of influencing range of subjects so our postbags are probably about the outcome on legislation and that is a good thing. the same. In terms of public perception of our role, which I think is what you were getting at, I think we Q158 Sir Nicholas Winterton: How often do you are now moving to a situation where at least on one read the Hansards of our European Scrutiny fundamental idea that most people would think is Committee or the committees that consider the job of a parliament namely having the final say European legislation, European Committees A, B on saying “yes” or “no” to legislation being adopted and C in this House? How many of the people who 9898931002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:45:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 57

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP were in the European Parliament on the last Q165 Sir Nicholas Winterton: What do you perceive occasion on a regular basis read the Hansards of the to be the current eVective links between the UK Parliament? European Parliament and the Houses of Parliament Mr Kirkhope: I do. here, ie the Commons and the Lords, the UK Dr Corbett: The Lords. Parliament? Dr Corbett: My most frequent contact with MPs is through party channels, frankly. We also have a Q159 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Not the Commons? good link system with ministers because ministers Dr Corbett: Only occasionally; I have only received are dealing in the Council with the same matters that them occasionally. we are dealing with in the Parliament and we have obviously reached the conclusion that we need to talk and communicate and co-ordinate positions. Q160 Sir Nicholas Winterton: You can obtain them Mr Kirkhope: I think mine is probably through the any time because they are available. party as well in many ways. Mr Huhne: I would be delighted—I think it would be Mr Huhne: Mine is definitely through the party and very useful to establish a list of British MEPs dealing I think it depends very much on the MEPs. I make with particular dossiers—to be sent material from this point particularly about travelling via London the House and from the Lords relevant to that because being a south-east MEP it is relatively easy dossier in a timely manner. Nothing would make my to be here but that is not the case necessarily for life easier. That would be absolutely splendid. It has someone from Scotland or whatever. I make an not happened yet. eVort to participate in my party’s treasury team meetings every so often to update them on what is Q161 Mr Kidney: It has come out very clearly going on in EU legislation and vice versa on the that we should study, if we want to improve financial services area. I find that very useful; I hope our procedures, Denmark, Sweden, Finland— they find it useful. I think it does depend on personal everybody says especially Finland—but no others. relationships. Mr Kirkhope: It would be interesting to see what the new member states are putting in place. Q166 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Dr John Whittaker Dr Corbett: I must confess I do not know the answer obviously does not have any of his party members in to that. this House although he may well have a lot of sympathisers. How do you perceive the contacts between MEPs and the European Parliament? How Q162 Mr Kidney: I have only the slightest will you seek to work with this Parliament in seeking acquaintance with the procedures by which you to implement or to progress your agenda? conciliate and reach agreements. Dr Whittaker: Our agenda—if I may state it—is to Dr Corbett: I can recommend a very good book on take Britain out of the European Union altogether the European Parliament! in which case we would not be having this debate Mr Huhne: You might even get an author’s discount! at all.

Q163 Mr Kidney: In terms of your procedures, is Q167 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Bearing in mind we that because you are secretive in the way that you have the current situation, how would you seek to reach those agreements so that we cannot scrutinise advance your agenda on behalf of your party which what you are up to or is simply that we are not taking is the United Kingdom Independence Party? an interest in something that is perfectly open? Dr Whittaker: United Kingdom Independence Dr Corbett: All our sessions and committee meetings Party. I have told you what our ultimate objective is. of all committees are in public. The only parts of the Of course, we would be seeking to get members legislative procedure that the European Parliament elected to this House as well and when we were able is involved in which is not in public is when we meet to exert suYcient inﬂuence we would be pressing the the Council in the Conciliation Committee. As you cause I have already mentioned to you. I do not quite know, if we have not agreed the same text after two get the thrust of your question. readings it goes to a Conciliation Committee to negotiate a compromise. That compromise then has to be approved by both—in public in our case, in Q168 Sir Nicholas Winterton: How do you perceive, a public vote in Parliament. The Conciliation as a member of the European Parliament at this Committee, the negotiation of a compromise, is not time, to improve the contact between the European in public. Parliament so that members here are aware of what you and your party are seeking to do. We know your long term objective but there is quite a lot of time Q164 Mr Kidney: So we have plenty of opportunity between what is going on now and what you might to take an interest before you get to that stage seek to do in the future. How would you seek to anyway. work now within the European Parliament to Dr Corbett: Yes, and most legislation is agreed represent the interests of the people of this country within one or two readings and does not need and co-operate with the United Kingdom conciliation or a third reading. Parliament? 9898931002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:45:51 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 58 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

14 July 2004 Dr Richard Corbett MEP, Mr Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Mr Chris Huhne MEP and Dr John Whittaker MEP

Dr Whittaker: Our position in the European Q170 Chairman: I think you are allowed to use the Parliament, in my opinion, gives us the position to members’ dining room at lunchtimes but not at any fulfil the mandate for which we have all been elected, other time. Do any of your colleagues have any the 12 of us in the European Parliament now. I do views on this facility? not quite understand why you should see any Mr Huhne: I had not thought particularly about relevance in our agenda of this Parliament here eating, MEPs do pretty well on that front in both except to the extent that we would wish to have Brussels and Strasbourg. But I do think if one is members in it in good time. looking at the eVectiveness of UK parliamentarians in dealing with legislation which aVects us, then as I Q169 Chairman: There is one other issue which I say—you will excuse me for being rather repetitive— would be interested in your views on because there the research facilities in the European Parliament has been an issue about MEPs wanting greater are dire and if MEPs were actually able to use the access to facilities in Westminster. If so, which Commons library on some matters I think that facilities and given the time constraints which you would be very helpful. yourselves have raised—Chris has particularly Sir Nicholas Winterton: It occasionally takes identified—would anyone make any use of them? members of Parliament many days to get papers Mr Kirkhope: Obviously I am a former member as from the library because they are so overstretched well so it is slightly diVerent here, but in itself it is not here. a major issue but I think socialising. I know you have problems yourselves actually with your present MPs Q171 Chairman: That is another matter to discuss, not socialising any longer due to your change in I think. hours et cetera. I am just making a provocative Mr Huhne: I think in practical terms if you want statement there! I think there is nothing that you can British MEPs to be well briefed on legislation that do to help us and I think quite a lot of us actually do they are going to have to consider then I think come through London and keep in touch with this improving their access to research into British place but we would be very pleased to see anything interests is actually very useful. that could be done to improve the opportunities for socialising with MPs and colleagues here and Q172 Chairman: Specifically the British interest? therefore, for instance—it is a minor matter Mr Huhne: Yes. The Commons library does a very perhaps—but your dining and catering facilities and good job. things like that are certainly an area where perhaps Chairman: If there are any other issues that you, on one might explore a little bit further and even reflection, think you would like to drop us a line possibly some other facilities, not necessarily your about please feel free to do so. I just wanted to add library but something which goes on here which that I think from all our points of view this has been might be useful from the point of MEPs clarifying a very educative and constructive session. I am very the position of the British Parliament and what they grateful indeed that you found the time to be here, are doing. I think that is a small matter but it all has each one of you. You have certainly given us a lot of a sort of atmosphere about it, assuming that MPs food for thought in unscrambling this relationship. would be willing to agree to it. Thank you very much indeed for coming. 990708PAG1 Page Type [SO] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 59

Wednesday 8 September 2004

Members present:

Mr Peter Hain, in the Chair

Barbara Follett Mr Martin Salter Mr Oliver Heald Mr Richard Shepherd Martin Linton Mr Andrew Stunell Mr Patrick McLoughlin Mr Paul Tyler Mr Peter Pike Sir Nicholas Winterton Joan Ruddock

Submission from Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP I read with interest the Government’s suggestions for changes to the procedure for scrutinising European matters (HC 508) and the Chairman of the Liaison Committee’s letter to you of 10 May. There is no automatic connection between greater Parliamentary engagement with the EU and bringing the EU closer to the citizen (paragraph 3 of the memorandum). Our current inquiry into European Community competence and transport has attracted far fewer memoranda than normal and there has been negligible media coverage of the evidence sessions. It is important that a Select Committee has a broad understanding of what is happening in Europe on matters which its Department handles. However, I do not believe that there is enough to be gained from the systematic involvement of Select Committees in the document-based European scrutiny system to make it worthwhile. As Alan Williams pointed out in his letter, without additional staV resources, this would be at the expense of Select Committees’ existing functions. It would impact particularly on the short inquiries we in the Transport Committee have been trying to promote this session. The Transport Committee already spends a significant amount of time on European matters. We are currently inquiring specifically into European Community competence, but many of our other inquiries include European issues. For example, our inquiry into aviation examined the EU-USair service negotiations as well as European regimes governing Public Service Obligations for flights from peripheral areas and slot allocation at airports. Decisions in the Council of Ministers are increasingly taken by qualified majority. The use of co-decision means the council has to reach a compromise on legislation with the European Parliament. It seems to me that the UK is decreasingly likely to have the swing vote in a Council of 25, and that Ministers will continue to retain a comparatively wide margin within which they can over-ride the scrutiny reserve. The speed and unpredictability of negotiations mean Parliament cannot always be kept suYciently informed about developments in Brussels and Strasbourg in a way which allows it to give a detailed, reasoned and realistic view of the Government’s position. However, we already take an overview of European documents: reports of the European Scrutiny Committee and associated papers are automatically circulated to our staV where they relate to transport. The staV determine whether the Government position is one they believe the Committee would find reasonable. If they have concerns, they brief the Committee. If they have reasonable notice of a debate in European Standing Committees, they alert Committee members. DiYculties can arise when debates occur at short notice: the debate on Galileo on 7 June is an example. Individual European matters need to be brought to the attention of relevant Select Committees adequately, then each Select Committee needs to be free to determine its own degree of interest. It is not clear what output the Government envisages from any Select Committee involvement in scrutiny of European documents. I have no doubt that we could be briefed, take evidence and report at speed. However, a report to inform proceedings in the House would not add much to the excellent work already undertaken by the European Scrutiny Committee. Having the debate in a Select Committee rather than a European Standing Committee would also exclude interested Members who did not happen to be members of the Committee. If the Select Committee had the power to discharge the reserve, there must be a danger of party involvement in Select Committees. The genuine cross-party consensus that Select Committee inquiries bring is extremely valuable; the alleged benefits of involving Select Committees in debates on the scrutiny reserve are not enough to justify jeopardising it. We therefore need to look for new ways to supplement the European Scrutiny Committee’s work, not move it around. Select Committees can add value by maintaining an overview of the cumulative eVect of European legislation in a particular policy area, and the way that this co-exists with domestic legislation. This does not need to be a centralised and systematic process; it varies with the role of the EU in diVerent policy areas. 9907081001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 60 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Select Committees are well-placed to follow the grand trends in European sectoral policies, and this is already reﬂected in our work on Commission green and white papers, and the integration of the examination of EU initiatives into our normal work. We would very much welcome the opportunity to discuss matters with Commissioners and Commission oYcials. These discussions are vital to explore the big picture and piece together the individual pieces of legislation. However, the professed willingness of the Commission to meet national parliamentarians does not always seem to transfer into practice: with UKRep’s help we have been trying to see the Vice-President of the Commission since last year, without success. It also seems likely that we will be denied the speciﬁc access we have requested to senior Commission oYcials. We shall see whether changes of Commissioners and the increase in their number eases this situation. UKRep is very helpful to us because its staV can often open doors which otherwise remain closed. However, we can only increase our involvement with EU oYcials and Commissioners if UKRep have suYcient resources to assist us. I would certainly expect any Government-organised appearances of Commissioners before a European Grand Committee (paragraph 10 of the memorandum) to supplement, not replace, their discussions with Select Committees. June 2004

Submission from Rt Hon Michael Jack MP In general, I agree with the overall finding that the House needs to improve the way Westminster Members engage with Europe. However desirable this is, I would be the first to recognise that not all colleagues would share in such an objective. For some, who are already involved in Select Committee work where European matters are involved, they will already have the opportunity, where necessary to engage in detailed dialogue with the Commission and other European Politicians on matters which are relevant to their Committee’s particular inquiry. As you know I am presently the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Select Committee and we do try, once every six months, to visit the Commission for an update on activities relevant to our area. It is during these visits that you realise there is one key area of European activity that appears to be missing entirely from the document you produced. As you will be aware, a great deal of European legislation is initially the subject of early forms of consultation by means of Commission generated papers. The principle problem about our Parliament’s involvement in the Scrutiny of forthcoming “European Attractions” is the fact we are involved far too late in the process. When the Commission consult on ideas this is usually upstream of even the Council of Ministers becoming involved. So at this stage in the process it is possible to have a great deal more influence over the shaping of the ideas of European policy than when they have been subject to Council discussions. I do believe that in your proposals you should look at opportunities to enable Parliamentarians to contribute to European Consultation Exercises. In that context, it would be helpful if either Ministers or Senior Civil Servants who are involved in their department’s European work could provide briefing sessions for Members to alert them to new proposals from the Commission whilst at the same time advising them of the implications of the proposals that are coming forward. One of the problems, which again the paper does not address, is the fact that our Parliamentary Scrutiny processes are geared to the requirement by the Council of Ministers that National Parliament remove their scrutiny reserve before a Minister signifies either agreement or disagreement with a Commission proposal. This Government and its predecessors have not been minded to hold simultaneous discussions with Parliament and fellow European Ministers in order to reflect the will of the House as they negotiate on behalf of Britain on particular matters. Each Government has therefore decided its position on a European issue and has therefore eVectively had that stance rubber-stamped by using existing Parliamentary Scrutiny processes. The present Government would have to decide whether it was prepared to debate in such a way that the House could put forward amendments to Britain’s negotiating position to which Ministers would have to respond prior to going to Council and representing the Country’s interests on a particular matter. At the commencement of the document you ask for views on the subject of whether we should have some form of Grand Committee Arrangement Meeting on a quarterly basis which would give all members of the House an opportunity to engage in European issues. There is merit in pursuing this line of thinking but if it is to work then some way would have to be found to lessen the competition it would face from for example, either business in the Chamber or Westminster Hall. Perhaps, in the context of modernising the House’s procedures, thought could be given to once a quarter having a so-called “Committee Day” where this and other activities not involving the whole House could be run so ensuring better attendance in the light of there being no main business on that occasion in the Chamber. Your document refers to the current Debates on the Floor of the House based on the Foreign Secretary’s European White Paper. In this context might I suggest that it would be useful on a monthly basis to produce some form of European Newsletter where the Foreign OYce could, with the help of other Departments, 9907081002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 61

produce a summary of the key activities that were being pursued by the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. Like our own House, Europe generates a large number of measure about which we know very little simply because they are not in the area of special interest of all Members. The House might also consider holding a “Euro-Day” once a quarter, where a large range of topics could be put to Ministers for questioning. If this were done then the need for a Debate on the Floor of the House would be negated. Such a proposal could incorporate the proposal to have a cross-cutting Question and Answer session on European issues. Might I also ask that consideration be given to developing some form of large scale video conferencing link where Members could come along and put their points directly to the Commission without always having the need to travel to Brussels. The document goes on to debate the more detailed European Scrutiny System. Unless the timetable for these events is modiﬁed, so Ministers can be quizzed well before positions have been agreed in the Council of Ministers, this process has little relevance. Too often it is the case that the scrutiny takes place too late to have any real eVect on the British Government’s negotiating stance on a particular issue. In this context there is also a need to consider better and clearer documentation. For those who do not deal with Directives and Regulations every day of the week, they can be daunting documents. Not everyone understands “Euro- speak”. We have a much better idea of how our own legislation is written and we do not always know the meaning of the language used in European documentation. Our present system of explanatory memoranda is, to say the least, limited in giving Members an insight in to what the EU legislation means. Even the work of our European Scrutiny Committee does not provide a complete and intelligible overview of the implications to the United Kingdom of a particular proposal. What we need is clearer documentation to inform the process of Scrutiny. Towards the end of the document there is a suggestion that some Scrutiny business should be sub- contracted to Select Committees. I discussed this matter with my own Committee and they were universally against this proposal. We would rather be involved in European matters on an “as of need” basis rather than part of our Scrutiny duties. In a Committee like Environment, Food and Rural AVairs, we already have a very heavy workload to ensure a proper balance of Scrutiny across the wide-ranging areas of responsibility of the Department. Finally, I think there may well be a need to expand the role of UKREP in helping to arrange Members’ visits to the Commission, etc, in order to help those who wish to do their own individual work in preparing for Parliament’s enhanced Scrutiny Process. In that context I strongly support the proposal to provide colleagues with language facilities. So far in the representations I have made to the Foreign OYce on this matter the suggestion is that Members would have to pay for this type of tuition. If we really are to engage in terms of Europe then it is important that Parliament does all it can to encourage Members to fully involve themselves in this very important area. May 2004

Witnesses: Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, a Member of the House, Chairman, Transport Committee and Rt Hon Michael Jack, a Member of the House, Chairman, Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Committee, examined.

Q173 Chairman: Thank you both very much for All that preliminary work is very often done only coming and also for your very interesting written within the very broad lines of policy. Therefore evidence which we are grateful for. You will find ministers who arrive will very frequently be that the style of this Committee is perhaps a little presented with agendas at the last minute which more informal than you might approve of, but it is they have not had proper time to study and even up to you as to how you respond and the more frequently they will be required to take terminology you use. What I would be grateful decisions and negotiate on a fairly broad front for—perhaps beginning with you, Gwyneth, if you without having the time to go back and negotiate, do not mind—is if you could summarise what you for example, with a select committee. When you really see as the purpose of your committees in put that into context and you look at the way that European scrutiny and the overall strengths and this House organises its work, you then begin to weaknesses from a select committee point of view realise there are a number of diYculties. We, as a and what could help you to do the job better. select committee—as I hope I have made clear to Mrs Dunwoody: I think it is important to realise you—do look very closely at European subjects. that the institutions in the European set-up are, of Indeed, because so much of it impinges on what we course, completely diVerently organised from our do, we frequently pick up instances which do not own. I was four and a half years in European appear to have been looked at in very much detail institutions and I learned very quickly that anywhere else. We have just finished an negotiation will go on very specifically at the examination of European aviation negotiations Council of Ministers but also much more eVectively which mean that for the first time commercial at Coreper which is the one where the negotiations of our aviation interests will be left to representatives of the various civil servants meet. a European institution which certainly does not 9907081003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 62 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP appear to be adequately staVed—but that is a guidance to select committees to help them to matter for them—and will be negotiating on look right the way across their ministerial completely diVerent terms than any that have been responsibilities during the Parliamentary year. used before in this country when it was negotiating They have already had to ask very specifically for bilateral agreements. If you had two nations who extra assistance because those of you who are select negotiate an aviation treaty which is in their own committee chairmen will know how very stretched commercial, political and economic interests, it is the staV are and, even with the extra assistance, to very diVerent from an institution which is supposed unload a responsibility like looking at the extra to be negotiating an aviation commercial legislation without it being something which the agreement which is in the interests of 25 nations. committee itself has chosen as being relevant to the When we looked very closely at what the European work they are already doing, it seems to me would institutions were doing we soon came up with a add an enormous extra burden. number of very important and diYcult questions. What we do in the select committee is, in a sense, Q176 Sir Nicholas Winterton: If the select a thematic approach. We decide where the subjects V committees do not do it, Gwyneth, who does it? that we have decided to look at are being a ected Who can do it impartially on behalf of Parliament by European institutions; we will look at the impact in the UK? of the European legislation and the European Mrs Dunwoody: I have to say to you that if institutions. I was interested to see that you select committees, for example, undertook this suggested that the commissioners should appear responsibility one immediate eVect would be to cut before the select committees. That would be nice if out two thirds of the Parliament. At the present one could arrange it. We have been trying for some time, if I wish, I can go along and take part in very considerable time to get a commissioner for European Scrutiny. I cannot vote but I can go transport to appear. When the lady in question along to the European Scrutiny Committee and ask seemed to be rather occupied with politics questions. elsewhere in Europe—as is natural for politicians, I make no criticism—we then said that we would be quite happy to have the senior civil servants of Q177 Chairman: Standing committee. her transport cabinet and even with the very Mrs Dunwoody: Yes. I am afraid I am so old; when considerable muscle of the UK Representative we I joined them they were called European Scrutiny. were unable to obtain that. It is a real power; you have the ability to go along. I can give you an instance: one of the hazards we face as a select committee is that we are not given Q174 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Why? suYcient notice of what is happening and we Mrs Dunwoody: We were not given a reason; we suddenly discover, for example, that there was a were just not given dates. As you can imagine, Sir meeting concerning Galileo. Nicholas, I am not in the habit of being refused by gentlemen for any length of time. Q178 Mr Pike: I chaired the committee. Mrs Dunwoody: Of course you did, Mr Pike, and Q175 Mr McLoughlin: You said it was a lady. extraordinarily well and with great tact as is always Mrs Dunwoody: The gentlemen were the civil the case. However, the reality was that we were servants. Like all ladies she frequently surrounded given very short notice that this actually had to be herself by gentlemen. In this particular instance we examined. I am sure Mr Pike himself had only just have been trying for well over eight months, been told. I went along; no other member of my perhaps nine, to get anyone to come and talk to us committee was able to get there because of the who was senior enough to give us evidence. That shortness of the notice and I took part in that does rather indicate to me that what we might get debate. If that had been referred as a very specific if we were to suggest that European commissioners piece of legislation to my committee everyone else came to give evidence would be a series of would have been excluded and would not have been rather elaborate and staged appearances by able to ask questions nor take any cognisance of commissioners who, after all, do not regard what the minister said. Indeed, if we came out with themselves as answerable to national governments; a report, that report would go through the normal there is no reason why they should. They are not select committee procedures, there would still be six answerable to national governments nor is the weeks for the Government to answer it and then Commission. Therefore I am not at all sure what we would have to get in the queue to get it debated the function of these sessions would be. Are we to on the floor of the house. It is not a rapid way. It take it that if they were given instructions by a does not improve the quality of scrutiny, it actually select committee they would then take a diVerent puts it back. attitude? I think that is interesting and it can really only wait to be seen, but it seems extraordinarily unlikely. I also have real reservations about Q179 Mr Shepherd: Can it aVect the outcome? unloading even more European Union work on Mrs Dunwoody: I am sorry to tell you, Mr select committees. At the moment the members of Shepherd, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that the select committees choose their own it will aVect the outcome. If that were the case, programmes; they look at every aspect over the believe me I would be number one in the queue to year. As you know the Liaison Committee gave get all of this legislation referred to my committee 9907081003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 63

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP but then frankly the select committee would be their conveyor belt in terms of policy. In that sense doing something totally diVerent because there is the work that we undertake in scrutinising the an enormous bulk of regulations. United Kingdom Government’s activity in this field will be informed by a fair bit of pre-knowledge, Q180 Mr Shepherd: How should it be done, having acquired it by going and talking to the Gwyneth? Commission, talking to UKRep and talking to V Mrs Dunwoody: I think inevitably it has to be done others in Brussels. That is di erent, in my by the bulk of Parliament; it cannot be done by judgment, to the question of scrutiny, and I think being hived oV to a committee. It must be done on that is where Mr Heald’s question is relevant. In a the floor of the House. One of the sad things for way you have to decide what it is you want to fix. me—and I hesitate to say this with Mr Pike here Our scrutiny process, as I understand it, is born out because he is such a hard working member—was of the fact that ministers require for the processes that I was a bit disheartened by the behaviour of of decision making in Europe to have a some of the members of that committee who simply parliamentary decision one way or the other on sat and did not ask questions because they particular policy at a particular time. That process obviously had not had the time to brief themselves is usually towards the middle or the end of the and did not know what it was all about. That process of negotiating in the Council of Ministers meant that the conclusion that was reached was not to come to a conclusion on a matter. As far as this one that was going to aVect anything. Had, House is concerned, having any real influence on however, a very simple change been made, had it those matters, in terms of the outline of policy the been possible for that committee to amend what influence is pretty well zero. If it is a question of was before them and get a vote on the floor of the trying to put some steel in the back of a minister to House, then I think the attitude of members would fight for a particular issue—for example over food have been remarkably diVerent and the result supplements, I do not think there is anyone in this would have been diVerent. Then, Mr Shepherd, I room who did not have a vast amount of postcard think possibly we would have had some eVect. representations and those who went through our scrutiny process were able to say to the minister, “You go and fight for all these people who are Q181 Mr Heald: Can I just come in on that and writing postcards” and that enabled us all to write perhaps ask Michael what he thinks. The Liaison back to them and say, “I told the minister what he Committee have suggested giving a power to table (or she, in this case) ought to be doing”—in that a motion which can be considered by the European way we were able to stiVen the resolve of the Standing Committee so that it would not just be Government but we were not able to influence the the Government motion, it would also be an formulation of the policy that gave rise to the alternative motion. First of all, do you think that concerns of people writing the postcards. I think is a good idea and, secondly, we have the European that one of the fundamental decisions the House Scrutiny Committee sifting away and identifying has to take is: Does it really want ministers and the some documents for debate. Is there not a case, once they have done that, for saying that they have select committees and what other mechanisms you identified this document, there should be some may decide are appropriate for the scrutiny of witnesses, there should be some evidence taken by European legislation to interact as ideas are somebody to get at the inside story on the developed? From our Parliament’s point of view we document concerned. get involved far too far downstream. If we are Mr Jack: Can I say, Mr Chairman, by way of going to have an influence on policy we have to be responding to the first question you asked and the involved upstream and therefore the decisions to be one that Mr Heald has subsequently put, that I made are what are the mechanisms and what are think it is very important that a distinction is drawn the resources required to improve our engagement? between influencing the development of policy and My final observation is this (and it refers back to the carrying out of an exercise of scrutiny once something Mrs Dunwoody said about the time and policy has been agreed. I see them as linked but the resources of the committee): inevitably you very distinctive roles. If I take the work that the have to have a filtering process as to what you are Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Select going to be involved in. There is just so much Committee does, sometimes on our twice yearly potential material that you could get stuck in on. visits to Brussels we are able to get suYciently We need to decide how we deal with that because upstream of thinking to be able to say to ourselves, the scarcest commodity is time. Looking at the way “Should we be undertaking some work in that our select committee works, we have a main particular fields?” For example, we recently went committee always in session and up to two sub- and learned about perspectives on waste and committees working, but then to say to members recycling and various issues connected with that that in addition to that we want you to perform a subject. This was ahead of us carrying out a downstream scrutiny role—diYcult to incorporate scrutiny as to how we are doing in terms of our into an already busy programme—and then we own policy activity within the United Kingdom. want you to go upstream, we want you to go to What we learned in Brussels was very useful by way UKRep, we want you to go to the Commission, we of briefing and giving background to the most up- want you to go to the Parliament, we want you to to-date thinking within the Commission on this find out what is happening in the ideas formulation subject and to get ahead of what is coming down stage, that is a big draw on time. It can be done, 9907081003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 64 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP but it may require the select committees to influenced by what the sub-committee would say? reconfigure the way that they operate. It might, for Are departments going to be willing to share with example, require us to have a European rapporteur the select committees what is going on? It is not just who would go individually to make these enquiries a question of what the minister is up to in the and report back to the main committee and so Council of Ministers, but what his oYcials are up inform the committee about its work programme. to in the management committees and what is happening, if you like, upstream which UKRep Q182 Chairman: Would that be an extra post? would be aware of. Again, there is a limit to how Mr Jack: It would be within the number but you much intelligence gathering a select committee and would have to re-designate somebody’s task to do its staV could do if it were to engage in that kind that. My concern is that most colleagues’ focus is of process. If scrutiny is about ticking the boxes so domestic. that when the minister and the Council says, “Yes, I can now lift my scrutiny reserve; my Parliament Q183 Chairman: A member of Parliament you has looked at it” that is one thing. However, if mean? ministers want to have more interaction with the Mr Jack: Yes, a member of the committee who United Kingdom Parliament over the development may have to take on a particular responsibility in of the United Kingdom Government’s position in the context of maintaining contact and finding out terms of new European legislation, then our select what is going on upstream in terms of Europe to committee process would assist that but we have to help guide the rest of the committee. There are be equipped to get upstream in a way that we are ways and means of doing it, but there is only so not at the moment. much time and only so many people. Mrs Dunwoody: I must make it quite clear, this is outwith the select committee system altogether; it had nothing to do with the select committee. Q184 Chairman: Do you mean a sub-committee of the main committee with a specific focus? Mrs Dunwoody: It still has to be serviced; you still Q186 Mr Pike: Gwyneth, obviously I cannot have to have clerks doing the work. Without being comment on the committee that dealt with Galileo immodest, we do an enormous number of reports because I have to be an independent chair, but on on my committee and the clerks on my committee the point that you made about amendments you are really very, very heavily stretched, even with all will know that committees can actually amend but the extra assistance. If I were to add to that more the problem is that those amendments are not work—after all this is extremely detailed work, this actually reported to the House. Is this not an issue is not something that can be done on the basis of that was discussed as long ago as under the reading two lines ahead—I think you would find chairmanship of Sir Peter Emery when he was that you were really putting enormous pressure on chairman of the Procedure Committee? Is it not the select committee staV and also, of course, that that makes the whole procedure a nonsense: limiting what they could do because they would not that whatever is tabled as the original motion is the be choosing this; you would be telling them what motion reported to the House whatever the they had to do. Twenty years ago the socialist committee does? group on the European Parliament suggested to Mrs Dunwoody: You are not only absolutely this Parliament—it consisted then of one or two correct but it was a good idea, it was a workable unknown people like the present deputy prime idea and it would transform the work of the minister, myself and one or two others—that we Scrutiny Committee because people would feel that should follow the Scandinavian pattern where a they were actually doing some good. They would very small number of people representing each look in detail at the policy, they would be able to political party were almost perpetually in session table a resolution and they would know that it was and their responsibility was to know what ministers going to be voted upon. At the moment they simply were doing and what ministers were following as a know that they are going to sit there, it is all going line of policy and have the right, if needs be, to be to roll in front of them and they are not going to consulted by telephone or any other means at very have any impact even if they think it is an short notice. It needed to be a very tiny, a very tight astonishingly bad and ineVective policy. group because the bigger the committee became the more unwieldy it was and, of course, the less Q187 Mr Shepherd: Even if it had a vote in the influence it had. It depends on what you want the House of Commons no British government has committee to do really. overturned any arrangement entered into with the European Union, so what is the point? Q185 Chairman: Michael? Mrs Dunwoody: I have the old-fashioned idea, Mr Mr Jack: We certainly could have it but again I Shepherd, that Parliament actually matters and think we need to examine role and purpose. If we that it may go on screaming into the wind about decided to have a permanent group of people—a European institutions for many years, but select committee sub-committee—who would look eventually there will come a government which has at that, then we have to decide whether they are suYcient intelligence to realise that to be really going to be able to add some value to the representative of the United Kingdom you must process. In other words, are ministers going to be take notice of what its elected members say in willing to engage and to come and discuss and be Parliament. 9907081003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 65

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP

Q188 Barbara Follett: Gwyneth and Michael, you very diYcult aspects of involving a select both mention in your written evidence the role of committee. I think the proposal that Michael puts the European Scrutiny Committee and we would that you have a rapporteur or a small number from like to know to what extent its work informs and the select committee is an appropriate way of helps your committees to decide when or whether getting the work done. However, as Gwyneth says, to conduct an investigation and what steps you it is going to mean that there has to be increased think could be taken to make the European staYng. Given that those are big questions, given Scrutiny Committee’s work more eVective? that this Committee has the power to put Mr Jack: In simple terms, the European Scrutiny proposals, do you think now that this is the way Committee does not have any influence at all in that we have to go because you have both determining what our select committee does in acknowledged that the way we have at the moment looking at Europe. I think visiting the Commission is not working and is not actually delivering the and basically keeping an eye on what is happening goods? determines our priorities in those particular areas Mr Jack: I come back to my very simple far more than either the European Committee of proposition: what does the House want to the House of Standing Committees A, B and C. influence? I think members of Parliament would Mrs Dunwoody: I would agree absolutely with that. like to have some influence on the development of They do not know what is coming up. We more policy before it gets cast in concrete in the form of often know from our internal contacts what a regulation or a directive which is then the subject subjects are going to come up and they come from of the Council of Ministers’ decision. As the the people who are directly commercially aVected. chairman will appreciate—and other colleagues If you are an airline trying to set up a new flight who have been ministers in Europe—whilst there is between London and Pakistan or London and a certain amount of discussion about the guts of Singapore and you are told that this is going to be regulations and directives, once the policy direction put back because the Commission has not had the has been agreed it is seldom the case that a directive time to do the negotiation, you are going to be does not ultimately, in some form or another, get quite vocal in your contacts with someone like the to the end of the process. I am interested in us Select Committee on Transport, but the ESC will having some influence—as we might do, for not know. example, through the House’s pre-legislative scrutiny process which select committees are Q189 Chairman: The European Scrutiny involved in—in helping to shape what the final Committee does actually have documents at early form of the legislation is, then I agree very much stages, including green papers and consultative with Ms Ruddock’s contention that we need to be documents, so it does track it through its diVerent in earlier and we need to engage with European stages. They do not just have the downstream end oYcials, with commissioners, with ministers as they of things. discuss the ideas whilst they are still malleable Mrs Dunwoody: We were being asked what eVect enough to be changed. There may well be a role to did it have on us. My clerks are very, very comment on the final version and there may well conscientious about trying to check anything that be a third role which is Parliament putting a tick in is likely to aVect us in Transport right the way the box to deal with the mechanics of the scrutiny across the board and this committee is one that we process. I happen to think that it is a pretty sterile check all the time but frankly I would be lying if I activity in Standing Committees A, B and C said it had an eVect. because I have been both a giver and a taker of information from those and what I realise is that Q190 Joan Ruddock: It seems to me that both of it is a very testing experience for the minister of the you are saying that the people who are most likely day (Mrs Dunwoody used to give me an extremely to have the expertise and the interest in these hard time when I had to ask her questions) but as matters are to be found in the membership of the long as you have done your homework you can select committees. Therefore, despite the fact that answer the questions for an hour and you can deal V most chairs of the select committees are saying they with the debate and then, e ectively, that is it. On are overworked, their members and clerks are some contentious things sometimes you have to overworked, if we really want to get to grips with come back and have a second go, but the idea that this I believe we have to find some way whereby it somehow you are influencing the British is the select committee membership which becomes Government position, the stance the minister takes, directly involved—or more directly involved—in the words that will be uttered in the Council of this system. If you do agree with that, it is possible Ministers, forget it; the die is cast. My vote goes to increase the numbers as this committee proposed for hammering out what we can do upstream. Who of those who are on select committees. Gwyneth knows where it might lead because the one dynamic made the point that people throughout the House that we have not discussed is whether in fact would be excluded if it were only select committee national parliamentary committees should be members but that is only because we do not do talking to parallel bodies in other parliaments. I do what many other parliaments do which is to put all not want to parallel the European Parliament, but our members on a select committee. It seems to me we do not actually think too much about what that the only way that we are likely to really get to other member states do. I will give you one grips with this problem is by tackling these very, instance, just to conclude. We had a very 9907081003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 66 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP interesting short inquiry on the diYculties the some of the problems you try to deal with United Kingdom faced in the disposal of old downstream will not occur because a select refrigerators. It was very interesting when you committee deals with the practical. It deals with discovered what other member states had done. taking evidence and scrutiny from people who have They had been much farther down the road in knowledge about a subject and you hope that in having all the mechanics put in place to deal with some way you can then inform the ministers and the recycling of old fridges and had we known all oYcials who are negotiating that there are certain this was going on and also been able to say to the things that they ought to be taking into account. Bundestag equivalent committee, “What are you You say there is no cross-fertilisation—and I go doing about this? What is happening in Germany back to what I said before—by the time Parliament about it?” “Oh well, we have all these specialist in its current circumstances of Standing plants.” “We don’t have those in Britain, let’s Committees A, B and C gets to deal with it you incorporate that in a report that says to the British may well have an awful lot of information and in Government that it is going to have to learn to fairness the European Scrutiny Committee itself in recycle fridges in a more sophisticated way, here are its own report guiding Standing Committees A, B some things to think about.” Our Parliament got and C as to areas of weakness or concern, you have in right at the end of this process when the fridges a lot of that information available as a member of were piling up in mountains and we discovered that those committees but as to your ability to influence for two years the British Government had been what is happening, it is too late in the day because arguing about a technicality as to whether this you are but one of 25 other people who are going regulation applied to the gas or the foam (the CFC to be chipping in views as a national Parliament to material inside), whereas we, as practical the hapless minister who has then got to try and politicians, had we become involved in this matter remember what the House said and what is his earlier we might have been able to ask some of the position with the Government and then he has to practical questions that could have avoided the go and negotiate in the Council of Ministers and mess that subsequently ensued. which alliance is he in to get this result. It is a very Mrs Dunwoody: One of the other practical complicated process and our Parliament at that questions in that instance was that this country had stage is a bit of bit-player when it comes to a commercial market in exporting used fridges, influencing the kind of detail. All you can try to do whereas Germany had none. Their situation was is to stiVen the resolve of the minister. If you, as a manifestly diVerent, but it was of no interest to parliamentarian, have sensed that there is a them whatsoever that we were unable to reach real problem—representative bodies have made agreement. representations to you, people have written to you—you can communicate the strength of public Q191 Mr Tyler: I wanted to tease out what Michael opinion to the minister, but the ability of the said earlier but I think the examples from both of minister to then shift the position and go and alter you are giving us even more encouragement to go does very much depend on where in the Council of down this route. What I think you were Ministers’ process the particular item of legislation V encouraging us to think was that there was a real is. There may be some e ect, but my view is that V case for diVerentiating the upstream and the the e ect is limited in the latter point. Gold plating downstream and if the select committees were given comes back to, first of all, the upstream influence, early warning of a responsibility more explicitly but also when you are then discussing with UK and given the resources to do it, that they should ministers the implementation. For example, we not duplicate the work of the downstream scrutiny. have been carrying out some work on the most This was a better way of diVerentiating between the fundamental piece of legislation in the field of water two, but there are questions that arise from that. I that will aVect Britain over the next 20 years, the think there is a logic to that, a rather diYcult logic Water Framework Directive. This is an interesting to argue against, and I think that is a better way in piece of legislation in that the policy has trying to avoid duplication, problems of members been decided but unusually for Europe the having enough time to do everything than perhaps implementation has been very much left to member other routes. However, I think there are two states. Therefore there, the select committee—as we diYculties that arise out of that. One is that you have done—can have an influence on how matters must have cross-fertilisation from one to the other are brought into eVect in the United Kingdom. In and I do not think that happens at the moment. I those circumstances if the design of the regulation do not think the select committees are able to or the directive gives more flexibility to the member identify in advance potential problems with the state, then a select committee does have a role in downstream detail. Secondly, there is the problem talking to ministers about practical implementation of gold plating which I think probably select and hopefully avoiding some of the worst examples committees are more likely to be alive and alert to gold plating. because they are earlier in the process and therefore Mrs Dunwoody: We cannot have bigger select can educate the latter end of the process. How committees; we have done that. When we had a would you deal with those two problems? select committee of 17 it meant there was diYculty Mr Jack: I think your acknowledgement of the for the chairman in getting everybody in; you do diVerentiation makes it easier to deal with in the not get focussed questioning; you do not work sense that if you get in upstream you hope that together in the way you do in a smaller group and 9907081003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 67

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP if you keep splitting people into sub-committees Q193 Mr McLoughlin: I am interested in that you do actually remove from all the committee answer because I wondered whether it was the fact members the same responsibility. You will discover that Europe is now doing a lot more than it was from the remarks of the Liaison Committee doing before it was a directly elected Parliament. Of generally that we very specifically limited the course, each select committee can appoint special numbers of select committees because of the advisers. Do you think there would be any role at practical implications. I do think you also must be all to appointing various MEP’s to take a specific very well aware that all of these things, if they are interest in the select committee’s region, to be an unloaded on a select committee, are limiting the adviser for the select committee for a particular work of the select committee. At the moment the period to warn the select committee what is going select committee itself chooses what it wants to on in Europe at all? look at; it is not restrained by what the executive Mrs Dunwoody: I see no reason why outside this wants it to do. The executive would like it to have building people cannot keep in close contact with a great deal of work scrutinising existing legislation those who have other functions, but frankly you and one of our functions is to be able to ask the are going to get into a very odd constitutional awkward questions a lot of people do not want situation if you are bringing people who are not asked. I can assure you there is quite enough elected to this Parliament in here. European regulation for us to keep going without ever doing any work that we want to do. I can also Q194 Mr McLoughlin: I said as advisers, like you say to you that the system of rapporteur—I have special advisers at the moment on specific suVered this for four and a half years—is an issues. excellent system if you never, ever want to do Mrs Dunwoody: All I can say is that we have just anything. I was brought up by a Welshman who done a number of things which have direct EU said, “If you really never want to reach any involvement. We have received less evidence on conclusion you appoint the largest committee that these subjects than on any other. The Press have you can find and, if you are really clever, you will totally ignored the result and, as far as I can see, never let them meet.” I think that we should be we have had very little success with making them quite clear that if we have a system of rapporteur, either public or making them clearer for people to as long as you can keep the membership of the take an interest in. I am afraid the appointment committee changing, the rapporteur is always going of a well-meaning person from some other to be faced with a diVerent group of people who establishment might not necessarily bring that great changes his or her text from meeting to meeting so in-rush of information. We have as much you achieve astonishingly little. It is a continental information as we need. The clerks at the present import which we can well do without. time check all the time for the legislation that is Mr Jack: Can I just put on record that we have going through that aVects us. used that mechanism twice in our own committee and on our report on Horticultural Research Q195 Mr Salter: Michael, you had some fairly International and London’s Wholesale Markets, if critical words to say about the eVective functioning you read the Government reply I think you will of standing committees which, as it happens, I actually find the Government moved towards the share. Gwyneth has pointed out that select results of our focussed and limited inquiry, so it committees are already overloaded and if they were does actually have some eVect. to adopt this function there is a danger that the Mrs Dunwoody: I have no doubt that the primary function of select committees could be Government would approve of the system; it was undermined. Do you think standing committees in not the Government for whom I was speaking. our Parliament ever work in terms of holding ministers to account or influencing policy? Mr Jack: In the sense holding them to account, if Q192 Mr McLoughlin: Gwyneth, do you think that you go back to what was there before which were Parliament was better informed about European the bizarre late night debates in the Chamber, we matters before we had a directly elected European used to have the absurd situation where Parliament Parliament? was asked to remove a scrutiny reserve by agreeing Mrs Dunwoody: Now that would be prejudiced; I to a particular European motion sometimes after could not possibly say that that was the case even the whole thing had been agreed by the Council of though it manifestly was. I think what you do have Ministers. That was a farce. I think the present to be well aware of is the fact that if we are not situation is better in that there is some public awfully careful we will find ourselves loading on scrutiny of the position and the reasons taken by exactly the things that the European institutions the United Kingdom Government on particular do. You create bigger and bigger machinery; you policy issues. However if we, as parliamentarians, spend more and more time looking at less and less are saying, “Can we have an influence over what of importance and at the end of it you have our minister does in the Council of Ministers?” we virtually no impact on the final conclusion. If we may have a marginal eVect particularly if there is are going to treat this seriously it has to be done still quite a lot of discussion to be done and the in a way that Parliament itself can look at and it scrutiny process takes place at some point between cannot be hived oV onto the select committee which the beginning and the end of the Council of would actually limit the degree of involvement. Ministers’ considerations. It does enable a minister 9907081003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 68 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP to put on record the United Kingdom the floor of the House and the rest of our Government’s position in more detail about a consideration of Europe is swept away slightly out particular subject and in that context if scrutiny is of public view. I think Parliament has to decide about finding out about what is going on then the whether it is going to apportion more of its scarce current process is better than the one that was there time in a rather more public way to European before. However, if scrutiny is about holding the matters, thus hopefully conferring on it a higher executive to account and the House taking the vote, status. If that were to occur then I think people then by definition those committees suVer from would engage and say, “That’s important” and join the same defect—in inverted commas—that a in more than they perhaps do now. committee formed on a partisan basis in the House Mrs Dunwoody: There is also the question of the will always follow in that the vote will determine subsidiarity breach which is going to come up in what the view of the committee is. As an the constitution. That is actually a proposal which information exchange—a two and a half hour shop would cause us considerable diYculty. If a third of window as to what is going on—it is better than the parliamentary chambers of the EU member what was there before, but at that point I come states believe a proposal breaches the principle of back to what I said at the beginning, our subsidiarity the European Commission has to Parliament is rapidly losing a real influence on the reconsider. If that were accepted, would it then situation which it could have had if it were actually mean that if, for any reason, a third of these engaged in the process of the policy formulation. institution had not demanded that it would be re- That is a process which should involve not just the considered then it would automatically be said by United Kingdom ministers, but engaging with the the Commission that everybody accepts this. There Commission and their oYcials. When you ask the are all sorts of changes within both the constitution questions, “Where do ideas come from in Europe? and the existing legislation which hold very real How is policy formulated?” it is actually quite an diYculties for this Parliament. opaque process. It is a bit like trying to track a river to the tributary and then to the source of the stream by starting at the bottom of the river and going all Q197 Sir Nicholas Winterton: I have three the way to the top. It is quite diYcult to see where questions to our witnesses. Firstly I want to pick you are going to end up, but if you want to up the point that Michael Jack has just made. He influence it you have to find the source of it. talks about the minuscule publicity or public interest in European matters. Is that really surprising, I put to Mr Jack, bearing in mind that Q196 Mr Shepherd: You have just made reference irrespective of what this Parliament thinks it has to the debates after 10 o’clock of which I have been absolutely no influence on the ultimate decision, a participant and you undoubtedly have been a which is really what Mrs Dunwoody has said to the participant. It would have had consequences if committee this morning? Secondly, can I ask our Parliament had decided—or the Commons had two witnesses whether they believe that if European decided—not to follow the advice of the Standing Committees A, B and C actually pass a Government and it would have aVected the matter. motion or an amendment to the matter they are The Government would have been in great discussing, that that should then be debated and the diYculty because it had to reconcile its position Government should be obliged to find time for that with that of Section 2 of the 1972 Communities Act matter not only to be voted on on the floor of the and that is at the heart of this whole discussion on House but also to be debated on the floor of the whether we are relevant to the processes of forming House as a right? Otherwise is it not a complete the laws that govern this country. That is what we waste of time for these committees to meet and are looking at: can we have influence on it? Can we discuss particular matters relating to Europe? My actually say “no”? The burden of your argument third question to our witnesses—and both Mrs there is that we cannot say “no”. Dunwoody and Michael Jack have referred to the Mr Jack: I do not want to get into too much detail UKRep (the United Kingdom representatives in of what the House has decided, but clearly if the the European Union)—can somebody tell me who House, when the European committees report appoints them, who are they accountable to, who back, decided to vote down the motions to take do they report to and if, in fact, they are to be note of the outcome of the committees’ process, the meaningful and to enable Parliament to achieve the House could say “no” if it wanted to but unlike the earlier involvement in discussion (which Mr old procedures the discussion informing that Michael Jack has rightly highlighted as being very position is taken upstairs in Committee. To give a important) should they not be appointed by very personal view, I think that part of the problem Parliament and report to Parliament so that with Parliament is that we, as parliamentarians, Parliament actually knows what is going on at an concentrate on the things that we think will matter early stage and can then have some influence upon in terms of the wider public view of what is going the legislation that is being put forward by Europe on. When you see within our newspapers the virtual and which at the moment is binding upon the UK zero reporting of anything about Europe unless it whether or not this Parliament believes it right or is a sort of clash or a big cause ce´le`bre issue, then not? in our order of priorities things drop down. When Mr Jack: To take those questions in order, I think you look at the way the House positions, we have you have influence in the context of Europe if you occasional debates on a European white paper on can get in early enough and influence the shaping 9907081003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 69

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP of the policy. That is the bit where you can have Kingdom’s permanent representation and that leverage and that is why, for example, select person covers monitoring all the activity going on committees are well placed if they go and talk to in the Environment, Food and Rural AVairs European commissioners; if they talk to the portfolio so that when we go over to meet with second- and third-ranking oYcials in directorate UKRep they give us a read-out not only of what generals that is not only a very good way to find is happening oYcially but sometimes what is out what is going on but also to influence. Bearing happening in the margins of the oYcial business. in mind you have 25 streams of thought now They give us a flavour of what is happening. They coming into the Commission which have to be are controlled by the United Kingdom’s permanent digested and worked up into policy proposals, the representative, in other words our ambassador to best way we can get in is when the ideas are being the European Union and those are all eVectively formulated in terms of policy. You could engage government appointments. in that process in parallel with UK ministers—and, indeed, their oYcials—if they themselves were prepared to advise the select committees in a bit Q199 Sir Nicholas Winterton: If we are going to more detail about what they were doing and have this earlier involvement, Mr Jack, is it willing—perhaps once a quarter or once every six not necessary for UKRep to report directly months—to come and discuss their European work to Parliament, not necessarily through our so you could talk directly to our participants in that ambassador to the Government because the process. The second question you asked was about Government may well not pass on a lot of the whether an amendment arising out of the European information that UKRep is actually supplying. I Scrutiny process should be automatically debated on the floor of the House. Sir Nicholas, I think the think that is the only way for Parliament to only thing I would say to you is what are the odds be involved earlier in the negotiation and of such committees making an amendment and consultation. what would you actually be amending? Would you Mrs Dunwoody: Could I say a little word about amend the Government’s motion to take note with influence? I think there is some confusion here. My something like: “This committee decides not to experience of European institutions is that those take note of X until the United Kingdom governments who had their own way and who Government alters, for example, sub-paragraph 3 influenced civil servants were those who had an of the European directive on X, Y and Z”? Then extremely disciplined control over both their own you are left in the process that, say it was a very nationals who worked within the Commission and contentious matter and the House votes in favour those who were elected to the European institution. of the position of the committee, what then does They had no nonsense about careful scrutiny; they the minister actually do? I do not want to debate were simply told what they were expected to do. It that in detail, but I do think you have to go through was made very clear to them within the that process to understand what it is you are trying Commission that if they failed to do it they would to achieve. have a very short civil service career when they returned and that was an extraordinarily eVective way of influencing what happened. We do not do Q198 Sir Nicholas Winterton: What is the point of that and I think that we have to be very clear. You Parliament if they cannot influence a minister? can go as often as you like to Brussels, you may Mr Jack: I will come back to what I said at the talk to as many people as you wish in a number of beginning, Sir Nicholas: there is influence which is diVerent languages—which I am sure you are very upstream and there is scrutiny which is capable of doing—but it will have absolutely no downstream. Unless I have it wrong, the scrutiny V process is part of a process in terms of what e ect if their member states have decided on a happens to enable the Council of Ministers to know particular political line and are determined to push that member states’ parliaments have discussed and it through. This is a matter that ministers face every taken a view on a matter being considered. That is week. The habit of not producing agendas until the adiVerent process from the one of influencing the last moment, the habit of adding particular formulation of ideas and the development of important items on at the last moment, the way policy. I am not saying for one moment that our things can be deferred; they are all well-known and Parliament should not have the ability to vote, but very eVective means of influencing the outcome. it can do under the current circumstances. There Having been brought up by French nuns it is may well be value in some of these matters being something I not only recognise but I appreciate. I debated on the floor of the House. I just raise the managed to keep one directive on immigration in technical issues: you have to decide what it is you a particular committee within the European are going to amend and therefore what you are Parliament for a year and a half simply by going to debate. On the final point, I think the encouraging a Florentine professor to discuss, at chairman is better placed to describe in intimate inordinate length, anything that was on the agenda detail about UKRep as he would have dealt with ahead of the item that I did not wish to reach. We that during his time at the Foreign OYce, basically can all play these games, but the reality is that the they are oYcials. Some of them come from governments control the civil servants within the departments on attachment. For example, DEFRA Commission whereas we have the strange put the agricultural representative into the United extraordinary idea that if people go there they 9907081003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 70 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP should seek to produce fair and balanced department and not just a government department judgments and it is one which is not always but all of the agencies connected with a government eVective. department. If I were in the seat of the Leader of the House and I regarded having 150 back benchers Q200 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Do you think that as a distinct hazard without them having enough the UKRep should report to Parliament? to do, then I would be seeking to set up a series Mrs Dunwoody: I do not want the responsibility of of committees and giving them responsibilities way appointing oYcials, Sir Nicholas. We have enough beyond what they have at the present time. I think trouble managing to get people to join political that at the present time select committees are parties. God help us if we had to control civil expanding the work that they do. We can get into servants as well. a philosophical argument about how Parliament Mr Jack: Can I just add that there may well be itself has changed the way it operates: so much of something the Government should consider, that is it here is timetabled; so much of it is not properly the reporting via an UKRep mechanism to select scrutinised; so much domestic legislation has to committees matters that they ought to take note of come back and be amended because we have because they are the source of a great deal of useful changed the way we operate. Select committees are intelligence and that would actually be quite much more important in their role of monitoring helpful. what government departments do than they were originally. That is one reason why they are taking Q201 Martin Linton: Can I bring you back to the on extra powers and have extra impact. If the role of select committees because there seems to be government of the day then says, “Ah, but you also a bit of a paradox here because you are being have to look at all the pre-legislative scrutiny and pressed to take a greater role, not just inquiries you have to look at every bit that flows out of but European scrutiny, both upstream and Europe and you have to do it after it has gone on downstream; draft bills, pre-legislative and maybe the statute book”, then I can tell you you would post-legislative; even the European Scrutiny limit the amount of time that was spent on looking Committee wants you to actually take evidence at domestic legislation. from ministers pre- and post-council meetings. Also you are being pressed to take greater membership Q202 Mr Heald: Can I just come in on that, as well. You might expect select committees to say Gwyneth, because a key part of the job of a select they will build their empire, have more members, committee is to scrutinise what the department is more sub-committees, more functions; that is the doing. One of the things the department is doing is normal way that organisations operate. However, going to Europe negotiating all sorts of directives it seems to me it is almost the opposite: you do not and regulations so surely part of your job is to want more members, you do not want more sub- make sure you are finding out what they are up to. committees, you do not want to have more jobs foist on you or at least you want to retain your Mrs Dunwoody: And this is exactly what we do. right to concentrate on inquiries which I think is This is why we have just done an inquiry on probably the strongest role of select committees. aviation; this is why we are looking at every aspect However, it does not seem to me that you are of the decisions they are taking in relation to addressing yourselves to the basic question. road safety. Everybody recognises that we need more involvement of select committees, because of their Q203 Mr Heald: Does it not involve the sort of expertise, in European scrutiny. We need more thing Michael was talking about as well, which is involvement of select committees in the legislative getting out there, finding out what they are doing process, in draft bills. We have 150 MPs just on our over there in the Commission and then putting this side who are not on any select committee and not to ministers and asking them what they are doing in any government post; there are plenty of people about it. to do the job. You have to tell us why we should not have some system—as they do in Finland and Mrs Dunwoody: I am saying to you that we are many other European countries—where the select already directly involved in those aspects of our committees are involved and can be expected to be committee work which are being influenced by involved in the process of European scrutiny both Brussels. This is what we do already. This is why we upstream and downstream. Gwyneth, you say in have already done at least three reports on various V your evidence—which I found very interesting— aspects. However, there is a di erence between that you are not given the resources and cannot be that—which is following through the theme of the expected to do the work without additional government involvement and government interest resources and I accept that point entirely. in specific policies—and being loaded with the Supposing select committees were given the responsibility of looking very carefully at every resources to do this job in European scrutiny, detail. I spent four and a half years amending would you do it? Would you be prepared to do it? words. I can use a number of words in diVerent Mrs Dunwoody: I think you may have to be quite languages which mean approximately the same clear what it is you want select committees to do. thing but never the same thing. I can tell you that At the present time we are charged with taking if that is the way we are going to go then the work what is in eVect a monitoring role of a government of the select committees will be eVectively neutered. 9907081003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 71

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP

Mr Jack: I wonder if I may put another perspective thinking process. In that way we would then have on that. I wrote down two things when Mr Linton the potential to have real influence over the asked his question. One was: more involvement; the development of ideas prior to them being set in other was: prioritisation. We do not cover concrete. everything that our department does domestically; we cannot, we do not have the time. I think your question goes to a very fundamental view of the Q204 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Why did that not nature of our select committees. At the moment happen? what happens is that by the various mechanisms Mr Jack: Because we are not geared up to doing people find themselves on the committees. It is one it; people do not think like that. Usually the select of many things that they do in the House. If the committee comes in after something has appeared expanded role as you describe were to be put onto and is well and truly on the radar. committees then the chairs of those committees would almost find themselves in a full-time job. Q205 Sir Nicholas Winterton: But you are chairman Mrs Dunwoody: We are paid now so of course we of this committee. should do more. Mr Jack: We do, from time to time, get involved Mr Jack: I am not objecting for one moment to in things upstream because we pick them up but we doing more, but the nature of what we would be are not equipped to know that all of the processes doing if we were going to cover the full canvass that are going on are occurring. I go back to the which has been discussed could mean that you practical example I gave about fridges. Most of the would do that almost to the exclusion of discussion about the United Kingdom’s position everything else. that ultimately resulted in some of the problems of Mrs Dunwoody: It would keep us very busy which fridge mountains occurred in what is called would be very good, would it not? You would not Management Committee which is the oYcials of a have any time to go to Questions and not be able government department beavering away trying to to vote. fix a problem, reporting to the minister who is Mr Jack: Quite right, there is a price to be paid, desperately hoping that a fix will emerge. just like holding oYces that you absent yourself Mrs Dunwoody: No-one asked why we have got an from doing something for your constituents that entire industry exporting used fridges when no- you might feel is an integral part of what you came body else had. into the House to do. Mr Jack: No, but what I am saying is that that was Mrs Dunwoody: What an old-fashioned idea. below the radar of the committee; we did not know Mr Jack: Maybe it is; maybe I am a little old- it was happening. fashioned but I will stick to those old-fashioned Mrs Dunwoody: So even though it was upstream, values. We do not want to create a parallel universe it was below the radar. where the select committees are out there trying to Mr Jack: Yes, it was. There is no way you can be on a par with departments because that is not necessarily see that that problem was coming what we are there for; we are there for a scrutiny because no-one had told us. role. Let me give you an example: the European Union has just concluded and implemented the Q206 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Who should have biggest single change to the Common Agricultural told you? Policy since it was originally designed. Our Mr Jack: We could have had some information committee has from time to time written reports from the department and we could have had some about the nature of agriculture and commented on information from the permanent representation how the European Union’s processes could be and it would have been interesting to see whether amended. However, when this process started the we could have had some from the Commission. Secretary of State for DEFRA (in this case) did not come along to the select committee and say, “I am now starting, in concert with my fellow ministers, Q207 Mr Stunell: What we have really heard is a to discuss what will ultimately be the biggest single council of despair. The select committees are too reform. I think it would be a good idea if your busy; the standing committees are ineVectual and committee did a parallel exercise and informed we have also heard that the larger the group of what was happening.” We ended up by doing a people that considers any issue the less likely it is scrutiny of what had happened to a certain extent to produce a sound conclusion which rather rules after the event. It is on issues like that that the out the Chamber of the House of Commons as well Government and ministers have to decide as well it would appear. If we try to break out of that cycle if they are prepared to engage the select committee. of despair then just one of the possibilities that Mr We can come in and do our own things but Jack put in his evidence was about Euro-days once sometimes they are privy to what is happening and a quarter, about ways which it seems to me were therefore it is a question of, right, this is a proper setting an agenda in the House which is matter for Parliament to be involved in; the select independent of other events. I wonder if you would committee should start the process of inquiry and like to take us through the ideas that you have there work in parallel with what the Council of Ministers and perhaps put a slightly more hopeful view as to are doing and take its own views from within the how we might get out of the mess you have so United Kingdom or wherever else and inform that thoroughly identified. 9907081003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 72 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP

Mr Jack: I am sorry if I have created an impression very domestically minded but want to know how of a council of despair; it is dealing with the the European issue will impact on them and their realities. The idea of having something on a constituents. quarterly basis that I suggested or a cross-cutting question time on Europe would enable these people to engage—who are not involved in a select Q209 Chairman: I think we would all sympathise committee process but who are interested to know with what you are saying in principal, but just to clarify what would you say to the proposition what is going on—in probing ministers about what which I think came from Martin Linton in an is happening. At the moment in terms of Europe if earlier session about having, say, 10 minutes you have under the standard question time reserved to cover European issues if questions were procedures a question on Europe it takes its place tabled on Europe, during main departmental in competition with everything else. If you have questions. What do you think of that idea? carved out some time, for example, the Mr Jack: It is another way of providing the same Government might say, “Okay we are going to opportunity that if you said, for example, right we have four of these sessions every year and we will will have a question time for the main departments give them a theme. We might have a theme on the who deal with European business and people could environment; we might have a theme on cross- table whatever questions they like and ministers border security. We might have whatever you will have to come and attend and answer those choose, transport through Europe.” Therefore you questions. I am conscious that even within our own can decide either to have a minister who will come question time people are frustrated that we only get along and brief the House on behalf of key through a limited number of questions and that developments and there can be a focussed debate eVectively it is only on a three- or four-weekly cycle on the subject or you could have some form of where you can get in on domestic issues. I think my question and answer session so that people could view would be that it is better to carve out a engage and discuss. It would enable the ministers separate chunk of time to focus on the European to talk about both the things that were in the issue so that those who were particularly interested Council and were coming along towards the could come along and engage in that and that it Council and there could be some dialogue in which did not take time away from the domestic side. On members of the House, either by a question time the domestic side, you cannot stop members tabling format or by a debate—I suggested Westminster now questions which may have a European Hall as one way of doing that—could engage in dimension to them. those areas where they may have a specific interest Mrs Dunwoody: We have been looking at European because the current mechanism of the white paper competencies precisely for this reason, that they discussions is a sort of catch-all run by the foreign aVect so much of our domestic policy, so I see no secretary which does not enable you to go into the reason why we should not have extra to the existing detail where some of the more contentious issues debates on the floor of the House half an hour are being discussed on a departmental basis. which was just for European Union matters. I am sad that you so readily are prepared to abandon what, to me, is a very obvious thing. The European Q208 Chairman: What about this idea of a Standing Committees at the moment are ineVective European Grand Committee? because people do not think they have any result. Mr Jack: I suppose we are getting back into focus, If you just simply gave them the right to amend and function and numbers of people because by debate then frankly they would come along because definition a European Grand Committee could they would be prepared to enjoy questioning a either deal with everything or be very focussed in minister. I am glad to hear that Michael thought I what it does. The thought of having separate forms gave him a hard time, but it is one of the few of debate perhaps three or four times a year where opportunities in the House of Commons to we could take a more focussed departmental view question a minister for an hour and a half on a would enable people to go into more depth about particular subject. It is very focussed; ministers particular subject areas. As to the European Grand have to know their brief and they have to answer Committee, I would have to give more thought questions. Members of Parliament used to use that about that particularly in determining how its very eVectively. However, unless you give them the agenda would be focussed. It comes away from chance at the end of their debate to actually put engaging or giving an opportunity for the whole down an amendment or to vote on what has House to become involved in that subject. One of happened, then you really dissipate all the eVort the points that Mr Shepherd and Sir Nicholas they have put in up to that point. You cannot just raised earlier was the almost impotence of the floor abandon your existing structure without thinking of the House to engage in dialogue on European what you could do to amend it and make it matters. If you had something that enabled you to eVective. have a one-to-one with a minister and a debate or Mr Jack: I think the only way you could get to that a question time, then those members of the position is if those committees were not formed on House—as with any debate—who wanted to could the strictly party lines that they are at the moment. engage in that process. By having the Grand If you gave them the ability to be like a mini, one- Committee process you are almost saying that it is oV select committee who, at the end of a question only the enthusiasts and there are people who are and answer debate session with the minister, could 9907081003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 73

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP then produce a short report saying what they think the matter that we were debating. As I see it, with is wrong and what should be amended and that apologies to Gwyneth, there is not a way of could then be put to the House for debate, that amending or making more eVective the present might get you somewhere near where you want system because it ends up with a party vote. Clearly to be. that is a form of scrutiny which we all understand. Mrs Dunwoody: The other side of the suggestion The proposals that Michael makes approach the of a select committee is that if you move down matter from another perspective which is to try to this way, putting more and more European get influence that is not based on party political examination on select committees, then the whips votes either in committee or in the Chamber and it would become even more active in deciding who seems to me that is the only positive proposal that does what. we have had that would enable us to gain more Mr Jack: No, I am talking about reformulating the influence. I just want to really try to get this existing standing committees on a diVerent basis committee to some point of not exploring so that they have the flexibility to produce constantly the problems we are all familiar with but amendments and commentary because at the where on earth can we find solutions? We have two moment with the Government tabling a perspectives here. One does give us an opportunity. government motion then by definition the Gwyneth is enormously experienced in these Government has a majority on those committees, matters and enormously respected, but I cannot see albeit they are unwhipped business, but the chances what she is proposing coming to any kind of are that the Government will always win the day solution because, as I say, the mechanism—despite and whatever amendment the Committee might what she has said—is there to amend and to have wish to put to the House will never get there. a vote. Joan Ruddock: Let me just respond to some of Sir Nicholas Winterton: Joan Ruddock is incorrect; those points with a very specific area of policy. In I am afraid she is wrong. If Standing Committee terms of the DEFRA Select Committee, of course A, B or C actually does amend—and the the majority of policy is actually European-made committees have amended motions—the these days so the majority of the items which our Government is not obliged to table that amended committee—I am on Michael’s committee—takes motion on the floor of the House; they will table up a European dimension. If you look at the original motion. To an extent these committees genetically modified food and crops the vast are not able to influence the House as a whole as majority of our constituents do not want these they should be. I believe this is a matter for the products in this country on any terms whatsoever. Procedure Committee to look at as well as your There has never been a debate in the House of committee, Chairman, because I believe that if an Commons on this issue with a vote in which people amendment is passed in a European standing could express the views of their constituents. Every committee that is the motion that not only should couple of months either the Agriculture or the be tabled on the floor of the House but it should Environment Minister is in council voting—voting, also be debated on the floor of the House. not talking—on some aspect of introducing a new Joan Ruddock: The issue is: if the Procedure food, a new crop or making some other regulations. Committee, for example, were to get a change that The committee that does the selection of items has meant that the amended motion did go to the floor of the House, I am putting the point that with a spotted this as being contentious and, indeed, V repeatedly refers matters to Committees A, B and Government with a majority and an e ective C. At those committees the Government always whipping system it would still be defeated. tables its motion. I have gone to those committees Therefore we are not influencing the process. as a person who does not sit on any of them and I have put down amendments and I have forced a Q210 Chairman: I think both points of view have vote. Of course the whole of my side voted against been very clearly expressed and I think we need my amendments whipped by the Government, some stronger chairing here. Could Gwyneth and despite the fact that virtually every person agreed Michael respond to Joan’s points, please? with my position. That is the reality in the Mrs Dunwoody: I know it is a fairly revolutionary European Standing Committee and it is the reality idea that a government with a majority insists on on the floor of the House. It matters not. The getting its own view onto the record; that is not power to amend is there, the power to force a vote altogether new, it has been known for some time. is there but it matters not at the end of the day The reality is that we can do certain things. We whether it is in the committee or on the floor of the could amend existing procedures in the European House, if the Government has a majority and it committees. There is no other time at which a uses its whips eVectively it always wins the day. The minister can be questioned for an hour and a half mechanisms we have at the moment do not provide on a specific process. We could ensure that the any way of influencing what that minister does in actual mechanisms of making sure that select council, not least because one of the committees on committees know that there is legislation or which I forced a vote, the opposite minister—the regulation coming up or general debates coming up Minister for the Department of Health as opposed which might concern them early enough so that to the Department of the Environment—was in they can look at it and can seek to influence it. council at the very time we were having our Influence on governments stems from the amount committee actually making a speech and voting on of public pressure that can be put on by debates on 9907081003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 74 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

8 September 2004 Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP and Rt Hon Michael Jack MP the floor of the House and work on the committees one through carefully because I think there is a lot that influence that debate. The reality is that the we can do to influence the nuts and bolts but if the select committees are not the place in my view. United Kingdom Government has taken a They already do a lot of work about European principal decision then maybe the Government has matters; because of the work of the departments to say right, we want Parliament to decide yes or they already follow what is happening in Europe no to GM—which is one thing—but then in terms and seek to influence it. I actually think there are of influencing the European policy towards it then ways of doing it but not by putting more and more these mechanisms which I have described may detailed work onto select committees. enable you to get the Government to say, “Okay, Mr Jack: I think that if we had the more flexible we will tick the following boxes, we agree with the mechanisms which I described you would get House on points a, b and c but cannot agree on d somewhere near being able to respond to Joan’s and e and will fight for those in the European observations in this way: if, for example, as a result Council”. Obviously I recognise that there are no of the scrutiny process a short report was issued to absolutes because it is only part of a bigger process which the Government would respond in the same of negotiation and which can also be influenced by way that it responds to the full-scale select the one area that we have not discussed but which V committee process saying that the Government’s could still have a big e ect on everything we are position remains to vote in favour of GM—just to talking about: the role of the European Parliament. pick up on your example—but we will do the Now, with the co-decision making mechanisms in place they too have a big influence over the end- following things to respond to the Scrutiny game—the final shape of the directive or the Committee’s concern about product labelling, regulation—over which we have no influence about the percentage of contaminants that might whatsoever. be permitted in still calling something GM and the growth of the organic movement or whatever it Q211 Chairman: We had a very interesting happened to be. I am very conscious that at the end session—just as yours has been—with some of the day a minister is in the process of negotiating European parliamentarians on those kinds of areas. and it would be unusual for this House to tie the I am very grateful indeed for the time you have hand of a minister absolutely and I somehow think given, the expertise and experience you have that whatever the colour of a government, a brought. What we make of it all remains to be seen. government would be unwilling to be tied in a I am very grateful indeed. Thank you. negotiating position. I think we have to think that Mr Jack: Thank you for asking us.

Supplementary submission from Hon Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP 1. I strongly support proposals which strengthen Members’ engagement with European matters, and which increase the House’s inﬂuence over the Government. I very much welcome the fact that select committees have been given the explicit task of examining policy proposals from the European Commission as part of the “core tasks”. My Committee takes this extremely seriously. I attach a list of European matters we have looked at over the last year (Annex 1), and an example of a letter from one of the clerks of my Committee (Annex 2) asking the Department for Transport for more information about an online consultation the European Commission has launched on the reform of EU passenger car taxation systems. We have put in place better links between our staV and the staV of the European Scrutiny Committee to help us keep abreast of European matters. However, competence for transport remains shared between the European Community and the Member States. As a result it is very rare that our inquiries are solely concerned with European policy. This means the extent of our interest can be easily overlooked.

Core Tasks

2. Although I am a strong supporter of select committee examination of European matters, I do not think that asking select committees to operate the scrutiny reserve will improve European scrutiny. I believe there is a real risk that it could reduce the eVectiveness of departmental select committees. We do not have time to consider every important transport development in the United Kingdom at present; we choose inquiries carefully. Our freedom to set out our own agenda has already been limited to some extent by the new emphasis on Liaison Committee “core tasks”, which of course I support. The Committee has been making a conscious attempt to ensure that its work engages with the work of the House, and with Government proposals. We have looked at the transport aspects of two Bills and two draft Bills this session, and last session we engaged with the Government’s consultation on the Future of Air Transport. This necessarily restricts our time for “agenda setting” inquiries, although such inquiries can be very useful in ensuring that the Government has to address policy issues which are of interest to backbenchers, no matter how politically inconvenient. A formal requirement to operate the scrutiny reserve would restrict our freedom of action, and freedom to address matters which the Government would rather ignore, still further. 9907081004 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 75

3. You will see from the list attached to this note that in many cases we are interested in the way in which the United Kingdom implements European legislation once it has been agreed, as well as the evolution of policy proposals. Too much emphasis on prior scrutiny would limit our ability to undertake this important work.

The Scrutiny Reserve

4. I believe that the operation of the scrutiny reserve by the European Scrutiny Committee is fundamentally diVerent from the type of scrutiny that departmental committees are well-placed to perform. The only way in which departmental committees could operate a scrutiny reserve and retain their independence would be if the reserve was no longer to be rigorously applied to all European business, but simply to those documents which attracted the attention of the departmental committee concerned. I would not support such a limitation on the powers of the House. 5. Mr Jack made a useful distinction between “upstream” and “downstream” scrutiny. The “scrutiny reserve” can be seen as essentially a “downstream” mechanism. This is an oversimplification, because the European Scrutiny Committee tracks documents from a very early stage (I understand that it had reported on the Commission discussion document floating the car taxation proposals mentioned above two years ago, although consultation has only now begun.) Nonetheless, in essence that Committee looks at documents and the associated Government negotiating position, and decides whether it is appropriate to keep a matter under review, lift the reserve, or require a debate. This is a valuable, but extremely rigorous and extremely resource intensive process. Moreover, the speed with which a particular proposal advances is not within either the Committee’s or the Government’s control, and the Committee can end up recommending a proposal for debate to find that it is not debated for several months, or that only one day’s notice of the debate is given. A departmental select committee could only cope with the unexpected nature of this work by postponing carefully arranged evidence sessions, and frequent rearrangement of its programme. I believe this would harm select committees’ credibility with witnesses, as well as inconveniencing and annoying Members. 6. The European Scrutiny Committee is also well placed to identify proposals which are interrelated, although they aVect diVerent departments; for example, when we intervened on a Framework Decisionon control of pollution from ships, we received a reply from the Home OYce. There are or should be links between some transport Directives and environmental Directives. Departmental committees cannot give this overview. 7. It is important to remember that in most cases even if the House has a theoretical veto over the Government, the United Kingdom Government has no veto over European Union legislation. It is usually better for the United Kingdom if the Government can engage actively in negotiations; a Government which was forced regularly to abstain from voting because the reserve had not been lifted would lose influence in Europe. I do not think that anyone in the House would want that. Indeed the scrutiny reserve explicitly allows a Minister to agree to a proposal while scrutiny continues if “he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given”. EVectively, a departmental select committee would find itself either having to agree to the Government’s negotiating position at short notice without proper scrutiny, to ensure that the Government could engage properly, or delay a scrutiny, and take the risk that a Minister might agree to proposals for “special reasons”. If Ministers did this routinely, the credibility of the House’s European scrutiny system would be undermined. 8. Moreover, as Joan Ruddock made clear, European businesses is whipped. Since it concerns the United Kingdom’s international negotiating position, it is hard to see how it could not be. If departmental select committees formally operated the reserve, there would inevitably be pressure to whip European business in them. That would, in my view, be a most undesirable precedent. Once whipping was accepted for EU business, it would be easily extended to other matters under consideration by the select committees.

“Upstream Scrutiny”

9. As far as a departmental Committee is concerned, in many cases it will be interested in the development of policy, rather than the particular documents before the House; in Mr Jack’s “upstream” considerations. The Transport Committee already undertakes such “upstream scrutiny”, although it is not necessarily identiﬁed as such. European policy issues often arise during the Committee’s examination of broad topics, such as “aviation” and “ports”—matters which I referred to as “thematic inquiries”. In these cases, our reports contain recommendations which leave the Government in no doubt about the Committee’s view on European matters. For example, we have already expressed our reservations about Community accession to ICAO and IMO, which is currently under observation by the European Scrutiny Committee (and has been for at least two years). There seems no point in requiring the Transport Committee to repeat its views every time the proposals return to the Council agenda. 9907081004 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 76 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Interaction with the European Scrutiny Committee 10. As I said in my evidence, the European Scrutiny Committee does not usually have a direct influence on our programme. Given the inherent uncertainties about the timing of European legislative proposals, this is unsurprising. It would be perfectly possible for us to start an inquiry on a particular document only to discover either that the proposal had been shelved indefinitely, or that it was agreed almost immediately after our inquiry had been announced. This does not mean that we do not draw upon the European Scrutiny Committee’s work. Once an inquiry has identified a particular European matter as of interest, the Scrutiny Committee’s reports provide the best and most accessible briefing available, and an extremely valuable way to trace the development of a particular proposal over the years. In addition, we use Scrutiny Committee reports as a way of keeping an eye on developments in Europe. 11. There is one exception to this rule; after a European Scrutiny Committee recommendation for debate, we have issued a call for evidence on the GALILEO satellite programme in the knowledge that it is likely to be discussed at the December Transport and Telecoms Council. At this stage we have not decided whether we will limit our intervention to publishing the evidence we receive so that our colleagues in the House can use it in any further debate, or whether we will conduct a brief inquiry. Our decision will depend on what the written evidence reveals, and on other decisions we make about our programme. Normally, we would not expect to call for written evidence alone, but the time pressures may make it impossible to do more. This illustrates the diYculty of expecting a departmental committee to operate the scrutiny reserve. I believe it is rare to have such long notice that a particular project will be discussed at a Council, but even so we may not be able to find time to deal with it.

Proposals 12. If the House and the Government seriously want departmental select committees to engage still more with European business, we need to do diVerent things and to use a diVerent sort of information from that provided for the European Scrutiny Committee. 13. We have already asked the Department for Transport for agendas of forthcoming Council meetings. However, there could be great value in regular updates about working groups, so that we knew what was being addressed at oYcial level. This would not necessarily lead to a greater number of readily identiﬁable “European” inquiries; but it would help us determine the timing and precise terms of reference of broader, thematic inquiries, and ensure those inquiries were well informed. Early warning would increase the likelihood the Transport Committee had already looked at matters which the European Scrutiny Committee identiﬁed for debate, and had reported on those which concerned it. There may be circumstances where a full inquiry is not feasible, but a departmental committee still has concerns, or where recommendations about European matters are one part of a wide-ranging report. In such cases select committees could be given a power to draw particular proposals to the attention of the European Scrutiny Committee with a request that the departmental committee should be alerted when the relevant document appeared, so that the two committees could consider whether they wish to work together. 14. Such a system would retain departmental select committees’ freedom to set their own agenda, and all Members’ right to participate in debate on the scrutiny reserve, while ensuring the House was better informed about European matters. September 2004

Annex 1

EU CONTENT OF TRANSPORT COMMITTEE REPORTS

Aviation (HC(2002–03) 454–I Air Service Agreements; Slot allocation and public service agreements; EU membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation; Air quality; Noise regulation.

Ports (HC(2002–03) 783–I Access to Port Services Directive Maritime Statistics Directive State Aids Habitats Directive 9907081004 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 77

The Work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (HC(2003–04)500 European legislation on licensing of masters of inland waterway vessels.

Financial Protection for Air Travellers (HC(2003–04)806–I Possible EU consumer protection legislation for travellers.

Ongoing Inquiries

European Community Competence and Transport All areas of Community competence, but focussing on — Negotiations with the USon aviation agreements; — Proposals for the “Euro vignette” system for road user charging; — The draft directive and draft framework decision on the enforcement of the law against ship source pollution; — The third rail package.

Galileo EU satellite project.

Tonnage tax European tax regimes.

Cars of the Future Directives on emissions and pedestrian safety.

Annex 2 Letter from Second Clerk, Transport Committee to Department for Transport 21 July 2004

TAXATION OF PASSENGER CARS On 20 July, the European Commission launched an online consultation on the reform of EU passenger car taxation systems (IP/04/970, enclosed). This has its origins in the Commission’s Communication COM(2002) 431 of 6 September 2002 and is accompanied by a working document which is a precursor to the impact assessment. This move appears to send a clear signal that the Commission intends to propose a Council Directive. While this would not harmonise levels of taxation, the Commission appears to envisage a requirement that Member States implement particular forms of taxation and abolish others: Registration Tax would be gradually abolished in those Member States which have it; Member States would be required to have an Annual Circulation Tax (road tax) and fuel tax which take account of CO2 emissions. The European Scrutiny Committee considered the original Communication in its 41st Report of the 2001–02 Session (HC 152). The Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the Committee: “Whilst the Government welcomes the sharing of best environmental practice in the field of passenger car taxation and notes that the Commission has eVectively identified the UK’s policies as best practice in the Community, the Government does not believe that it is necessary to introduce Community wide legislation mandating member States to adopt any specific environmental approach. Decisions on how to tax passenger cars should continue to rest with individual Member States, subject to the importance of ensuring the smooth functioning of the single market.” (paragraph 17.4) The Commission’s consultation ends on 10 September. We would be grateful for an update of the Government’s position on European legislation on car taxation. In particular, we would find a response useful if it covered the following points: — Given that The Future of Transport: a network for 2030 (Cm 6234) suggests, albeit only as an option, that road pricing might replace other forms of vehicle taxation, does the Commission’s intention now oVend in its substance as well as a matter of principle? — Would the Government accede to the type of legislation which the Commission envisages? — How convincing does the Government find the Commission’s argument that taxdiVerentiation is a key way of encouraging manufacturers to improve the fuel eYciency of passenger cars? 9907081004 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:48:40 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 78 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

— How would the Government react to any attempt to use a Qualiﬁed Majority Treaty base, on the grounds of environmental or single market beneﬁts, rather than the unanimity Treaty base which might otherwise be assumed? — What comments does the Government have on the adequacy of the Commission’s public consultation arrangements in this case? — What representations have Department for Transport and/or Treasury Ministers made to dissuade the Commission from making a proposal in this area? 9893884004 Page Type [SO] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 79

Wednesday 15 September 2004

Members present:

Ann CoVey Mr Peter Pike Mr David Kidney Joan Ruddock Martin Linton Mr Paul Tyler Mr Patrick McLoughlin Sir Nicholas Winterton

In the absence of the Chairman, Sir Nicholas Winterton was called to the Chair

Submission from the Clerk of the House of Commons 1. This memorandum has been prepared at the request of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and responds to the Government memorandum from the Leader of the House to the Modernisation Committee, which was published as HC 508 of Session 2003–04 on 1 April 2004. That memorandum had been preceded by a statement in the House by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs on 11 February 2004 (HC Deb cols 1415–7). In the remainder of this paper, I refer to that memorandum as “the Government memorandum”.

Introduction 2. As is appropriate, my paper is primarily concerned with commenting on the procedural implications of the suggestions made in the Government memorandum. But I would like first to comment on some of the assumptions on which the memorandum appears to be based and to suggest some criteria against which the Modernisation Committee and the House should, in my view, judge proposals for change in this complex area of parliamentary activity. 3. The Government memorandum starts from the twin premises that “there is a worrying and widening gap between our citizens and the institutions of the European Union” (paragraph 2) and that “the House of Commons has a key role to play in bringing the European Union closer to our citizens” (paragraph 3). I certainly would not wish to challenge the first of those propositions; and I also agree that the way in which Members of Parliament address themselves to issues relating to the European Union and to the provisions of proposed European Legislation is likely, over time, to have a considerable influence on the way the Union is perceived by the electorate and the media. 4. On the other hand it seems to me open to question whether procedural innovation alone is likely to change the situation of European Scrutiny being “something of a minority interest” (paragraph 2 of the Government memorandum). Nor will procedural change alter the undoubted fact that the issue of the United Kingdom’s relationship with first the European Community and now the European Union has been one of the most significant fault lines in British political life for over 30 years. This has led to the phenomenon, much commented on by academic and other observers of Parliament, that most large scale debates about European issues tend, whatever the particular issue, to become generalised and end up sounding much the same. 5. Experience suggests that if new procedures are to engage the interest and commitment of Members on a lasting basis (and thereby, in this instance, assist the House in engaging more eVectively with European matters), they need to be, and to be seen to be, driven by the House and its Members rather than by the Government. For example, Departmental Select Committees have in general been highly successful in engaging the commitment of Members, and have thereby attracted genuine media and public interest, largely because they choose their own subjects of inquiry, meet when they rather than the Government decide they should and engage in activity which has a clearly defined end product-normally a report with recommendations. By contrast the recent procedural innovation of cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall, after a promising start, has tended to attract diminishing interest over time, in part because the sessions take place at times and on topics chosen by Ministers rather than backbenchers or Opposition parties. The Committee may wish to assess the proposals made in the Government memorandum against that background.

Strengths of the Present Scrutiny System 6. As the Government memorandum states (paragraph 1), there are strengths in the House’s existing system for the scrutiny of European matters which need to be maintained and built upon. Our processes of scrutiny are recognised by other national Parliaments as being among the most thorough and eVective in the European Union, and it is important that any new procedures should not, however unintentionally, have the eVect of diluting them. Their success is attributable both to the commitment and accumulated experience 9893884001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 80 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

of the members of the European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) and to the fact that the committee is comparatively well resourced, with a strong team of policy and legal advisers. The Modernisation Committee will no doubt wish to take particular account of the memorandum which the ESC has submitted and the proposals which it has made for making its work and output more accessible to the House and the wider public. In addition to its existing core role of identifying European proposals which are of political or legal importance to the United Kingdom and recommending selected documents for debate, the ESC and its secretariat are well placed to play a central role in any new procedures which may emerge from the current review: for example, by proposing subjects for debate and providing relevant background material, publicising forthcoming debates and co-ordinating arrangements for the attendance of non-Members. The European Union Committee of the House of Lords, which fulﬁls a complementary role and is similarly well resourced and respected, also needs to be considered in this context.

AJoint European Grand Committee 7. The Government memorandum proposes establishing a new Committee, as a successor to the Standing Committee on the Convention and that on the IGC, whose remit would cover the whole of the EU’s work. 8. The Standing Committee on the Convention, which met on six occasions between 16 July 2002 and 16 June 2003, was an innovative way to hold to account to both Houses the two Commons national parliamentary representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe and their alternates from the Lords. Its core membership was the membership of the Foreign AVairs and the European Scrutiny Committees, plus the Commons representatives at the Convention. Its meetings were triggered by the Progress Reports from the representatives, which the Clerk of the House laid formally on the Table of the House on their behalf. The proceedings followed a similar format to a European Standing Committee, with introductory statements, a question period and then a debate. 9. The Standing Committee on the IGC is superficially similar, but its meetings are arranged through the usual channels at the instigation of the Government, and Ministers make the opening statement and respond to questions before opening and closing the ensuing debate. The Standing Committee on the IGC is therefore more under the control of the Government than was its predecessor. The Order of the House constituting the Standing Committee expires at the end of the current session of Parliament. 10. The Government memorandum makes a number of proposals about attendance at and participation in the meetings of the proposed European Grand Committee, which I comment on in the following sections of this paper. It is rather less specific about the form and objectives of the Committee’s deliberations, although it is evident that the Government envisages a combination of general debate, statements from and questions to Ministers and possibly others, and does not intend that the Committee should conduct inquiries, make reports or even adopt substantive motions. There must be some doubt whether such an institution would in practice engage the attention of Members on a lasting basis, particularly if its meetings and topics for debate were seen to be instigated by the Government, through the usual channels, rather than reflecting the wishes and interests of the House more widely. The Modernisation Committee may therefore wish to consider whether there might be an alternative to the usual channels in fixing the meetings of the proposed European Grand Committee. As suggested above, the ESC could play a role, for example by identifying the key documents in the annual cycle which deserve wider attention; or the House of Lords European Union Committee might select certain of its detailed reports on important issues to be recommended for a debate in the bi-cameral environment of the Joint European Grand Committee. The formal “trigger” could be a motion moved by a Minister in the Commons to send a message to the Lords proposing the date, time and subject for a meeting of the Joint Committee.

Participation of Members of the House of Lords 11. The Standing Committees on the Convention and the IGC were established by orders of the House of Commons, have been chaired by members of the Chairmen’s Panel and have followed Commons procedure. Members of the House of Lords have been welcome to participate in the Committee’s proceedings, but have not been able to vote, make a motion or be counted in the quorum. As far as I am aware, the only signiﬁcant inconvenience that has been experienced by the Lords as a result of these arrangements has arisen from the fact that the Standing Committee has been suspended for divisions in the Commons but not for divisions in the Lords. This is a matter which can be dealt with by an adjustment to standing orders and without the need for any fundamental change of procedure. There have also been some diYculties about the attendance of a quorum, which could be assisted by enabling peers to be counted for that purpose. 12. However, in a recent report the House of Lords Procedure Committee has recommended that the proposed European Grand Committee should be established on a fully joint-House basis and that “the chairmanship should reﬂect the joint nature of the committee” (HL Paper 99, Session 2003–04, paragraph 2). Parliament has a substantial body of experience of joint select committees where generally, unless otherwise agreed, procedure follows the procedures of select committees of the Lords. Select committee procedure is substantially the same in the two Houses, and it is rare for any diYculty to arise in that context. 9893884001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 81

13. Creating a truly Joint European Grand Committee would present a challenge of a quite diVerent order. It would require the House of Lords to create a parallel Standing Committee, presumably on the pattern of the Commons Standing Orders, to join with a Commons Committee. That in itself might be a considerable undertaking for the House of Lords, unless it simply adopted the corpus of Commons procedure in this area. Even then it would be necessary to resolve the questions of who should take the Chair and how the powers of the Chair were to be exercised. In the Commons the Chair regulates proceedings and calls Members to speak. In the Lords proceedings are self-regulated and there is a speakers’ list. There is no obvious compromise between these diVerent forms of proceeding; and it would not be practicable to alternate between the two. My preference would therefore be to follow the basic pattern established for the Standing Committees on the Convention and the IGC, but to recognise the joint House nature of the new body in the provisions for the quorum and in its name. (The Lords Procedure Committee has proposed the “Joint European Committee”.)

Other issues relating to membership

14. The question of the Joint Committee’s membership is linked to consideration of what business will be before the Committee. If its meetings are not intended to come to a conclusion—because they are conﬁned to statements, questions and debates on a formal non-amendable motion such as “the sitting be adjourned” then it would be possible to allow any Member or Peer who chose to turn up to take part. It may be considered desirable to have a deﬁned “core” membership for the Commons committee, such as the existing membership of the European Scrutiny and Foreign AVairs Committees.

Participation of Members of the European Parliament

15. The Government memorandum proposes that UK Members of the European Parliament should be enabled to attend and participate in the proceedings of the European Grand Committee. This would represent a signiﬁcant departure from even quite recent opinion in the House on this matter. In its 1998 report on the Scrutiny of European Business, the then Modernisation Committee concluded that: “Quite apart from the political sensitivities involved, we see no advantage in formal involvement of MEPs in Westminster business.” On the other hand it saw considerable beneﬁt in the extension of informal links, such as those between Committees here and their opposite numbers in the European Parliament and other National Parliaments.1 A similar conclusion was reached by the Procedure Committee in 1989.2

16. In the course of that latter inquiry, indeed, my then predecessor, Sir CliVord Boulton, expressed the view that primary legislation would be required to allow the formal participation of MEPs in the proceedings of the House.3 However, a rather diVerent approach was taken by the joint working group of oYcials which the Clerk of the National Assembly for Wales and I established to consider methods of closer working between Westminster and CardiV.4 The joint working group concluded that parliamentary privilege would apply to all those taking part in enlarged Westminster meetings, since they would be held to be parliamentary proceedings for the purpose of Article IX of the Bill of Rights. In my memorandum to the Procedure Committee, I expressed my conﬁdence that the advice on privilege relayed in the joint working group’s report was sound.5

17. The Procedure Committee concluded that, without recourse to further legislation, the House could alter its rules to allow members of the National Assembly to take part in its proceedings and the House has now approved experimental provisions to that eVect.6

18. Under this approach, it is for the House, rather than primary legislation, to determine whom to admit to its committee proceedings. As long as the House retains control of the proceedings, and the “guests” have no vote, the diYculties that remain are practical rather than ones of principle. The enforcement of

1 Seventh Report from Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 1997–98, The Scrutiny of European Business, HC 791, paragraph 37. MEPs may of course be also Members or Peers. 2 Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1988–89, The Scrutiny of European Legislation, HC 622–I, paragraph 110. 3 Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1988–89, The Scrutiny of European Legislation, HC 622–II, QQ 392, 396. 4 The Report of a joint working group of oYcials on joint meetings of Members of the House of Commons and Members of the National Assembly for Wales is attached to my memorandum to the Procedure Committee at HC 582, pages 9 to 16. 5 Third Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2003–04, Joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales, HC 582, Appendix, page 9. 6 Third Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2003–04, Joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales, HC 582, paragraph 8. Approved by the House on 7 June 2004. 9893884001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 82 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

disciplinary powers of the Chair, for example, against a persistently irrelevant or tediously repetitive MEP, to take an admittedly far-fetched example, might be problematic. Infringement of the House’s own sub judice rule, even inadvertently, might have serious consequences for the administration of justice and this House’s relations with the courts.

19. Allowing for those caveats, I see no fundamental procedural reason for ruling out the possibility of permitting MEPs to attend and participate in the proceedings of the European Grand Committee if the House concludes that this would be desirable. The Modernisation Committee will, however, no doubt bear in mind that the participation of MEPs will add to the already considerable practical diYculties that are likely to be encountered in ﬁxing dates for meetings and communicating the details of meetings to all those who may be concerned.

Participation of European Commissioners etc

20. The Government memorandum expresses the hope “that it will be possible for the new Committee to accommodate statements by, and questions to, European Commissioners or perhaps other senior oYcials or representatives of the European Parliament or other European institutions”. Select Committees frequently meet Commissioners and on occasions, by agreement, take evidence from them, here or in Brussels. Self-evidently, however, Commissioners are not accountable to national Parliaments but to the European Parliament. Indeed, in the enlarged Union, it will be quite impracticable for the key Commissioners to acknowledge any liability to attend national Parliaments on any more than a very occasional basis. Making such provision in the standing or sessional orders of the House relating to the European Grand Committee could create a false impression or expectation which might not be well received by the European Union institutions. The Modernisation Committee will therefore no doubt think it advisable to consult the next President of the European Commission and his senior colleagues before making such a recommendation. There are of course other ways to accommodate European Commissioners and other senior EU oYcials who express an interest in addressing an audience of Members and Peers and responding to questions put to them, including ad hoc meetings arranged by the ESC, which already happen from time to time.

21. If it were nevertheless decided to proceed with the proposal in the Government memorandum, I would suggest as a precedent the provision in Standing Order No. 96 (1) and (4) which enables a Minister of the Crown who is not a Member of the House to make a statement to the Scottish Grand Committee and to answer questions put by members of the committee, but stipulates that such a Minister may not do so from the body of the committee, and shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.

22. The Government memorandum also suggests (paragraph 18) that Westminster Hall might be used as a forum for questioning European Commissioners. This idea raises more complex procedural issues. Westminster Hall is not a Committee but is formally a sitting of the House itself. There is no present provision for any person other than a Member to address the House except in the capacity of a witness and non-Members have no right to be heard: they may only be heard if the House so orders. The procedural basis of “sittings of the House in Westminster Hall” would therefore need to be reconsidered if this proposal were to be pursued. It would also raise the issue of the accountability of European Commissioners to national Parliaments in a particularly acute form.

Debates on the Floor

23. The Government memorandum (paragraph 15) states that the Government would welcome the Modernisation Committee’s view on whether the two European debates in the Chamber each year timed to coincide with the European Council meetings in June and December are still appropriate, and of appropriate length. The practice of using two days a year for dealing with EEC business was well established as part of the old Supply Procedure, before the 1981 Report by the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply). That Report led to the abolition of Supply days and their replacement by Opposition days and Estimates days, with certain days traditionally provided in Supply time, including three days on each of the armed services and two days on EEC matters, being provided thenceforward in Government time. It could be argued that the two European debates now provided stem from the House’s traditional powers of Supply and should not lightly be abandoned.7 This matter could be reconsidered eventually if the proposed European Grand Committee establishes itself as a popular and accepted part of the House’s procedures and the time provided for its proceedings proves suYcient to match reasonable demands.

7 First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), Session 1980–81, HC 118-I, paragraph 99 and HC 118-II Ev 269. 9893884002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 83

Questions to Ministers in Westminster Hall

24. The Government memorandum suggests (paragraph 17) that European Questions sessions might be held in Westminster Hall, building on the model introduced in 2002 of cross-cutting questions sessions where ministers from several departments appear together to answer questions on a theme which crosses departmental boundaries.8 25. Standing Order No 10(3) provides that the Chairman of Ways and Means is responsible for appointing business to be taken at any sitting in Westminster Hall, which may “include oral answers to questions under arrangements to be made by him”. The Modernisation Committee’s report in 2002 proposed an experimental period for “cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall”.9 26. Seven sessions have been held so far on themes announced by the Leader of the House at Business Questions some 10 sitting days in advance, presumably after consultation in the usual channels as well as with the Chairman of Ways and Means. No regular pattern of questions sessions has yet developed and, to date, neither the Modernisation Committee nor the Procedure Committee has undertaken any evaluation of the experiment. In statements during these sessions the Chairman of Ways and Means has made clear that the arrangements are experimental and has invited Members to let him have comments. The Modernisation Committee will no doubt wish to seek the views of the Chairman of Ways and Means on any proposed extension of the experiment. 27. The Government memorandum (paragraph 17) suggests that, rather than holding general questions sessions on “European matters” it would be better to identify a particular cross-cutting issue, or range of issues, with a European dimension. Such issues might include CAP reform or the Doha round (mainly DEFRA, DTI and DFID) or environmental measures (mainly DEFRA and DTI) although it is not clear that there would be very many major issues which cut across departmental boundaries. Nonetheless I agree that it would be best for the concept of “cross-cutting” issues to be retained for such European sessions in Westminster Hall, to distinguish them from questions, whether in European Standing Committee on particular EU documents or on the ﬂoor, to individual ministers. Thus European questions sessions in Westminster Hall would be an additional type of scrutiny.

28. It would be a logical extension of the present scrutiny arrangements for the European Scrutiny Committee to identify themes under consideration in Brussels, or aspects of Commission activity where policies of more than one department are involved, for this new type of European scrutiny session. This would diVer from the present arrangements involving the usual channels and would give the House greater ownership of the procedure. If opposition parties (or Ministers) wished to press for a questions session on a particular theme, they could make representations to the ESC or to the Chairman of Ways and Means.

29. Under the existing standing order the Chairman of Ways and Means has responsibility for all aspects of questions in Westminster Hall: thus his agreement would be required before a session was decided upon and announced. The Modernisation Committee may want to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means as to whether European questions sessions should be treated in like manner to other cross-cutting sessions, or whether in this case the European Scrutiny Committee might decide to initiate a session, consulting the Chairman of Ways and Means on the date.

The European Scrutiny System

30. The Government memorandum (paragraph 20) states that the European Scrutiny Committee itself works eVectively, but identifies a problem with “what comes next” (paragraph 21). As the Modernisation Committee will be aware, what underpins the eVectiveness of the European Scrutiny’s document-based approach is its power to require a debate to take place in a European Standing Committee. The Government, through the usual channels, may settle only the date and time of the debate, subject to the constraints of the scrutiny reserve. One reason that the European Scrutiny Committee commands the attention of Whitehall (and the Government memorandum acknowledges the heavy workload imposed on departments) is the deterrent factor of Ministers having to debate issues on which oYcials have not satisfied the European Scrutiny Committee. The Modernisation Committee may conclude that something would be lost if the sifting mechanism were to be made no more than advisory, or merely suggestions to busy departmental select committees, or if a number of documents identified as being of legal or political importance were “rolled up” in a general themed debate over a general policy area.

8 Occasionally Ministers from more than one department answer questions on documents referred to European Standing Committees: for example, at European Standing Committee C’s sitting on 24 March 2004 to consider the Working Time Directive, both the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Gerry SutcliVe) and the Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr John Hutton) replied to questions. 9 Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2001–02, Modernisation of the House of Commons: a reform programme, HC 1168-I, paragraph 99. 9893884002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 84 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Public information about the European scrutiny system 31. The Government memorandum (paragraph 19) welcomes the European Scrutiny Committee’s commitment to improving the accessibility of information about its work, and hopes that the House will consider whether the resources to support this are adequate. The 2002 Review of Select Committee Resources recommended the recruitment of media oYcers to support the work of select committees. The ﬁrst post (supporting Defence, Foreign AVairs, Home AVairs, Constitutional AVairs, International Development and Public Administration) is already operating, and two further media oYcers are being recruited this autumn. Once all three are in place, it is planned to extend professional media support to include the European Scrutiny Committee, which should assist it in increasing media coverage and reaching target audiences.

Reform of the European Standing Committees 32. The Government memorandum (paragraph 20) argues that there is “a very strong case for reform” of the European Standing Committees. The paragraphs below set out some recent ﬁgures relating to European Standing Committees as background for the Modernisation Committee’s consideration.

Workload of the Committees 33. Since the 1998–99 Session, the general trend has been for an increase in the number of documents considered in each Session and in the number of meetings of European Standing Committees.

NUMBER OF DOCUMENTSCONSIDEREDBY, AND NUMBER OF MEETINGSOF, EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

European Standing Committee 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 Sitting days in the Session 149 170 83 201 162 A documents considered: 8 3 6 22 14 meetings: 7 3 5 9 13 B documents considered: 8 14 6 38 14 meetings: 4 5 4 15 12 C documents considered: 12 9 7 16 8 meetings: 4 6 5 8 7

Attendance 34. Each of the three Standing Committees comprises 13 Members (eight Labour, three Conservative and either two Liberal Democrats or one Liberal Democrat and one Plaid Cymru or one Liberal Democrat and one UUP). The level of attendance by members nominated to the Standing Committees has varied among the three Committees.10 Other Members of the House may attend, pursuant to SO 119(5), but may not make any motion, vote, or be counted in the quorum. 35. In Session 2002–03, for all three Standing Committees, the average number of Members attending who were not “core” nominated members of the committee was four.11 Of those four Members invariably there will be one Minister, and usually one oYcial opposition spokesman and one Government whip. In addition a Liberal Democrat spokesman, an oYcial opposition whip or a PPSto the Minister may be expected to attend. In the 2002–03 Session, there was no more than one Member on average attending each European Standing Committee meeting who was neither a “core” nominated member nor there in his or her oYcial capacity as either spokesman, PPSor whip.

NUMBER OF MEMBERSATTENDING ONE OR MORE MEETINGSUNDER STANDING ORDER NO 119(5)

Session 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 No of Members attending one or more meetings 92 44 64 59 83 71 No. of meetings 26 15 14 14 32 32 Av No of Members attending a meeting 7.4 4.8 6.2 6.4 4.8 4.0

10 European Standing Committee A’s attendance has fallen from a high of 80% in 1997–98 to 59% in 2002–03. Similarly, European Standing Committee B’s attendance has fallen from 80% in 1997–98 to 56% in 2002–03. However, European Standing Committee C’s attendance has risen from 63% in 1998–99 to 71% in 2002–03. 11 In the current Session the number of Members who were not nominated to the committee attending has risen by almost 30 per cent to an average of just under 5.5 per meeting. 9893884002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 85

Proceedings in European Standing Committees 36. The analysis of the previous Sessions’ Standing Committee debates reveals that a far greater proportion of the time available for questions is used than the time available for the debate.

AVERAGE ATTENDANCE AT EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES AND SHARE OF TIME AVAILABLE TAKEN FOR QUESTIONS AND FOR DEBATE

Session European Average No Members attending Percentage % time Standing Nominated pursuant to time available available used Committee “core” SO No 119(5) used for questions for debate

2002–03 A 7.62 4.38 78.33% 44.44% B 7.25 3.50 60.28% 42.59% C 9.29 4.29 75.71% 38.10% 2003–04 A 7.11 5.33 94.63% 50.25% B 7.40 4.60 70.00% 54.22% C 9.50 5.67 89.17% 65.00%

37. Of the 32 meetings in the 2002–03 Session, 13 question sessions lasted for the full hour.12 In the current Session a greater proportion of time available for both questions and debates has been used. In the 2002–03 Session, on average, “core” nominated members of the Committee asked about half of the questions put to Ministers.

Assessment 38. Ultimately it is for Members to judge whether the European Standing Committees are not working out as it was hoped. My personal judgement is that the assessment in paragraph 20 of the Government memorandum is far too sweeping, and that it is at least worth consideration whether it would be worthwhile to experiment with some improvements to existing systems (see paragraph 41 below) rather than risk losing the baby with the bath water. 39. Before reaching a ﬁnal decision on this point, the Modernisation Committee will no doubt wish to canvass views of those who take part in European Standing Committee debates, including Ministers, and the Opposition spokesmen whose role would be much diminished if the House adopted the Government’s preference (paragraph 28) for Standing Committees to be abolished with documents referred instead to select committees.

Proposals for change 40. The proposals in the Government memorandum for possible changes (paragraphs 24 and 25) themselves raise a number of questions and potential problems; and I oVer the following comments, which are based on the experience of Standing Committee Clerks: — committees appointed ad hoc to consider speciﬁc documents, such as Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation often experience membership changes at the last minute and such last- minute appointments would make it diYcult for those to digest the large quantity of brieﬁng material provided for each meeting; — if the membership were reduced to fewer than 10 Members, the main Opposition party’s proportion in the current Parliament would be reduced to only two seats on the committee; — the quorum of the committee could not reasonably be reduced to fewer than the present three members; — a substantive motion provides a focus for the committee by setting out the Government’s view in relation to the document; — the time taken for a Committee is essentially self-regulating: meetings for which there is little interest end well before the two and half hours because Members have nothing more to say, but if the subject is of great interest the meeting runs for the full two and a half hours; — if the standing committees were given the power to take evidence and travel it would be hard to include in those activities Members who were not “core” Members nominated to the committee other than by devices such as taking evidence from spokespersons of the opposition parties; and — un-whipped “optional” attendance would inevitably lead to inquorate meetings, irrespective of the importance of the subject matter, as happened on the Standing Committee on the Convention.

12 Under Standing Order No 119 (7) the Chairman of the Standing Committee may “allow questions to be taken for a further period of not more than half an hour”. This power to extend questions is hardly ever needed, but it was used in European Standing Committee B on 11 May 2004 in a debate on the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. 9893884003 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 86 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

41. If the Modernisation Committee decides that it would be preferable to try to improve the existing system of European Standing Committees rather than to replace them entirely, I suggest the following measures for consideration: — reinstating the practice of giving information about European Standing Committees in the weekly Business Statement; — keeping the notice of the Government Motion on the Order Paper, instead of only its single appearance on the “blues” a week or more before each meeting; — making information relating to European Standing Committees, such as Hansards of previous meetings and details of forthcoming meetings more widely available, in particular on the parliamentary website; — e-mailing all interested Members of the House with information on forthcoming meetings; — ensuring Departments make the necessary documentation available earlier; — extending the Library’s “debate packs”, already prepared for certain Westminster Hall debates, to suitable debates in European Standing Committees; and — giving the Committees names which are more understandable to the public (“European trade and external aVairs”, “European social, food and environmental policy” and so on).

Scrutiny by Select Committees 42. The Government memorandum (paragraph 27) suggests that where the ESC recommends a document for further consideration by the House, this consideration should in future be undertaken by the relevant Departmental Select Committee rather than by one of the European Standing Committees. The Modernisation Committee will no doubt be considering the views of the Liaison Committee on this suggestion. The experience of the Clerks Department over the years is that Select Committees tend to resist schemes which fetter their discretion to set their own work priorities. 43. An alternative approach, implied in some of the suggestions in paragraph 27 of the Government memorandum, would be to reconstitute the European Standing Committees as select committees in their own right. It seems to me that the main drawback of this proposal would be the loss both of the facility for any Member of the House to turn up and participate in the further consideration of a piece of European Union legislation which is of particular interest or particularly relevant to his or her constituency and of the facility for Opposition spokespersons to represent the views of their parties and question ministers.

The Subsidiarity Early-Warning Mechanism 44. Paragraph 31 of the Government memorandum draws attention to the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments which is attached to the draft European Union Constitutional Treaty, and which includes provision for national Parliaments to raise objections to particular European legislative proposals on the grounds that they breach the subsidiarity principle. The ESC memorandum deals with this matter quite thoroughly, and I agree with much that it says. I should also mention that the Protocol has already been the subject of discussion at a number of meetings of Secretaries General and Speakers of national Parliaments of the member States, some of which I have myself attended. These discussions are referred to in more detail in the following section of this paper. 45. The principal concern about the practical operation of the early warning mechanism is that the six- week deadline laid down in the protocol is likely to prove very tight if every step of the existing scrutiny process has to be taken before the reasoned opinion is submitted in the House’s name. These diYculties would be compounded if any attempt were made to ascertain the views of the devolved assemblies or to concert the opinion with other national Parliaments. 46. Members of the Modernisation Committee may like to consider the illustration below and consider whether the intervals provided would be realistic, based on their experience of how Government and Parliament work. There is no leeway, for example, to allow for the pattern of parliamentary recesses.

Illustrative timetable: consideration of six-week subsidiarity mechanism Week 1 [Thurs] Commission proposal published Week 2 Lead Govt Dept consults lawyers, other Govt Depts, aVected interests Week 3 Minister’s explanatory memorandum submitted to scrutiny committee Week 4 [Weds] Scrutiny Committee considers Minister’s memorandum ! recommends debate Week 5 Debate in Standing Committee (or Westminster Hall or House) Week 6 [Weds] Scrutiny Committee considers reasoned opinion, in light of debate and contributions from devolved assemblies ! reports to House. Motion tabled in House to approve opinion. Week 7 [Weds] Result of deferred division, if motion in House not previously decided 9893884004 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 87

47. These practical problems suggest to me that it may be necessary for the House to consider delegating to the European Scrutiny Committee the authority to operate the early warning mechanism on its behalf.

Engagement in Europe

Co-operation between national parliaments in the EU

48. The Conference of Presiding OYcers of Parliaments of EU member states (the Conference of EU Speakers) has been working on guidelines for inter-parliamentary co-operation. Given the wide variety of constitutional arrangements in diVerent EU member states, these guidelines could only ever be advisory. The Conference of EU Speakers has no ambition to become a formal institution itself. At present a conference is held each year in a diVerent national capital: Athens in 2003, The Hague in July 2004 and Budapest in 2005. A wider Conference of Presiding OYcers of member states of the Council of Europe (Conference of European Speakers) meets every two years, most recently on 17 and 18 May 2004 in Strasbourg. 49. The Chairman of Ways and Means, representing the Speaker, attended the Strasbourg Conference where a meeting of EU Presiding OYcers took place “in the margins” to review the proposed guidelines, which have been developed since the Athens EU Speakers Conference in 2003, in preparation for their adoption in The Hague in July 2004. The latest available text of the draft guidelines is at Annex A to this paper. The guidelines are intended to reﬂect the fact that, as the draft EU Constitutional Treaty recognises, the European Union is composed of sovereign states with their own sovereign Parliaments; and that the interests of the Union and the European Parliament have to be counterbalanced by those of the national Parliaments if this delicate balance is to be maintained. The purpose of the guidelines is to help the national Parliaments to “get their act together” in the aftermath of enlargement, and to make practical reality of the protocol on the role of national Parliaments which forms part of the new Constitutional Treaty. 50. As the UK holds the EU Presidency from 1 July to 31 December 2005, we can expect to hold a few inter-parliamentary meetings of specialist select committees at Westminster over that period, as well as the well-established Conference of Community and European AVairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC). 51. The shared IPEX (Inter-parliamentary EU Information Exchange) website, currently hosted by the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation (a joint Council of Europe/European Parliament body) at http://www.ecprd.org/ipex, gives easy-to-use links to relevant pages on each parliament’s website. Further development of IPEX may require willing national parliaments to provide staV time and money for software to create an interactive exchange of information on scrutiny of current EU proposals, including the operation of the subsidiarity mechanism.

Facilities for MEPs

52. The Government memorandum (paragraph 32) expresses the Government’s hope that the House authorities will facilitate political engagement at the European level by extending the access that UK MEPs have to facilities in the Palace of Westminster. This is not a matter for me; but it may be helpful to set out the current position in detail. 53. Around 60 of the 81 British MEPs in the 1999–2004 European Parliament held Palace of Westminster photo-passes, which allowed them to pass through security checks without hindrance. UK MEPs may be issued with photo-identity passes which must be worn at all times in the precincts, allowing them access to the Central Lobby, and to attend meetings in Westminster Hall, the Committee Corridor and Upper Committee Corridor. In Portcullis House, they may also be admitted to the courtyard and the ﬁrst ﬂoor to attend meetings. The pass, in addition, entitles them to use the Members’ Dining Room at lunchtime only. They may not bring guests into the precincts. Within the House of Lords, UK MEPs may use the Peers Lobby, the Galleries of the House, the Committee Corridor and the oYces of the European Union Committee and the Lords Bar. 54. The House of Commons Commission, and the Domestic Committees, which advise the Commission on such matters, are conscious of pressure on accommodation and services on the parliamentary estate. I understand that MEPs would appreciate some kind of cloakroom facility where they could leave their belongings while attending meetings in Westminster. The House of Commons Commission and the Domestic Committees on such matters will no doubt take the Government’s views into account. 55. At present UK MEPs can sit in the Special Gallery but have no means of reserving places. Following the incident on 19 May 2004, the use of the Special Galleries is under review. 9893884004 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 88 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Members’ European travel scheme 56. In the ﬁnancial year 2003–04, about 270 visits were made by around 200 Members (of whom about 40 made two visits each and a further 13 made three visits each). Spending and usage of the scheme are both increasing rapidly, up from £50,000 in 2001–02 to £150,000 in 2002–03 and £200,000 in 2003–04.13 57. On 9 May 2002 the maximum number of visits for any Member was increased to three per year, the former cash limit was removed with eVect from 1 April 2003 and the national parliaments of candidate countries were added to the list of allowable destinations. On 9 February 2004 the Members Estimate Committee agreed to extend the list of allowable destinations to include also the national parliaments of EFTA countries and of applicant countries, and all European institutions and agencies, including those outside Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. 58. The Government memorandum (paragraph 33) invites the Modernisation Committee to explore whether it would be practicable within the existing budget to enable those Members who have regular and valuable contact through approved visits to do so more than three times. It has been suggested that individual Members should be able to transfer their visits “entitlement” to others, but I am advised by the House’s Director of Finance and Administration that this would be unworkable. In any case, in view of the changes made earlier this year the Members Estimate Committee would probably want to ask the Advisory Panel on Members’ Allowances to review how the current provision was working before raising the ceiling on the individual number of visits.

Language skills 59. The Government memorandum (paragraph 34) says that the Government is exploring with the House authorities whether those Members who wish might be able to get support from the House for language training provided by the FCO. The FCO have oVered to provide language training to Members in the form of classes, or materials and regular consultations in support of self study. The Advisory Panel on Members’ Allowances has approved a scheme under which Members would be expected to pay out of their own pockets initially, but would be able to claim reimbursement from central funds once they have completed ten classes or consultations. Details of this scheme have recently been circulated to Members by the Department of Finance and Administration.

Conclusion 60. The Government memorandum, although comparatively short, raises a great number of suggestions, some of them quite radical and far-reaching in their implications and not all of them directly relevant to the Modernisation Committee’s remit relating to the House’s practice and procedure. This paper, although probably longer than the Modernisation Committee would have wished to see, does not cover all the possible ramiﬁcations of the suggestions made. I and my colleagues are of course at the disposal of the committee to provide any further advice or assistance that may be requested, including the drafting of any standing or sessional orders that may become necessary. Clerk of the House June 2004

Annex

GUIDELINES

Interparliamentary co-operation in the European Union

Introduction With reference to — The Guidelines for the Conference of Presiding OYcers, article 2 p 2: “To this end the Conference is a forum for the exchange of opinions, information and experiences, as well as for the promotion of research activities and common action, among the Speakers, on topics related to the role of parliaments and the organisation of parliamentary functions, also with respect to the forms and tools of interparliamentary co-operation.”

13 All ﬁgures from 2003–04 are provisional ﬁgures supplied by the Department of Finance and Administration. Under the Resolution of the House of 18 December 2001, those Members who have chosen not to take their seats and thus do not qualify to participate in the proceedings in Parliament may claim allowances relating to travel only within the United Kingdom. 9893884004 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 89

— The European Convention’s Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union, p 9 II: “The European Parliament and the national parliaments shall together determine how interparliamentary co-operation may be eVectively and regularly organised and promoted within the European Union.” — Presidency Conclusions at the Conference of Speakers of the European Union Parliaments, Athens 24 May 2003. The Conference of Speakers of the European Union Parliaments at its meeting in The Hague 2–3 July 2004 recommended the following guidelines as a base for interparliamentary co-operation in the EU ﬁeld.

I. Objectives The autonomy of each parliament shall be respected. The degree of involvement in interparliamentary co-operation is decided by each parliament. Taking into account the principle of national parliaments and the European Parliament being on an equal footing and having complementary roles in the EU structure, the main objectives of interparliamentary co-operation in the European Union should be: (a) To provide information and strengthen parliamentary scrutiny in all areas of competence of the EU. (b) To ensure the eYcient exercise of parliamentary competencies in EU matters, in particular in the area of subsidiarity control by national parliaments.

II. Framework The co-operation is performed within the following framework.

Conference of EU Speakers The Conference has a responsibility for overseeing the co-ordination of interparliamentary EU activities. A particular co-ordinating responsibility rests with the host Parliament for the forthcoming Conference.

Meetings of sectoral committees Meetings of sectoral committees organised by national parliaments or by the European Parliament constitute one of the long-established modes of interparliamentary co-operation in the European Union.

COSAC COSAC (Conference of Community and European AVairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union) handles the co-operation between EU AVairs Committees.

Simultaneous debates in interested parliaments Interested parliaments can promote simultaneous debates on the EU legislative programme or on the main issues of European policies.

Secretaries General The Secretaries General or other oYcial appointed by the Speaker should take the lead in preparing the interparliamentary EU work. A particular responsibility for co-ordination rests with the Secretary General in the host Parliament for the forthcoming Conference. Here close contacts with national parliaments in the Member States holding the EU Presidency are necessary.

IPEX The objective of IPEX (Interparliamentary EU Information Exchange) is to support interparliamentary co-operation in the European Union by providing a platform for the electronic exchange of EU-related information between parliaments in the Union including a calendar of meetings and forums for exchange of views on subsidiarity control. Each parliament/chamber has an IPEX correspondent to represent the parliament. 9893884004 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 90 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Representatives from National Parliaments in Brussels When having a national parliament representative based in Brussels, the permanent representative participates in the regular exchange of information between the EU parliaments, as well as with the COSAC secretariat in Brussels, and in the co-ordination on a practical level.

ECPRD The objectives of the ECPRD (European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation) are to promote the exchange of information and to strengthen the cooperation between parliamentary services in all ﬁelds of parliamentary information, research and documentation. Each parliament/chamber has an ECPRD correspondent to represent the parliament. ECPRD includes all parliaments within the Council of Europe.

III. Fields of Co-operation Interparliamentary EU co-operation is of particular value in the following ﬁelds.

Subsidiarity control Each EU parliament is recommended to inform the other parliaments on its activities concerning subsidiarity control. IPEX provides electronic tools for this exchange of views and serves as a means of communication between national parliaments with regard to proposals, which are thought to oVend against the subsidiarity principle.

Exchange of information and documents Exchange of information and documents should be promoted on all levels and between diVerent committees and services within the framework. Electronic information emanating fromdiVerent channels should be structured within the IPEX and ECPRD networks in order to avoid confusion and duplication of work.

Conferences and other events Interparliamentary meetings, be they ad hoc or within the framework of a regular exchange between Speakers, sectoral committees or within COSAC, constitute one of the recommended methods of interparliamentary co-operation in the Union. They are usually organised by national parliaments or the European Parliament.

Political areas Every year the Conference of EU Speakers may indicate priority political areas for interparliamentary co-operation.

Witnesses: Mr Roger Sands, Clerk of the House and Mr Liam Laurence Smyth, Clerk of Delegated Legislation, examined.

Q212 Sir Nicholas Winterton: We now of course Mr Sands: I am slightly sceptical as to whether move on to matters relating to Scrutiny of European procedural changes can do that. I think that the way Business and you will need the support of your this House and the Members in it address themselves colleague on your right, who is well-known to us, to Europe and issues surrounding the European Liam Laurence Smyth, who is the Clerk of Union must, over time, have a very significant Delegated Legislation, and has sat there extremely influence on the way the public perceives the patiently and now joins in the discussion. The first European Union; but whether one can change the area we want to look at is the scrutiny system, and if way that Members address themselves to Europe I again may be allowed to take over the question and issues surrounding the EU simply by procedural which I know the Leader of the House wanted to ask change I rather doubt. As you know, and I have said himself, can we take it, Mr Sands, from paragraph 3 it often to your other Committee, I think there is a of your paper, that you are—I hesitate to use the tendency to over-estimate the influence that word in relation to Europe—sceptical about the procedure has on these matters. The procedure is House having a “key role to play in bringing the just a framework and it is the way that Members fill European Union closer to our citizens”, and I use it that is really significant. those words because they are your precise words Mr Laurence Smyth: Sir Nicholas, I am here in a from your paper and I quote. Could any procedural spirit of what the constitutional treaty calls “loyal changes make any diVerence, and obviously both co-operation” so I do not think you could expect me Mr Smyth and yourself should answer. to contradict the Clerk of the House. I am the 9893884005 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 91

15 September 2004 Mr Roger Sands and Mr Liam Laurence Smyth

Principal Clerk who supervises the work of the staV Q215 Sir Nicholas Winterton: But they know what is of several committees: the European Scrutiny going to happen and if we were aware of what was Committee, Regulatory Reform, Human Rights, likely to happen—and I do not just describe tittle- Statutory Instruments and also our National tattle and gossip or whatever, UKRep we Parliament OYce in Brussels. I am tremendously understand are very well briefed. You have indicated proud of the work that they all do and I am that they are very well briefed, do you not think they convinced that there are enormous opportunities for should brief not just the minister, the Secretary of Members, if they want to use them. It is very State and our Ambassador but actually Members of interesting to see what your Committee can do the House? creatively to provide more opportunity for Mr Laurence Smyth: I feel that they do. Part of the Members, but I am not sure that the opportunities February statement from the Foreign Secretary was themselves change Members’ behaviour. I think we to say that he would recast his six-monthly White do a wonderful job enabling Members to do things Papers. The autumn update that we just had last and they could do a lot more themselves. week, Prospects for the EU, in a very sketchy format says these are the issues which we think are bubbling up over the next period in Brussels. It is very hard to Q213 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Before I hand over to see what more we can do. If Members pick this Peter Pike, can I just ask one question? When we document up from the Vote OYce and see that there took evidence from Members of Parliament, is something there that they are very interested in, comment was made about the use that we make of everything is open to them, nothing is really hidden, UKRep because it is necessary for this House to get I do not think. involved earlier, further upstream as it were, on the decision-making process in Europe, but of course Q216 Mr Pike: I want to move on to how we really UKRep report to ambassadors of government and assess what our European scrutiny system achieves, do not report to Parliament. Who is available in the what it is reasonable to expect it to achieve and how European Parliament and the Commission to brief we judge it. Having listened to what you said a few Parliament on what is happening so that we can moments ago about influence on Government become available at an earlier stage? At the moment, policy, is that the main criteria or is it holding them really, we get involved far too late and too late really to account or is it something of a mixture? I know to influence legislation? you just said there has been some influence, but are Mr Laurence Smyth: UKRep, I think, do an we all convinced that that is really the case, that we outstanding job in helping select committees. are influencing things as much as possible before Whenever I have taken select committees to Brussels decisions are taken? I have started with UKRep and they have been Mr Sands: I will have a go at that. I was very tremendously frank in explaining what they are interested in the evidence given to this Committee by doing and giving us an insight into issues we should Michael Jack last week because he drew a distinction be raising with the Commission. As a former between influencing before something becomes a departmental Select Committee Clerk I have found legislative proposal and then the process that takes them unfailingly helpful. The Foreign OYce are place after you have a proposal from the enormously positive in their dealings with the Commission. Obviously, if you want to influence in European Scrutiny Committee. The Foreign a big sense you have to be in at the first stage; but I Secretary was appearing before the European would ask the Committee to note that Mr Jack also Scrutiny Committee earlier today and oVering even did emphasise the value of the second stage process more co-operation to try and make things work as well, even if it is only a process of accountability. better. It is up to select committees really to ask the A lot of what this House does is setting up and questions, if that is what they want to ask. A word maintaining mechanisms which ministers and civil of caution is that some wise words that I have seen servants know are there, and because they know they used by UKRep are that the moment when you are are there they possibly avoid doing things that most likely to be able to influence the outcome otherwise they might be tempted to do. It is a safety comes before ministers have made up their mind net and I know it is hard and often boring work for what they want to do. Members to have to police these accountability processes, but it is a valuable function nonetheless.

Q214 Sir Nicholas Winterton: That is precisely the Q217 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Liam, do you want to point that we are getting at. Ministers can be add to that? inﬂuenced by this House, but if this House is not Mr Laurence Smyth: It is a very hard question, getting the information about what is going on in the Chairman, but there is nobody really better than this corridors of power in Brussels—and UKRep I think Committee to answer it because there are so many are in a position to do that—should they not be more diVerent jobs that a Member of Parliament does and pro-active in liaising with the House and with select on the Committee you have a number of Members committees, rather than merely expecting select with very diVerent experiences and diVerent ways of committees when they go to Brussels to meet them? being a Member of Parliament. There is not a typical Mr Laurence Smyth: I cannot think that there would MP. I would not like to rank Members of Parliament be very much attention paid to unsolicited notes of nor the institution because there are so many that kind, but it is possible. diVerent things that Parliament is trying to do. 9893884005 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 92 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

15 September 2004 Mr Roger Sands and Mr Liam Laurence Smyth

Q218 Mr Pike: You will recall that a few years ago sub-committees which looks in detail at those as well as Scrutiny Committees we did have a session selected proposals. Their system was set up to be of questions specifically on European questions. At complementary to ours—my recollection is that the moment European questions take pot luck in the ours came first—so I think one has to look at the general Foreign OYce questions and it may be that eVorts of Parliament on a two House basis, and I do not a single European question is lucky in the draw. not think it would be sensible for this House to try Would you think that Europe is now so important to replicate or compete with the work that is being that perhaps we should go back to having a session done by the House of Lords. of questions specifically on European matters? Mr Sands: I certainly think it is worth considering. Q221 Martin Linton: Perhaps Mr Smyth might like I do not think it is for me to make a firm to comment in terms of European scrutiny. recommendation as to how question time is Mr Laurence Smyth: There are more things that the parcelled up, but I can certainly recognise that that House might do, but what we do do we do extremely is an option. The danger is the one that I mention at well. I do not think it is exactly backwards-looking the bottom of the first page of the memorandum, the because, very often, the Committee is looking at phenomenon that most large scale debates—and it is documents that are on their way to Council. The not just debates it is other proceedings—in relation Committee is looking at documents when an idea to Europe tend to become generalised and end up has crystallised suYciently to be a proposal that can sounding much the same. There is, I think, a danger be analysed. I think the Scrutiny Committee has that a European questions slot would just be been quite influential in pushing the idea of using monopolised by a handful of enthusiasts in this area, impact assessments, for example, which is something if I can put it that way. I think the Chancellor intends to make one of the themes of the UK Presidency, getting better quality Q219 Martin Linton: Can we just pursue this point a regulation done. He is working, interestingly, in little further because our inquiry is about suggesting collaboration with the other presidencies, leading up improvements to the European scrutiny system, and to our presidency. That is quite an imaginative we will not get very far unless we can all be frank approach in trying to get better results out of about both the advantages and the disadvantages of Europe. I thought it was quite interesting what the the existing system. In your paper you describe the select committee chairmen were saying last week existing system as among the most thorough and about things that their committees might do if they eVective in the European Union; some of the wanted, but it is quite clear that they are not going evidence we have had from other sources, notably to attempt comprehensively to identify all of the last week, points out that the European Scrutiny things on the European radar at an early up-stream Committee is predominantly backwards-looking stage before an idea has crystallised. One of the and has a lower profile than the European things that came out strongly from the Foreign Committee in the House of Lords, which is not Secretary’s statement in February, which we have necessarily a criticism of the European Scrutiny not heard a lot about so far, is the debate about Committee as such but it implies that it is not very transposition and the report done by Robin Bellis. eVective in performing the tasks that are needed. We Once we have signed up to a Directive to say we are have heard a lot of evidence along these lines; would all agreed there ought to be a law on something, how you not agree that while the European Scrutiny well do we make that into law in Britain? There were Committee may perform the backwards-looking some very interesting ideas there which the House of task of accountability very well, when it comes to Lords Committee on the Merits of Statutory dealing with the question of what the European Instruments has made some great progress with. Sir Union is about to do, it does not intervene at an early Nicholas, your Committee has expressed its views enough stage to have any eVect? about how this House might get involved in the Mr Sands: The European Scrutiny Committee does merits. For the time being the Lords are going it the job which is prescribed for it in Standing Orders, alone. The wonderful thing they have already and that job is based on the examination of achieved is they have got the Government to agree documents, and the categories of documents are that there will be a memorandum for every statutory set out. instrument explaining how it is going about implementing a European obligation. That is a Q220 Martin Linton: Would you recommend that in wonderful opportunity. You know as Members that order to make the system of European scrutiny more you get far more information than you can use but eVective we should adopt a diVerent system? if this Committee can find a way of using that extra Mr Sands: I think it would be a mistake to move information, I think that is an area which would away from a document-based system, and indeed contribute to better scrutiny. even the European Union Committee in the House of Lords bases itself on proposals; the essential Q222 Martin Linton: All the Nordic countries’ diVerence is that they try to be much more selective European committees, though, come in at a much than the House of Commons Committee: the sift, earlier stage as a matter of course. Do you not think which is the main purpose of our European Scrutiny that would be a good idea? Committee, used to be done by the chairman and the Mr Sands: I do not think that is true, Mr Linton. I clerk in concert and the Committee itself was not saw this comparison made between a document- bothered with it. Then they have this structure of based and a mandate-based system of scrutiny and 9893884005 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 93

15 September 2004 Mr Roger Sands and Mr Liam Laurence Smyth the systems in Denmark and Finland held up as proposal so and so, and supports the Government in great examples to us; but the mandate is still given at its eVort to secure a particular outcome.” That is a the last moment before a meeting of the Council of sort of mandate. Ministers, and as that meeting of the Council of Sir Nicholas Winterton: Thank you. Ann CoVey. Ministers will be based on a document so the mandate is also based on a document. I do not think V V Q226 Ann Co ey: You mentioned previously that there is a huge amount of di erence between that there are things that we do quite well but you and our system of a European standing committee thought there were things we could do better. Can meeting just in the run-up to a Council of Ministers you give three suggestions of ways that it could be meeting—that is when they tend to be arranged— done better and the reasons for making those and agreeing to a motion or not agreeing to a motion suggestions? which the Government have put forward indicating Mr Laurence Smyth: I would like to see a Commons their intentions with regard to a particular involvement of some kind in the select committee on document. the merits of statutory instruments, so that when a department was claiming that this new set of Q223 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Do we take it, Mr regulations is necessary to implement a European Sands, that European standing committees can objective there was some focused Commons’ disagree with the motion and could perhaps even scrutiny of that claim. I think a joint committee on pass an amendment but the Government does not the merits of statutory instruments is peculiarly have to do anything about that, it tables the original diYcult to tackle. I think it is very wise of the motion on the floor of the House? Is that a Government to see how the Lords get on before satisfactory way to proceed? turning it into a joint committee because it has got a Mr Sands: No, I do not think it is, Sir Nicholas. It is lot to do with who controls the time on the floor of said in the Government’s own paper to this the House. It is very sensitive between two Houses. Committee that there is a lack of interest in I do not think anybody would accept a Lords European standing committees. Well, we know that majority suggesting that something did not deserve what really interests Members is when there is an a debate in the Commons. That would be really element of uncertainty in proceedings; but if the inappropriate. It is diYcult to see how it would work Government, at the same time as saying that, are but I would like there to be something to work in also removing any possible element of uncertainty that area. When the Modernisation Committee from the proceedings, they cannot be surprised if looked at this in 1998 they said pre- and post- there is a lack of interest. Council scrutiny is the thing, and I must say I agree with that. On the European Scrutiny Committee Q224 Sir Nicholas Winterton: So what would your agenda today they have as a standing item pre- and recommendation be to the House—I cannot say “to post-Council scrutiny. The department says, “This is the Government” because you are a servant of the what is going to be on the competitiveness agenda House—on this matter? next week. This is the scrutiny history. You cleared Mr Sands: A recommendation has been made this item on this date. The Lords published a report repeatedly by the Procedure Committee that an on this date. There was a debate . . .” and so on and amendment to a Government motion in European because of the scrutiny reserve nothing is going to standing committee should have some procedural happen that has not been cleared at some point. That consequences, whether it be a short debate on the is a little bit diVerent from the Friday afternoon in floor of the House or, more likely, putting the Helsinki but it serves the same kind of purpose. committee’s motion to the House and forcing the Where I think some of our departmental select Government to reject it if they really feel strongly committees are missing an opportunity is calling in about it. a minister just before the big Council in each Presidency and saying, “What are you hoping to Q225 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Thank you. Can I just achieve on Tuesday?” I know select committees have pick you up on one thing. You almost implied that an enormous range of things they can do and that is the procedures we have here are as good as those in their strength, they can be so selective and creative Finland and Denmark where Ministers appear and and imaginative, but my magic wand would be to are mandated ie, their parliament mandates them on make select committees choose more often to do that the line that they should take. We do not do that kind of work here. Sir Nicholas Winterton: You might be unpopular Mr Sands: I think there is more of a connection with select committees. Ann. between what we do and what they do than is acknowledged in some of the papers that have been Q227 Ann CoVey: Yes, that is not entirely within put to you. I do not know exactly what mandates in anybody’s control. I suppose that is down to the the Danish European Committee look like but I select committees themselves and their particular believe they are pretty open-ended documents and interests. In a sense part of the diYculty is that of pretty brief. They are not tying the minister down in course select committees take place upstairs. They any detail. So I suspect they are not very much obviously have a number of MPs that sit on them but diVerent from the sort of motion that the they are outside what is seen as the main business Government tends to table for a European standing and the focus which is the Chamber of the House of committee saying “this Committee notes European Commons, and that is where the interest is and if the 9893884005 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 94 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

15 September 2004 Mr Roger Sands and Mr Liam Laurence Smyth media are picking up anything it is from the House continuous basis. There is all that work and of Commons, so I understand the point you are information there and it is a tragedy that it is so little making but I was maybe trying to think of a way in read and so little used. which the Chamber could be more engaged in Ann CoVey: It is a tragedy in everything that things debating European aVairs as a matter of course. are not read. Mr Sands: We also have the facility now of Westminster Hall and of course if select committees Q232 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Do you not accept, Mr did as Liam has suggested and routinely picked up Sands, that there is concern right across the House significant European issues and reported on them, that the House of Commons does not deal with the there is this regular slot now in Westminster Hall for scrutiny of European legislation adequately? debating select committee reports, and if they Mr Sands: If I am told that, yes, I obviously have to produce a report on a European issue it can be accept it. I think though that some of the concern is debated. coming from a feeling that if we were dealing with European legislation eVectively there would be a Q228 Ann CoVey: It would be wonderful if select whole lot less of it, and I do not think— committees were actually doing that. Say, for example, select committees were not focusing in on Q233 Sir Nicholas Winterton:—that is wishful how the business of their departments relates to thinking! Europe then you are not going to get that kind of Mr Sands:—and I do not think that that is true. But report to debate in Westminster. I think that is part of the concern. Mr Sands: No you are not. It does depend on the Mr Laurence Smyth: If I may, Chairman, just select committee choosing and it is more of a natural thinking over what Ms CoVey was saying about for some select committees than others. using the floor of the House, I think this Committee has already begun to influence and shape how things are done. Because your inquiry has been going on, Q229 Ann CoVey: But that does not sort the problem when the European Scrutiny Committee came to out really because it is left to the select committees to look at the justice and home aVairs legislative make the choice. programme for the next period they said, “Let’s Mr Sands: I think you have to do that. break this out from our normal weekly report and let’s make this a book on its own to say this is really Q230 Ann CoVey: But that is always the issue in this important. Though the Standing Committee is great place, is it not, because basically there is always a in its way let’s send this one to the floor of the reason for why things are the way they are, and often House.” In the last business statement that is what you go round in a circle and you come back to the Leader of the House has done. After the House returns, on Thursday 14 October the business is leaving things the way they are because there is a V reason for them being the way they are, so it does not “justice and home a airs future programme”. That really get us very far, does it? is up-stream. What are these guys thinking of doing about our civil liberties; absolutely the most basic Mr Sands: I would defend the freedom of select things aVecting us. Now it will be on a Thursday. I committees to choose their subjects because think it will be on a wonderful opportunity to show Members devote huge amounts of time and eVort to how European business can be really mainstreamed select committees and I think they do that in part and brought into focus on the floor of the House. because they feel that they are in control of what is There may be Members who think that it is a chance happening. to go home and see their family. Sir Nicholas Winterton: We will leave that one Q231 Ann CoVey: I am not disputing the point about undebated. Can I say to David Kidney, who has select committees. What I am pointing out is that the oVered to take a question, clearly we are running out weakness of your suggestion is exactly that, that the of time and look as though we may well run out of select committees have that kind of freedom. That is Members which means we will no longer be quorate. the only point I am making. I was going back to the Can I suggest, David, that you might deal with problem not only of scrutinising European questions eight and ten of the suggested questions on legislation better but being seen as a House to our paper because we are going to be running out of scrutinise it, because that is part of connecting time and Members. David Kidney. Parliament with the outside world, that people see that we do debate things that are European as well Q234 Mr Kidney: Can I say to Liam I thought those as national. were very constructive answers to Ann CoVey. Just Mr Sands: That is a standing problem with a lot of on a point of clarification can I ask when you said activity here. It is particularly so with this area. I that it would be really useful to get the minister in hope that the members of this Committee will, before they go to the main Council meeting to say before reaching a judgment on the European “what is your position going to be?” and you said Scrutiny Committee’s existing work, read a few that the select committees are very busy; why did you weeks’ worth of their reports because it will think that the select committees were the people to demonstrate the way they go about the job and the do that rather than the European Scrutiny, way they keep government departments, civil European Standing or even the Government’s servants and ministers, under pressure on a proposals for a new Joint European Committee? 9893884005 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 95

15 September 2004 Mr Roger Sands and Mr Liam Laurence Smyth

Mr Laurence Smyth: The European Scrutiny to account in some way and that is transparently not Committee does it on a paper basis now and they the case because their accountability is over in check stuV on the agenda they have dealt with. What Brussels. I was hoping to do with departmental select Mr Sands: European Commissioners have tended to committees is it would be a chance for the be quite sensitive about this. Some of them see an departmental select committee perhaps to pick up advantage in increasing their visibility in national on work it had already done in the past and identify parliaments and are keen to attend meetings. It has issues it might want to do inquiries into in the future. been meetings of select committees up to now of It would be a “variety pack” evidence session with course; but I think they like to do so, if I could put the minister. If it appeals to a select committee as it this way, on their own terms and I think any part of their repertoire then I think it might be a implication, whether in the way that we drafted a good way to go. new standing order setting up the European Joint Committee or in the way that standing orders were implemented, that the House was actually Q235 Mr Kidney: Question eight is about the trigger summoning these people and requiring them to for calling a meeting of the new Joint European come at a certain time to answer questions would be Committee of both Houses that the Leader proposes very badly received. I do not know if Liam wants to in his memorandum. Why does it have to be a comment Government minister tabling a motion in the House Mr Laurence Smyth: In carrying out his of Commons to send a message to the House of responsibilities, Chairman, “the Commissioner shall Lords? In your memorandum you say that the be completely independent, and members of the European Scrutiny Committee ought to be able to Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions initiate meetings and items on the agenda and the from any government or other institution, body, House of Lords Committee ought to be able to oYce or agency”, according to the Draft initiate meetings and items on the agenda, so how Constitutional Treaty. I think they would be quite could they do that within the conﬁnes of the clear that they were not accountable to the House. If Government having to table the motion? this Committee opens a dialogue you may well ﬁnd Mr Sands: They could only trigger the meetings: it that the Commission itself is actually quite keen to would have to be written into the terms of reference do better at relating to national parliaments. They of the European Joint Committee that its subjects might be happy to talk but I think there would be a for discussion would include matters recommended sensitivity about the perception of who was in for that purpose by the European Scrutiny charge. Committee and/or the European AVairs Committee of the House of Lords. So there would be that bit Q238 Sir Nicholas Winterton: So are you saying, there in the standing orders’ terms of reference of the Liam, that they would be happy to explain but not European Joint Committee, and the committee to be accountable? could therefore only meet when there was an Mr Laurence Smyth: I think that is right, Chairman. outstanding recommendation of that sort. The Mr Kidney: In fairness, I think personally there Y timing of meetings is very di cult, because to whom would be a lot of parliamentary and media and do you give the discretion to launch a meeting of the therefore public interest in such sessions so I am very joint committee? Hitherto we have always left that to strongly in favour of this getting started and see a motion in the House to determine the time and where it leads to. Because we have been short, Roger date of the meeting, and a motion in the House and I, on questions eight and ten, could I ask him means it has to be moved by the Government. I two very tiny consequential matters that we have cannot see an easy alternative to that unless you not reached? appoint a Chairman of the European Joint Sir Nicholas Winterton: They do not appear here? Committee who has truly awesome powers and can Mr Kidney: They are on this list and I would like an convene a meeting on his own say so whenever there answer to them. is something outstanding in the Committee’s Sir Nicholas Winterton: If you are very quick. pending business; but that would be a departure Mr Kidney: Firstly, to allow the European Scrutiny for us. Committee to sit in public simply requires a change of standing orders, does it not, there are no other consequences? Q236 Mr Kidney: I suppose I am departing if I say that I suppose some parliaments have a business management committee which is separate from the Q239 Sir Nicholas Winterton: I was going to ask that government and they table motions and if we ever set one but you asked it and you do it much better than such a thing up they could table this sort of motion. I do! Mr Sands: That is the norm rather than the Mr Sands: Giving it power to do so, yes, would only exception on the Continent. require a simple change in standing orders. I have to say that I was quite surprised to see that the Committee had recommended this. It did not strike Q237 Mr Kidney: The second question, number ten, me as the most obvious committee where is about the perceived accountability of the deliberating in public would be a good idea because Commissioners if they come to these Joint European of the intractability of the material that it is Committee meetings as though we are holding them presented with, number one, and also—a particular 9893884005 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:50:21 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: 1PAG

Ev 96 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

15 September 2004 Mr Roger Sands and Mr Liam Laurence Smyth point I would like to make, because it has been Mr Sands: I think I say somewhere in my paper that mentioned to me by colleagues—because it could I cannot see how the six weeks will ever work unless potentially cause some diYculties for the staV who, the House is prepared to give the European Scrutiny as you know, play a more prominent role in its Committee the authority to operate the subsidiarity meetings than is the case in most other select mechanism on the House’s behalf, which would be a committees. They are there to give candid advice and big step. they give it candidly, and how that would come Mr Laurence Smyth: I think I have cheated, across in public I am not at all sure. Chairman, by doing 42 days. Assuming the Commission publishes its proposals on a Thursday or Friday and the result of the deferred division comes out on a Wednesday, although it does go from Q240 Sir Nicholas Winterton: You think it would week one to week seven I think I was still within 42 destroy the valuable role that staV do play at the days within that timetable. moment? Mr Kidney: That is very clear, thank you. Mr Sands: I think there would be a risk of that. I think there would also be a risk that proceedings Q242 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is there anything that would become much more formalised, that the either Roger Sands or Liam Laurence Smyth would meetings might be longer, and because Members like to say to us? I apologise that we are now down might feel they were being held to account for to a bare quorum and I will not risk going on longer decisions not to identify a document as important and having to declare the meeting at an end because politically or legally, we might end up with more we are inquorate. Roger? recommendations for further consideration, Mr Sands: I have got nothing to add. whereas I think on the whole it would probably beneﬁt our scrutiny system and the engagement of Q243 Sir Nicholas Winterton: If there are any other Members in it downstream if there were fewer such matters to which we might at a later stage— recommendations. Mr Sands:—The paper is very comprehensive. Sir Nicholas Winterton: It is but if we need to come back to you and ask speciﬁc questions in writing you will be happy to let us have them and the same with Q241 Mr Kidney: I think this is a political judgment. you Liam? Can I therefore on behalf of the Personally I would disagree with you and we will Modernisation Committee thank Roger Sands and have to have those debates. The other question is Liam Laurence Smyth for the extremely important you give us an illustrative timetable for operating the evidence that they have been able to give. subsidiarity early warning system where you run to Mr Kidney: Including the time of the next General seven weeks and we have only got six weeks to give Election which was very helpful! the reasoned objection in. Where would something Sir Nicholas Winterton: You always seek to get in the have to give to get to six weeks? last word! Thank you. 9893883009 Page Type [SO] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 97 Written evidence

Note by the Clerk of the Committee

PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN MATTERS: RELEVANT SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS

Introduction This note aims to provide Members with extracts from recent select committee reports that deal with the scrutiny of European business by the House of Commons. Issues covered include the role of the European Scrutiny Committee, the work of the three European Standing Committees and joint working with the House of Lords.

Relevant Committee Reports 1. The four most relevant recent Reports on how the House tackles European business are listed below: (i) The Scrutiny of European Business, (June 1998) Modernisation Committee, Seventh Report of Session 1997–98, HC 791.1 This Report dealt with many issues raised by an earlier European Legislation Committee (ELC) Report that examined the way the House scrutinised European business.2 It tackled a range of issues, including changes to the Standing Orders governing European Standing Committees, relations with the European Parliament (EP) and the renaming of the ELC as the European Scrutiny Committee (ESC). It also endorsed the establishment of a National Parliament OYce (NPO) in Brussels. (ii) European Scrutiny in the Commons, (May 2002) European Scrutiny Committee, Thirtieth Report of Session 2001–02, HC 152-xxx.3 The European Scrutiny Committee reported to the House on the way in which it handled EU matters, and how they could be improved. This was in the context of its wider inquiry into the opportunities presented to national parliaments by the Convention on the Future of Europe (see (iii) below). It examined all aspects of the scrutiny system, including the work of the ESC, the role of the Standing Committees, debates in the Chamber and relations with MEPs and the devolved institutions. (iii) Democracy and Accountability in the EU and the Role of National Parliaments, (June 2002) European Scrutiny Committee, Thirty-third Report of Session 2001–02, HC 152-xxxiii.4 In this report, the ESC sought to tackle the issue of the “disengagement” between citizens and the EU institutions, and, in particular, how strengthening the role of national parliaments within the Union’s structures could help ameliorate the situation. It examined the role of each of the EU institutions, and the distribution of power between them, and more generally between the Union and its member states. (iv) The Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments, (June 2003) European Scrutiny Committee, Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2002–03, HC 63-xxiv.5 This Report was both a follow-up to the ESC’s previous one on Democracy and Accountability in the EU and a response to some of the proposals then emerging from the Convention on the Future of Europe, which was meeting at the time. It tackled details issues of the functioning of the Council and Commission, as well as the role of national parliaments. 2. The ESC’s Annual Reports for 2002 and 2003 took forward a number of the issues it had raised in the latter two reports.6 3. The 2002 Reports from the Modernisation and Liaison Committees on Select Committees are relevant in respect of the role of departmental select committees in the scrutiny of European business (see para XXX below). The House of Lords European Union Committee also produced a substantial Report on how the upper house scrutinises European Legislation: Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation (First Report of Session 2002–03, HL 15).

1 Government Response: 2 European Legislation Committee, Twenty-seventh Report of Session 1995–96, The Scrutiny of European business, HC 51-xxvii. 3 Government Response: European Scrutiny in The Commons: Government Observations on the Committee’s Thirtieth Report of Session 2001–02, Second Special Report of Session 2001–02, HC 1256. 4 Government Response: Democracy and Accountability in the EU and the Role of National Parliaments: Government Observations on the Committee’s Thirty-Third Report Of Session 2001–02, Third Special Report of Session 2001–02, HC 1257. 5 Government Response: The Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments: Government Observations on the Committee’s Report, Second Special Report of Session 2002–03, HC 1176. 6 ESC, Eighth Report of Session 2002–03, The Committee’s Work in 2002, HC 63-viii; and Eighth Report of Session 2003–04, The Committee’s work in 2003, HC 42-viii. 9893883001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 98 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

4. The most relevant sections of each of the Reports listed above have been reproduced below under the appropriate headings. Some recommendations have not been included as they have already been superseded by later developments. 6 next to a paragraph indicates that it is from the Government’s Response to that Report.

Purpose and Principles of European Scrutiny in the Commons

5. In its first Report of the current Parliament on this subject, the ESC sought to define the main principles and purpose of European scrutiny in the Commons: — “The main purpose of the scrutiny system is to enable the House to influence directly the activities of UK Ministers in the EU’s Council of Ministers and hold Ministers to account, but it may have much wider informal influence.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 7) — “Our new definition of the system’s purpose is to ensure that Members are informed of EU proposals likely to aVect the UK, to provide a source of information and analysis for the public, and to ensure that the House and the European Scrutiny Committee, and through them other organisations and individuals, have opportunities to make Ministers aware of their views on EU proposals, seek to influence Ministers and hold Ministers to account.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 25) — “The general principles of the scrutiny system are largely sound, including: a specialised committee rather than mainstreaming European matters among the departmental select committees (DSCs); concentrating on documents as opposed to Council meetings; determining the importance of documents rather than their merits; examining all documents rather than a selected few; and separate scrutiny systems in Commons and Lords.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, paras 28–38 (summary)) — “Public involvement in and knowledge of the Commons’ European Scrutiny work is crucial if the Commons is to play the part the Government envisages for national parliaments in the EU. The two preconditions for that are that the House must have suYcient influence on UK Ministers’ EU activities to make lobbying it worthwhile and that people must be able to find out easily what EU matters are being considered in the Commons.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, paras 93–4)

6. This issue was also discussed in the ESC’s subsequent Report on The Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments: — “The requirements of national parliaments are in principle simple: information and the time to express views before decisions are made. They require these, above all, in order to fulﬁl their acknowledged vital role of making their own governments accountable.” (The Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments, ESC, para 7) 6 “The Government mirrors the Committee’s comments on the importance of enhancing the role of national parliaments in EU business. We have consistently been strong advocates of this. As the closest and most visible link to citizens, it is right that national parliamentarians are more involved in EU aVairs. The Government believes that this would help to re-connect our citizens to the Union and address concerns about the EU’s democratic legitimacy. . . . “The Government agrees that national parliaments must be fully informed and given suYcient time to express their views before decisions are made. EVective scrutiny is an important element of that. The Government takes seriously its obligations under the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution. We share the Committee’s view that all national Parliaments should take seriously their role in holding their Governments to account. A strong and eVective scrutiny system is a vital element in achieving this.” (paras 3–4)

7. From a diVerent perspective, the House of Lords European Union Committee, agreed with the ESC’s deﬁnition of the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny in this ﬁeld, but added adiVerent emphasis: — “It is an inevitable and desirable consequence of the principle of the separation of powers, on which modern national democratic constitutions are founded, that it is for the legislature, not the executive, to have constitutional responsibility for legislation. Parliament can delegate power to make legislation and, in the case of domestic subordinate legislation, retains control over Ministers exercising that power. Parliament can, ultimately, vote down such legislation, even though this power is rarely used. The situation with European legislation is very diVerent. Once European regulations, directives and decisions have been through the law-making processes enshrined in the Treaties (which to varying degrees involve the Commission, the European Parliament and national 9893883001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 99

government ministers operating in the Council), it is in practice too late for national parliaments to seek to reverse them, even if the EU instrument in question has to be given eVect in the United Kingdom by means of domestic primary or secondary legislation. . . . “We accordingly stress that national parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation has a clear constitutional purpose. Scrutiny at an early stage is therefore essential and must be as eVective as possible. To that end, scrutiny should include: (i) The accumulation, presentation and summary of relevant material, including information, statistics, explanation and analysis. (ii) The provision of information to the House and to the public as a contribution to transparency. (iii) Drawing the attention of the House, the Government, European institutions and the public to signiﬁcant matters contained within that information and in particular making recommendations—’focusing the debate’. (iv) Contributing to the law-making process by detailed analysis of draft texts, by exposing diYculties and proposing amendments. (v) An examination of the Government and its role in agreeing European legislation and, as part of that process, compelling the Government not only to think through what it is doing or has done but sometimes to account for it. (vi) An examination of the Commission and the policies it formulates.” (Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation, House of Lords European Union Committee, paras 12–13)

European Scrutiny Committee 8. The European Scrutiny Committee (ESC), previously the Select Committee on European Legislation, was established in 1974, and operates under Standing Order No. 143.

General principles — “The general principles of the scrutiny system are largely sound, including: a specialised committee rather than mainstreaming European matters among the departmental select committees (DSCs); concentrating on documents as opposed to Council meetings; determining the importance of documents rather than their merits; examining all documents rather than a selected few; and separate scrutiny systems in Commons and Lords.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, paras 28–38)

Meeting in public — “We wish to make as much information public as we can and to meet in public whenever possible, while maintaining the eVectiveness of the Committee. We regard this as an important issue, but one which needs further examination.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 41) 6 “This is not a matter for the Government, but the Government supports the Committee’s desire to meet more in public.” (para 11)

Pre-and post-CouncilScrutiny — “We recommend that the European Legislation Committee should, on an experimental basis, conduct pre- and post-Council scrutiny until the end of next session.” (The Scrutiny of European Business, ModCom, para 16) — “There are diYculties in establishing a systematic approach to pre- and post-Council scrutiny. We have concentrated on improving the quality and usefulness of the written answers we receive on Council meetings.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, paras 61–63 (summary)) 6 “This is for the Committee rather than the Government. However, the Government agrees that maintaining a focus on documents rather than Councils results in more eVective scrutiny of individual dossiers and shares the Committee’s view that the European Scrutiny Committee should continue to have consideration of documents as its main task. The Government is willing to work with the Committee to develop pre and post-Council scrutiny so that the information received by the Committee is better focussed.” (para 7)

European Standing Committees 9. Documents judged by the ESC to be of political/legal importance are referred to one of the three European Standing Committees (A, B and C), which are appointed under Standing Order No. 119. Their responsibilities are currently divided as follows: 9893883001 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 100 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

(a) Environment, Food and Rural AVairs; Transport, Local Government and the Regions; Forestry Commission; and analogous responsibilities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland OYces; (b) HM Treasury (including HM Customs and Excise); Work and Pensions; Foreign and Commonwealth OYce; International Development; Home OYce; Constitutional AVairs; together with any matters not otherwise allocated; and (c) Trade and Industry; Education and Skills; Culture, Media and Sport; Health. 10. Each Standing Committee has 13 permanent Members, though any Member may attend and do everything but vote. The ﬁrst 1–1° hours of each meeting are taken up by questions to the appropriate Minister, with the subsequent 1–1° hours used for debate on the Motion moved by the Minister in relation to the document(s) under consideration. Motions can be, and occasionally are, amended.

General — “We do not believe European Standing Committees have yet reached their full potential.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 67)

Number of committees — “We also believe that it is right to increase the number of European Standing Committees. The present portfolios of the two Committees are unwieldy, and it is well-nigh impossible to develop specific expertise when for example European Standing Committee A is one week debating animal health, and the next week aircraft safety. A structure of five Committees would produce a more logical division of responsibilities, and would spread the workload more evenly. Clearly there is some room for argument as to the exact allocation of portfolios, but a possible breakdown might be as follows: Committee A: Agriculture; Health; Committee B: Environment, Transport and Regions; Committee C: Treasury; Home AVairs; Committee D: Trade and Industry; Foreign AVairs (external relations of the EU) and International Development; Committee E: Education and Employment; Social Security; Culture, Media and Sport; and any other matters. “Although it makes obvious sense in theory to increase the number and specialist knowledge of European Standing Committees, there are practical problems which must be tackled. In particular there would need to be extra Members appointed, and there would be a commitment on such Members not only to attend but to devote a considerable time to the study of the European Legislation Committee’s Reports and associated documents. The composition of the present House imposes a particular strain on the Opposition and indeed on the smaller parties, whose resources are already stretched. One obvious way of easing this burden would be to reduce the size of the permanent membership of the Committees, especially considering that any Member of the House has the right to attend. If there were a reduction in size to eleven, nine or even seven Members there might be greater willingness to serve, especially if Members felt they were being given an opportunity to develop specialist knowledge. “Although we are convinced that it is right that the number of European Standing Committees should be increased and that there should be greater specialisation, we do not propose to be prescriptive about exact details. Discussions will need to take place between the party business managers as to how best to bring about the necessary changes. We therefore recommend that the party business managers should hold urgent discussions with a view to bringing forward proposals, to take eVect from next session, to increase the number of European Standing Committees to five and to redefine their responsibilities.” (The Scrutiny of European Business, ModCom, paras 21–26) [nb The number of Standing Committees was increased from two to three following the publication of the Report.] — “The number of European Standing Committees should be increased to five.” (Para 69 European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC) 6 “The European Standing Committees were remodelled in 1998 in response to similar recommendations from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. At that time the Government undertook to consider the feasibility of increasing the number of European Standing Committees, but it proved impossible to introduce the number of Committees and the degree of specialisation the Select Committee recommended. The Government does not believe that such an increase in number will be possible now due to the expected diYculties in finding suYcient Members to serve on the additional European Standing Committees.” (para 27) 9893883001 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 101

Procedure in standing committees — “We believe the style of questioning in European Standing Committees should be like that in select committees, with supplementaries permitted, and we ask the Chairman’s Panel to consider making this change.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 68) 6 “The Government notes that proposals for a change of practice in European Standing Committees require no Standing Order changes. It is for Chairman’s Panel to decide whether such a change is desirable; the Government agrees that more sustained questioning could make proceedings more informative.” (para 24) [nb The Chairman’s panel subsequently agreed to this recommendation.] — “The motion moved in the House on an EU document should always be that agreed by the European Standing Committee; if the Government does not wish to move it another Member should do so; and in such circumstances a brief explanatory statement by the mover and a Minister should be permitted.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 73) 6 “The Government does not agree to this proposal. The motions which go to the Committee reﬂect the position which the Committee and later the House is asked to endorse, and the arguments for and against that position are set out in the debate, which can be attended by any Member. If the Committee chooses to amend the motion, that is also a matter of record that Members can take into account when considering the motion put before the House.” (para 29)

Involvement of departmental select committees — “We also believe it would be beneﬁcial if Departmental Select Committees or their members were more involved in the work of the European Standing Committee covering their Department.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 70) 6 “The Government agrees that Select Committee Members may have valuable expertise to contribute to European Standing Committees. Questions about membership of Committees are complex, and heavily dependent on the wishes of individual Members. The Government notes that any Member may take part in European Standing Committee’s proceedings or move amendments to motions. While every eVort is made to minimise clashes between European Standing Committee meetings and relevant select committee business, there are many factors aVecting when a meeting may be held and clashes cannot always be avoided. In such cases, of course, select committees and their Members are free to decide their own priorities.” (para 28)

European Business on the Floor of the House/Westminster Hall 11. On average, the ESC calls for two debates a year on the Floor of the House. There has been discussion in the past about whether documents could instead/also be debated in Westminster Hall.

Debates on the floor — “We recommend that the Modernisation Committee consider the possibility of longer Floor debates on EU documents incorporating questions to the Minister.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 80) 6 “The Government will be interested in any comments the Modernisation Committee may have. However, it should be noted that the current time limit has applied since 1995 when it was introduced as part of the Jopling reforms, which were introduced to limit the sitting hours of the House. The House of Commons continues to sit longer than most, if not all, comparable legislatures, and constant increases in the time allotted to particular types of business will increase this disparity.” (para 33) — “We would welcome more debates on the Floor of the House on specific EU matters, such as reform of the Common Agricultural Policy or EU transport policy, which are not tied to the detail of a legislative or other text.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 89) 6 “The Government notes the Committee’s recommendation. There may be occasions when a further free standing debate on a European matter would be appropriate, even though the House currently holds two general European debates a year and a debate on fisheries policy, in addition to the regular opportunities to debate particular documents. However, the introduction of Westminster Hall means that there are now significant opportunities for backbenchers or Committees to seek debates on European matters, and it may be that proposals from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons will also introduce new flexibility. There is always more demand for debates on the floor than time available and the Government cannot guarantee that it will be able to provide extra time for European business.” (para 37) 9893883002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 102 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

— “We are attracted by the possibility of an equivalent of the 10-minute procedure for EU documents.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 90) 6 “The Government is not attracted to this proposal. There are already greatly increased opportunities for debate provided by Westminster Hall. If the House adopts reforms to the procedure for Parliamentary questions, then questions will become more timely and topical. These reforms themselves oVer opportunities for better scrutiny of European business.” (para 38)

Westminster Hall — “We recommend that provision be made for us [the ESC] to refer EU documents for debate in Westminster Hall.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 77) 6 “Westminster Hall can already be used for debate on European matters and the Liaison Committee can recommend matters which committees consider important for debate in Westminster Hall. The Modernisation Committee has recently reported on future arrangements for Westminster Hall. The Government thinks that it is inappropriate to put forward further changes at this stage, but will bear the proposal in mind for the future.” (para 31)

European Grand Committee 12. There have been suggestions that some form of “European Grand Committee” should be formed to serve as an additional forum for more general debate on European matters. This proposal came partly to fruition by the decision of the House on 12 June 2002 to establish a, “Standing Committee on the Convention, for the consideration of reports from the United Kingdom Parliamentary Representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe.”7 This Committee allowed Parliament’s Representatives to the Convention to report back to Members, and to be questioned by them. Although any Member of either House could attend these sessions, only Members appointed to the Foreign AVairs (FAC) or European Scrutiny Committees could vote or be counted in the quorum. In total, the Committee met six times.8 13. Following the agreement of the draft treaty by the Convention, the House agreed, on 15 September 2003, to establish a Standing Committee on the IGC.9 This would fulﬁl a similar role to that on the Convention, except it would be Ministers answering Members questions. Again the Committee would consist of Members of the ESC and FAC, with any other Member of either House able to attend. For the IGC Committee, however, other MPs could be counted towards the quorum of the Committee. — “We recommend that provision be made for the European Scrutiny Committee and one or more Departmental Select Committees to call meetings of a European Grand Committee.” (Para 79, European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC) 6 “The House has recently agreed to establish a Committee on the Convention to debate the Convention on the future of Europe. The Government believes that proposals for a European Grand Committee should be considered when Members have had the opportunity to evaluate the Committee on the Convention.” (Para 32)

Receipt of Documents 14. The ESC, and other individual Members, have complained in the past that it is often very diYcult for the House to exercise eVective scrutiny of EU matters owing to the short notice with which they receive relevant European documents. — “We emphasise that any deadlines set by the European Council and the timing of the negotiations intended to meet such deadlines must provide enough time for national parliamentary scrutiny in advance of Council decisions on new texts.” (Democracy and Accountability in the EU and the role of National Parliaments, ESC, para 50) 6 “The Government recognises the diYculties that can be encountered, particularly with fast- moving dossiers. The ability to respond quickly to crises is essential to ensure the Union’s eVectiveness and credibility when dealing with urgent dossiers. The UK’s ability to move ﬂexibly and rapidly is also imperative to ensure we are not sidelined in negotiations. The date of Council meetings often sets the eVective deadline for reaching agreement on a dossier. However, the Government is working hard to provide Parliament with suYcient time in advance of Council decisions to be able to scrutinise dossiers eVectively and thoroughly. This includes eVorts to encourage better timetabling of dossiers to ensure that successive Presidencies comply with the minimum requirements set out in the Protocol on the role of

7 Votes and Proceedings, 12 June 2002. 8 On 16 July, 23 October, 12 December 2002, 19 March, 7 May and 16 June 2003. 9 Votes and proceedings, 15 September 2003. 9893883002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 103

national parliaments in the EU, annexed to the Treaty on European Union. The Government believes that better planning of the scrutiny timetable and improved information flow between UKRep, Departments and the Committee should reduce to a minimum the number of occasions when Ministers find themselves taking decisions to override the Committee’s reserves. The Government is grateful to the Committee for accepting more informal methods of information provision.” (paras 8–9) In its recent Annual Report for 2003, the Committee noted the marked improvement by the Government in providing documents on time. It was, however, still experiencing diYculties with the holders of the six- monthly rotating presidency: — “Whereas in 2002 we called Ministers before us four times to explain breaches without good cause of the House’s scrutiny reserve resolution (which prohibits Ministers from agreeing proposals in the Council which have not cleared parliamentary scrutiny), we did not consider it necessary to do so at all in 2003. This, we believe, reflects the greater importance which Ministers now attach to the scrutiny reserve resolution and the special attention now given by the Cabinet OYce to EU documents it identifies as likely to cause scrutiny problems. We received the first of the planned six-monthly lists of scrutiny reserve breaches—another sign of the care now being taken within Government over such breaches. We are grateful to the Cabinet OYce and departmental scrutiny units for their eVorts in this area. Of course, there remain too many occasions when EU Presidencies seek to rush through proposals without allowing time for parliamentary scrutiny, and we would wish to see the Government protesting to the Presidency in these cases.” (The Committee’s work in 2003, para 7)

Departmental Select Committees 15. In recent years the House has increasingly encouraged departmental select committees (DSCs) to pay closer attention to EU matters. — “We also believe it would be beneﬁcial if DSCs or their Members were more involved in the work of the European Standing Committee covering their Department.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 70) 6 “The Government agrees that Select Committee Members may have valuable expertise to contribute to European Standing Committees. Questions about membership of Committees are complex, and heavily dependent on the wishes of individual Members. The Government notes that any Member may take part in European Standing Committee’s proceedings or move amendments to motions. While every eVort is made to minimise clashes between European Standing Committee meetings and relevant select committee business, there are many factors aVecting when a meeting may be held and clashes cannot always be avoided. In such cases, of course, select committees and their Members are free to decide their own priorities.” (para 28) — “We would particularly wish to see DSCs examining Commission Green and White Papers.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 86) 6 “These issues are for individual Committees and the Liaison Committee to decide. However, the Government notes that in many cases Departmental Select Committees already examine Commission Green and White Papers.” (para 34) — “It would be helpful if DSCs (or at least those in subject areas with much EU legislation) considered appointing a European rapporteur, who could keep a watching brief on developments in the EU and whom we could consult and pass information to.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 87) 6 “Committees must of course be free to decide how they best carry out the core tasks endorsed by the Liaison Committee. We note however that the Modernisation Committee in its First Report of Session 2001–02 (HC 224-1) recommended that select committees should experiment with appointing one of their number as a rapporteur on a speciﬁc task (recommendation 10).” (para 36) — “We support the proposal for regular meetings of members of the defence, foreign aVairs and European aVairs committees of national parliaments to scrutinise ESDP.” (Democracy and Accountability in the EU and the Role of National Parliaments, ESC, para 147) 6 “The Government’s view remains that the primary scrutiny role on matters concerning ESDP should rest with national parliaments. The Government notes with interest the views of the Committee on the question of regular meetings between the Committees of national parliaments. This is a matter for the Committees concerned. The wider question of scrutiny matters, and developing greater links between parliaments, is also one of the subjects being considered at the Convention.” (para 35) 9893883002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 104 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

16. In its Report on Select Committees, the Modernisation Committee recommended that there should be an, “agreed statement of the core tasks of the departmental select committees.”10 This proposal was welcomed by the Liaison Committee and subsequently accepted by the House on 14 May, who requested that the Committee draw up a list of “core tasks”.11 17. The ﬁrst of the “core tasks” agreed by the Liaison Committee makes speciﬁc references to the DSC’s role in examining relevant European papers and policies: “Task 1: To examine policy proposals from the UK Government and the European Commission in Green Papers, White Papers, draft Guidance etc, and to inquire further where the Committee considers it appropriate.”12

Involvement of MEPs 18. In both of its recent reports on this subject, the ESC has recommended more opportunities for MPs and MEPs to discuss relevant issues. — “We envisage regular meetings with MEPs, perhaps every six months, related where possible to speciﬁc EU activity, such as the Commission’s Annual Work Programme or a Presidency’s priorities, and possibly involving representatives of DSCs.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, ESC, para 107) 6 “This is a matter for the Committee, but the Government agrees that closer links between national Parliaments and the European Parliament are desirable, and will help increase the EU’s democratic legitimacy. We therefore warmly welcome the Committee’s proposal. Such issues are among the wide range of questions being considered in the Convention on the future of Europe. The Government was also pleased that the House recently agreed to increase Members’ entitlement for travel to EU institutions and national parliaments to allow for up to three visits each year, rather than only one. This will allow a greater degree of contact between MPs and their counterparts in other EU member states.” (paras 41–42) [nb To date, the ESC has held three such meetings with MEPs.] — “We call for joint meetings of national parliamentarians and MEPs to be placed on a more formal basis with a small secretariat and joint organisation by national parliaments and the EP.” (Democracy and Accountability in the EU and the Role of National Parliaments, ESC, para 143) 6 “Again, the Government encourages the Committee to discuss this recommendation with other Member State national parliaments, and to transmit the proposal to the Convention Working Group on national parliaments. Increasing formal and informal contacts between national parliamentarians and MEPs would beneﬁt both. This question is rightly being considered at the Convention.” (para 34)

Scrutiny of Implementation 19. At the end of its Report on European Scrutiny in the Commons, the ESC drew attention to the issue of how EU legislation was implemented by the UK Government: — “It is not part of our role to monitor the transposition or implementation of EU legislation in the UK, and we would not have the time to do so. However, no other committee has this responsibility either, and much EU legislation is implemented by statutory instruments subject to the negative procedure, with the result that there may be no parliamentary scrutiny at all. Several witnesses believed there was a problem of ‘gold-plating’ when implementing EU legislation in the UK. “There are three ways in which the gap as regards implementation might be ﬁlled: — DSCs can examine the ways in which Departments are proposing to implement EU legislation, as suggested by the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee and done by his Committee in respect of the End of Life Vehicles Directive; — The range of measures which have to be implemented by Acts rather than statutory instruments could be increased, as proposed by Martin Howe QC, or some procedure simpler than an Act but involving more scrutiny than statutory instruments currently receive could be devised for EU-related measures; — There could be a Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to sift statutory instruments in the same way that we sift EU documents and to recommend the most important for debate, as proposed most recently (for an experimental period) by the Leader of the House. “All of these have attractions, but we regard the last as the best option, since it would be the most systematic. We support the Leader of the House’s proposal for a Secondary Legislation Scrutiny

10 Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee, First Report of Session 2001–02, Select Committees, HC 224, para 33. 11 Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2001–02, Select Committees: Modernisation Proposals, HC 692, para 17, and Votes and Proceedings, 14 May 2002, p 864–5. 12 Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2002–03, Annual Report for 2002, HC 558, appendix 3. 9893883002 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 105

Committee and for debates on statutory instruments it recommends for debate.” (European Scrutiny in the Commons, paras 112–3) 6 The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has undertaken to look at proposals for a sifting committee. The Government looks forward to its proposals with interest.” (para 44) 20. It is worth noting that this issue of the “gold-plating” of EU legislation was addressed directly by the Bellis Report,13 referred to by the Foreign Secretary in his recent statement: “Transposition of EU legislation into national law also needs attention. The risk of gold-plating the original texts, thereby imposing on British businesses more stringent conditions than those that their competitors in other member states face, is real. With that in mind, 18 months ago I commissioned the distinguished European lawyer, Robin Bellis, to prepare a report on our implementation of EU legislation and I published it on 24 November last year. In December I held a seminar to discuss its recommendations with representatives from across Government, the House, the EU institutions and the Confederation of British Industry. I have asked the relevant Departments to report back to me in six months on the steps that they have taken to implement the recommendations. Of course, I also welcome the views of the House.” (HC Deb, 11 February 2004, column 1417)

Joint working with the House of Lords 21. In its Report, Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation, the Lords European Union Select Committee took an in-depth view of how scrutiny of European business worked in the upper house. It had a similar scope to that of the ESC’s Report and looked at joint working between the two committees. It concluded that the two bodies complemented each other and rejected arguments for a single, joint committee. It did make a series of concrete proposals for more collaboration, though: — “Our Committee and the Commons European Scrutiny Committee do quite diVerent jobs, although we do both work ‘for a common cause’ (to quote the Chairman of the Commons Committee, Jimmy Hood MP). In order to examine the opportunities for co-operation, it is necessary to understand our diVerent working methods. The principal diVerence is that the Commons Committee does not ostensibly examine the merits of a particular document but considers each document against the criteria of whether it is politically and legally important and should accordingly be debated. We examine all documents on their policy merits, and we consider a number of documents in detail and based on evidence. The Commons Committee produces few reports based on evidence. “A second major diVerence between our two committees is that we appoint Sub-Committees, including ad hoc Sub-Committees. It is through the vehicle of the Sub-Committees that our Committee both conducts scrutiny of individual documents, often involving correspondence with Ministers, and substantial inquiries. The Sub-Committee system allows our members to bring and develop expertise; to hear outside views on proposals; and to consider the merits of a policy. We can accordingly focus in detail on specific policy areas at every stage. In the Commons that detailed policy work is left to departmental Select Committees. “We have considered whether there is real ‘complementarity’ between our Committee and the Commons European Scrutiny Committee and whether we succeed in avoiding unnecessary duplication of eVort. We have also considered the opportunities for co-operation (including joint evidence sessions) with the Commons in order to improve scrutiny. . . . “We can see the force in some of the arguments for a joint committee. The UK national parliament would be able to speak with one voice, although it is a matter of discussion whether that would lead to any greater impact outside Westminster than we have at present. On balance, however, the arguments advanced do not persuade us of the need for a joint committee. We nevertheless make proposals below for more joint working. We note that the Commons Committee has already rejected the suggestion for a joint committee. That such a committee would enhance scrutiny has been stated but no convincing argument advanced. Indeed the Leader of the House implied that the Commons work was less eVective than ours. It therefore does not follow that adding their work to ours(orours to theirs) would necessarily improve scrutiny: indeed it might dilute its eVect in spite of minor improvements in administrative eYciency. The number of Members of this House on a joint committee would certainly be less than on our Committee at present. We would almost certainly lose our power to co-opt Members of expertise. Both of these would be weaknesses in a joint committee. “Another argument for a joint committee is that it is conceivable that, if two committees came to diVerent views, the Government might be able to play them oV against each other. We were pleased to hear Jimmy Hood MP say that he did not think our committees would be distracted in that way. “The argument that witnesses find it inconvenient to appear twice is a good one, but as the Commons European Scrutiny Committee only occasionally takes evidence the issue almost never arises. Where they do it tends to be from a Minister and we remain firmly of the view that, in a

13 FCO, Implementation of EU Legislation: An independent study for the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce by Mr Robin Bellis, November 2003. 9893883002 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 106 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

bicameral system, scrutiny of Ministers by both Houses strengthens scrutiny. We are sure that the Leader of the House’s motive for proposing a joint committee was not a desire to reduce the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. “As for the Commons departmental Select Committees, we are aware that, where they undertake inquiries on European topics, there can be an overlap with the work of our Sub-Committees. Our oYcials monitor such developments closely. The same issues arise with regard to the Scottish Parliament, and in particular its European AVairs Committee, but once again oYcial channels provide a good means of co-operation. “We remain of the view that eVective scrutiny is a synthesis of scrutiny based on legislation and scrutiny based on policy. The diVerent scrutiny systems in the two Houses complement each other in this way and should continue. “We nevertheless warmly welcome Jimmy Hood MP’s commitment to collaboration and working together and are pleased to note that his Committee finds our work on the merits of proposals helpful. We will accordingly take up with the Commons Committee the question of whether the balance of work between the two Committees is appropriate. We will also examine ways by which we can use and build on their scrutiny work in conducting our own. “We have already accepted the case for joint working on specific issues, as well as building on established mechanisms for co-operation between oYcials. For example, co-operation between the Houses in the Standing Committee on the Convention has been a success. We work with the Commons in connection with COSAC (see paragraph 133 below). We also invited the Commons to join our scrutiny of the Commission’s Annual Work Programme in a joint session of evidence from the Commission. Our colleagues in the Commons, however, declined this invitation. We will, though, consider with the Commons the case for a joint meeting after each European Council to allow the two Committees to exchange views on the future planning of work on the basis of the agenda set by the European Council. We will also consider practical means for joint dissemination of our views, where they coincide, to increase our impact.” (Select Committee on the European Union, First Report of Session 2002–03, Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation, HL 15, paras 117–129) 6 “The Government is grateful to the Committee for giving some thought to the idea, floated by the Leader of the House of Lords among others, of establishing a single European Committee of the two Houses. There would undoubtedly be diYculties in fusing the work of the two existing Committees, as the Commons European Scrutiny Committee concluded in their own recent review of the scrutiny system (30th Report, HC 152-xxx). These might be overcome in a way that preserved the complementarity that current arrangements allow and which we commended in our response to that report (HC 1256). Experience of the Standing Committee established to oversee the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe highlights, for example, the advantages that would accrue from jointly taking evidence before or after European Councils (or indeed other formations of the Council of Ministers). It also points to the value of Westminster being able to feed a single view into ongoing discussions in Brussels. If the Convention and subsequent IGC result in national parliaments having a right to opine on whether proposed legislation meets the subsidiarity principle, new arrangements will need to be devised. “The Government welcomes the Committee’s readiness to envisage more joint working with the Commons Scrutiny Committee, including through formal concurrent meetings to take evidence. The Committee and the House may wish to revisit the issue of a single committee once the outcome of the Convention is known.” (Select Committee on the European Union, Twentieth Report of Session 2002–03, Government Response: Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation, HL 99, paras 117–129) March 2004

Submission from Mr Bill O’Brien MP

Thank you for your letter of 21 April in which you refer to the Modernisation Committee and the question of the scrutiny of European matters in the House of Commons.

I consider that there should be a committee to scrutinise European matters more now than ever before and therefore I would certainly support the principle of such a committee to investigate and scrutinise European legislation. April 2004 9893883003 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 107

Submission from Mr Colin Challen MP

SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN MATTERS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS Thank you for your recent letter about the above. I would like to see select committees have a greater role. They should be able to probe proposed European directives and initiatives, be automatically informed of things relevant to their committees, and be staVed with the necessary number of clerks or researchers to do a proper job of scrutiny. This is a matter for the whole of parliament, not just one committee. I wonder how many members plough through minutes of the European Scrutiny Committee? By the time they do, it is of course too late. A year or two ago, I asked to be put on a mailing list to receive all their reports. I was told this was not possible. You have to request each report when it comes out. This is hardly conducive to good scrutiny. I hope the Modernisation Committee will look at ways in which European Scrutiny can be made easier, even at this rather mundane level. April 2004

Submission from Mr Stephen McCabe MP I refer to the letter which was sent by the Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Leader of the House of Commons to the Modernisation Committee on Scrutiny of European Matters. It seems to me that this is an area where an extension of work and a clear focus by a Select Committee could vastly improve the understanding of EU matters both within the House and the country. I give total support to the ideas of the Leader of the House in trying to develop this work. April 2004

Submission from Brian White MP There is an easy and eVective way of providing scrutiny of the Executive over European matters which is to adopt what they do in Denmark and Finland. Each week, usually on Fridays, prior to a EU Council meeting the ministers who are due to attend come before a Grand Committee of all MPs and MEPs and set out what the agenda items are for the following week and what the Government’s overall objectives are for those meetings. The following week they come back and say how well they achieved them. For obvious reasons the pre meetings are not in public. This means that the Government has a clear idea of what concerns Parliament has but more importantly Parliament has a clear idea of what Ministers are doing. If we are serious about improving our democracy I believe this kind of scrutiny is essential, especially as our Ministers do most of their negotiations using prerogative powers. There should be no need for any votes and given that our national interest is involved, any leaking is likely to seriously rebound on whoever did it. It would also strengthen Ministers’ hands in the actual Council negotiations and would provide for greater transparency in our handling of European matters. If we were to accept some kind of scrutiny role then I believe that eventually it would enhance the image of the EU and show how decision making actually takes place rather than the media myths. April 2004

Submission from Rt Hon Alan Williams MP, Chairman of the Liaison Committee

SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN MATTERS: ROLE OF SELECT COMMITTEES 1. At its meeting on 6 May the Liaison Committee had a discussion on the proposals for scrutiny of European matters contained in your memorandum to the Modernisation Committee published on 1 April, insofar as they relate to the general work of select committees. That means primarily the options outlined in paragraphs 27 to 30 of the memorandum. I expect that the European Scrutiny Committee has submitted its own response, and that at least one other individual select committee will do so. 2. The memorandum seems at times to confuse or conﬂate three separate processes: (a) the process of sifting documents, to identify those of such legal or political importance as to merit debate, a process carried out by the European Scrutiny Committee, which gives the reasons for its opinion; (b) the process of debate and questioning of Ministers on European policy or legislative proposals, leading to some sort of conclusion which can be endorsed [or not] by the House; and (c) the process of inquiry by a select committee into the merits of documents or related matters, which may lead to a number of conclusions and recommendations. 3. The Liaison Committee is strongly of the view that any further engagement of departmental select committees in the process of European scrutiny should be an enhancement of the existing structure of sifting and debate, and not a replacement or an alternative. That has been the view expressed by the Procedure 9893883005 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 108 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Committee in 1997, endorsed by the Modernisation Committee in 1998. There are many Members not on the relevant departmental select committee who are entitled to an opportunity to scrutinise and debate documents, which the current system provides. 4. Committees already “mainstream” European matters. For a number of them, as no doubt for the departments they shadow, the European context is an integral part of the political and economic landscape, not an extraneous and easily overlooked or esoteric add-on. For example, the Trade and Industry Committee’s inquiry into the End of Life Vehicles directive arose not because of document-based scrutiny but because of the concerns expressed by stakeholders. The same was true of recent EFRA Committee inquiries into the fridge mountain, the Water Framework Directive, and the recent Directive on electrical waste: and the Northern Ireland AVairs Committee inquiry into the operation of the PEACE II programme. The Transport Committee’s current inquiry into several European transport issues has been undertaken because of the signiﬁcance of the issue of the Commission’s competence in transport policy. The Science and Technology Committee is completing an inquiry into the REACH proposals for dealing with chemicals, hopefully in time for a European Standing Committee debate in May.

5. Given the inevitably short notice in some cases, and their existing workload, it is in our view unrealistic to expect the departmental select committees to inquire into, and report on, all the documents recommended for debate each year by the Scrutiny Committee.

6. The memorandum refers to the “considerable workload” which would be imposed and to requirement for an [unspeciﬁed] “diVerent way of working”. If a document were referred by the Scrutiny Committeetoa departmental select committee, it would presumably be expected to take evidence not only from the relevant Minister on the proposals, but also a range of other stakeholders, as envisaged in paras 26 and 27 of the memorandum. That may indeed be a “traditional mode of inquiry”, but it is also one which is required to discover the expert views of those aVected. It is a process which requires not only the time of Members and staV but also time to identify and contact the appropriate witnesses, and for them to prepare to give evidence. Having received evidence, there is then time required for a committee to agree a report which can inform the subsequent debate.

7. The last sentence of para 28 of the memorandum refers to the additional staV resources now being given to Committees as enabling them to “increase their capacity and speed of working”. The additional staV resources have been given to committees following a detailed review carried out by a team under the auspices of the National Audit OYce of the resources necessary for committees to carry out their existing functions, particularly in the light of the core tasks which the Modernisation Committee recommended and which this Committee promulgated in 2002. While those tasks include the examination of Commission Green and White papers, they do not foresee taking on work on the scale apparently envisaged in the memorandum. The proposals in the memorandum do however in our view reinforce the importance of regular periodic review of committee staYng levels, so that they can reﬂect the tasks which committees are asked to undertake.

8. There will be some instances where select committees will indeed be able and willing to undertake an inquiry into documents recommended [or likely to be recommended] for debate by the European Scrutiny Committee, so as to inform subsequent debate. Indeed, there are already such occasions. But Chairmen are strongly of the view that it must be left to the Committees to decide in each case whether to undertake such an inquiry, since their ability to control their own agenda is the crucial element of their independence. They will also no doubt wish to avoid duplication of the detailed analysis of selected European documents undertaken by the House of Lords European Sub-Committees.

9. The Liaison Committee sees no practical beneﬁt in some or all departmental select committees being given power to appoint a further sub-committee, or in having more Members on a Committee. If a Committee wishes to undertake the sort of “post-sifting, pre-debate” inquiry, then it can do so with its existing membership and structures, including the existing ability to set up a sub-committee. The idea of special “European” sub-committees also runs contrary to the notion of mainstreaming.

10. Liaison between the departmental select committees and the European Scrutiny Committee can no doubt be strengthened and deepened. Departmental select committees stand ready to do their best to respond to requests for opinions on EU documents as already provided for under Standing Order 143 (11): to date very few such requests have been made. They would also welcome longer informal notice of documents which the Scrutiny Committee may be contemplating recommending for debate at some point in the future, and the sort of regular informal contact and consultation which the Scrutiny Committee envisaged in its May 2002 proposal for each committee to appoint a European rapporteur.

11. The Modernisation Committee may also wish to consider means of encouraging committees to take on the task of inquiring into and reporting on documents identiﬁed by the Scrutiny Committee as meriting debate: for example, by giving a Committee which has undertaken a detailed examination of a proposal the power to table a Resolution for Standing Committee debate, rather than obliging it to table its views as an Amendment to the conventionally innocuous Government Motion. 9893883005 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 109

12. Committees are also conscious that they could do more by way of post-legislative scrutiny, as set out in our Report earlier this year. The proposal that departmental select committees should take on the task of systematic pre- and post-Council scrutiny is worthy of more detailed examination, drawing on the lessons of the diYculties experienced by the Scrutiny Committee in its approach to that task over the past few years, as recorded in its May 2002 Report. 13. Departmental select committees may also have a role in oversight of the implementation of European legislation, in particular the transposition of Directives, on which Robin Bellis recently produced a report for the FCO. The Government has in the past agreed to provide committees with the information on transposition which we understand they already gather centrally. If the Government provides this on a systematic basis to select committees, they will at least be in a position to monitor the implementation of Directives. They will also be able to monitor the implementation of other European measures if departments can commit to providing regular periodic reports on those measures identiﬁed by a Committee as deserving of such treatment. May 2004

Submission from the Corporation of London

I. Introduction:The City and EU Legislation 1. The Corporation welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Parliamentary scrutiny process. The Corporation recognises that it is essential for the maintenance and enhancement of democratic accountability, including public understanding and engagement, that Parliament has the most eVective and transparent scrutiny of EU legislation possible. 2. To a very considerable and increasing degree legislation, regulation and supervision of the City stems from European Community legislation. Consequently City practitioners, their trade associations and the Corporation take a very close interest in such legislation. They regularly make their views known to UK authorities, the European Commission and to the European Parliament; when appropriate opportunities arise they submit evidence to the Lords European Communities Committee (and to Commons Departmental Select Committees, which are not part of the formal scrutiny process). 3. A basic and common principle underpinning their positions on proposed EU legislation is the belief in the concept of a single European market for financial services. This is the best means to ensure wide choice and low prices to all users of financial services, and a competitive and innovative industry based on the ability of buyers and sellers of services to interact, wherever they are located within the EU, within a framework of proportionate prudential regulation and supervision to safeguard users, guard against fraud, and to maintain financial stability. Proposed legislation should abide by this principle and from time to time there are risks that it will not. 4. Additionally, we wish to commend the proposals to improve implementation of EU legislation in the UK made in the Bellis Report: “Implementation of EU Legislation. An independent study for the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce by Mr Robin Bellis” (24/11/2003). It suggests improvements to the quality of EU proposals and of UK implementing legislation which have implications for scrutiny of both Commission proposals and of proposed UK implementing measures.

II. Scrutiny 5. As the Memorandum from the Leader of the House notes, Members involved in the scrutiny process work hard on a very considerable number of EU legislative proposals; but, as the Memorandum says, this work attracts insuYcient interest (although it is unclear as to whether or not this comment refers to both Houses). A number of options, especially concerning the structure of the process, with the potential to improve participation and to raise public awareness are suggested. The Corporation therefore oVers some observations on the current situation and some suggestions for the principles underlying scrutiny. 6. As to current practice, the following observations seem apposite: — those likely to be aVected by EU proposals often ﬁnd the scrutiny process and structure complex and opaque; in the Commons it appears to involve the Scrutiny Committee, which looks at everything (amounting to several hundred legislative proposal each session) and three Commons European Standing Committees which examine measures identiﬁed by the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of submissions from the relevant government department; — sometimes Departmental Select Committees examine EU issues in depth and they take evidence from interested parties as well as departments but this does not appear to be part of the formal scrutiny process; — it is not apparent whether or where matters arising from EU legislative proposals of consequence to those aVected are systematically examined in depth by Members with a continuous involvement in an EU proposal across the various committees potentially involved, so there is a risk of discontinuity of expertise; 9893883006 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 110 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

— in the Lords the process seems to be less complex and more transparent, involving the European Communities Committee and its several sub-committees, which produce in-depth reports, following examination of evidence from both government and other interested parties, albeit on a selection of matters; — it is not clear to what extent the Commons scrutiny process seeks directly to consider the views of those likely to be aVected by EU proposals; — in terms of identifying issues or altering HMG’s stance, it is often diYcult for those aVected to judge the value added of scrutiny when aVected parties as opposed to departments are not consulted; — the timing of the scrutiny of proposals, especially in the Commons, is diYcult for those aVected to establish in advance because there appears to be no advance public notiﬁcation of matters to be considered or when; — Commons reports on matters of concern to the City receive little publicity, and, once published, can be very diYcult to identify (the Commons Scrutiny Committee website lists report by Session and by number but not by subject—see Annex); — the Commons Standing Committee does not appear to have discussed any ﬁnancial services legislation since at least 2001, although several major proposals have since been proposed upon which City practitioners, their associations and the Corporation have made submissions setting out their concerns, about the risk of damage to eYcient, competitive European markets, to the UK and EU authorities. 8. To a considerable degree at least, the above comments are the result both of the sheer volume of EU proposals subject to scrutiny relative to the resources available to Parliament and of the complex structure of the current Commons process. But it is unclear whether or how the options for change in the Memorandum would address the resource issue. It might be, however, that the underlying thinking is that the perceived problems are primarily matters of structure and process rather than resources.

III. Comitology 9. A separate issue concerns the matter of comitology with regard to financial services. As the Clearance Report on the proposal COM(03)659 concerning the Regulation of Financial Services noted, a new regulatory structure was to be created following recommendations from the Group of “Wise Men” chaired by Alexandre Lamfalussy. Level 1 legislation, such as directives, would be subject to normal Council and scrutiny procedures, such Level 1 legislation being intended to establish frameworks of broad and enduring principles; Level 2 legislation was to be delegated to supervisory committees chaired by the European Commission, Level 2 measures being more technical and subject to revision as soon as needed via a more flexible and speedier process than at Level 1. 10. It needs to be recognised that Level 2 measures are just as much legislative acts as Level 1 instruments. Level 2 measures have the potential to have serious consequences for the ambit of Level 1 legislation and to have significant impacts on the financial services aVected. Partly for these reasons and partly because of concern to retain an appropriate degree of Parliamentary power, the European Parliament insisted upon a scrutiny role in Level 2 legislation. But it is unclear what is envisaged by the UK Parliament for the scrutiny process, upon which the Commons Clearance Report was silent when the Lamfalussy proposals were considered. 11. To give some indication of their scope, the new Investment Service Directive contains some two dozen “pegs” on which to hang Level 2 proposals. Two comments may be in order: — the first is that it is essential that scrutiny considers very carefully indeed the precise wording of any Level 1 measure enabling Level 2 regulations; — it is our understanding that, at Ministerial discretion, comitology measures with great significance can be referred to scrutiny for clearance. 12. The Lords Report on Scrutiny (published 3 December 2002) proposed: “. . . in examining new proposals for EU legislation we can examine whether they appropriately delegate legislative power, and we undertake to do so most keenly. Following our 1998 report, the Government agreed to submit to Parliament comitology legislation that was politically or practically important. We are surprised that they have not done so on any occasion. We accordingly propose that the Government review the importance of EU subsidiary legislation, and what its significance is in practice, and inform the Committee on a regular basis of any significant proposals. We need to be satisfied that the Government will in fact submit significant texts for scrutiny before discussion in comitology committee.” This proposal is commendable. To realise such aims, HM Treasury should inform the scrutiny committees of both Houses when Level 2 proposals are to be considered by the new regulatory committees, explaining whether they are simply technical or not. 9893883006 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 111

IV. Principles to Underpin Scrutiny at Levels 1 and 2

13. Bearing in mind the earlier comments in this submission, a number of principles are recommended below: — to underpin the process and structure of scrutiny; — and to establish criteria for judging the merits of EU proposals: Process and Structure — the entire process should be timely, transparent, and intelligible to the public and aVected parties; — there should be a clear focal point—or one clear single focal point in each of the two Houses— where continuity of scrutiny and expertise is systematically maintained; — a clear, publicly available timetable for scrutiny should be established; — consultation with aVected parties should be normal and timely in both Houses. Substance of EU Proposals — Policy instruments other than legislation should always be considered in preference to the legislative route. — If legislation is necessary, does it give authorised service providers in one Member State the right to oVer services licensed by their national authority throughout the EU and rights of access to all necessary infrastructures? Is it: — proportionate to the problem it claims to address? — cost eVective? — Is there a thorough Regulatory Impact Assessment to hand in which conﬁdence can be placed because those to be aVected by the proposals have been fully consulted? — Do the proposals have built in “indicators” of intended outcomes against which success or otherwise can be measured when the eVects of the proposals are subsequently reviewed? — Does it address clear market failure? — Are the terms suYciently clear so as not to create ambiguities of interpretation which could hinder the single market or eVective enforcement? May 2004

Annex

Complexity of ﬁnding Commons Scrutiny Reports on subjects of interest

Go to UK Parliament homepage. Go to Committees page. Go to European Scrutiny Committee homepage. Go to Reports and Publications page. Reports are listed by parliamentary session (eg 2002–03) and appear periodically throughout the session. For example, the Committee produced 38 reports in session 2002–03. Within each report, topics are only divided up between those that have been “cleared” or “not cleared” by the Committee. There is no distinction between individual issues apart from abbreviations for the individual responsible government departments so you have to trawl through each individual report (which admittedly do have contents pages) to ﬁnd relevant topics. The advanced search facility is unhelpful as it appears to search the entire website rather than simply the relevant committee page. A search for “transparency trading securities” came up with 480 results—and this was after already knowing that this subject and these exact words were contained in a number of reports. In conclusion, it is a very lengthy and time-consuming process which requires signiﬁcant perseverance to get any results. A transparent index or improved site is required. 9893883007 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 112 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Submission from the Foreign AVairs Committee

Introduction 1. The Foreign AVairs Committee welcomes this opportunity to contribute to the Modernisation Committee’s inquiry into the “Scrutiny of European Matters in the House of Commons”.14 2. The Committee noted with interest the statement by the Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, to the House on 11 February on the Government’s plans for enhancing Parliament’s scrutiny of European Union (EU) matters.15 We also examined closely the subsequent memorandum from the Leader of the House, Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, to the Modernisation Committee that ﬂeshed out the details of the Government’s proposals.16 3. This paper sets out the views of the Foreign AVairs Committee on the Government’s proposals on this important issue. We are sending a copy of this memorandum to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, Rt Hon Alan Williams MP.

Importance of European Business 4. In his statement to the House, the Foreign Secretary highlighted a number of important recent and forthcoming developments in the European Union (enlargement and the European Constitution, for example). He told Members that: Those and other EU developments are of profound importance to Britain and British interests. It is therefore vital that the House, and Parliament as a whole, have an integral role in debating, inﬂuencing and agreeing the policies of the British Government.17 We agree wholeheartedly with the Foreign Secretary: Parliament must have an integral role in agreeing the policies of the EU, and not just act as a “rubber stamp” to decisions already agreed by the Government in Brussels. We welcome many of the initiatives he subsequently announced in his statement, such as the annual publication of a White Paper on the Union’s forthcoming legislative programme.

The Government’s Proposals 5. In his memorandum to the Modernisation Committee, the Leader of the House set out a number of detailed proposals as to how the scrutiny of European business by the House could be improved. Below we comment on each of these individually (see paras 8 V). 6. Overall, the Committee believes that any proposal for changes to the current system of scrutiny must be grounded ﬁrmly in the realities of modern parliamentary life. Whatever changes are eventually made, it is imperative that they recognise the steadily increasing demands on busy Members of Parliament- constituency duties, casework, standing committees, select committees, party responsibilities, to name but a few. The public, media and numerous outside pressure groups are all clamouring for MPs to take on more and more work for various worthy and important causes. 7. We fear that it would be too easy to erect some form of grand new structure, with high-sounding aspirations and procedural innovations, that ultimately is left to wither and die because it places too great a burden on MPs to make it a success. Any proposals to change the current manner in which the House exercises its scrutiny of European business must recognise the reality of the numerous competing demands on Members, and therefore must begin cautiously and proceed incrementally, if the case is made for each speciﬁc change.

New Joint European Grand Committee 8. After careful consideration, we believe that the proposed successor to the Standing Committees on the Convention on the Future of Europe and the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) would add little extra value to Parliament’s scrutiny of European business.18 We fear that such a large “committee”, with a wide membership and meeting infrequently, could exercise neither detailed scrutiny of individual pieces of legislation or policy proposals, nor apply the pressure necessary to ensure that Parliament actually inﬂuenced what the Government agreed to at Council meetings. It would achieve little more than the current European debates held on the Floor of the House do at present.

14 “Scrutiny of European Matters in the House Of Commons”, Modernisation Committee press release no 4 (Session 2003–04), 1 April 2004. 15 OYcial Report, 11 February 2004, cols 1415–6. 16 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2003–04, Scrutiny of European Matters in the House of Commons: Government Memorandum from the Leader of the House of Commons, HC 508 (hereafter referred to as “HC 508”). 17 OYcial Report, 11 February 2004, cols 1415. 18 HC 508, para 5 V. 9893883007 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 113

9. While it would be interesting to hear from Commissioners and senior oYcials, we fear such occasions would become almost ceremonial, with long introductory speeches and little opportunity for genuine debate nor to pursue a line of questioning. There would also be innumerable practical problems in securing the attendance of such people in Westminster at a time that was convenient for both them and for the House, and which would allow Members to influence eVectively the Commission’s legislative programme. 10. For example, if the Grand Committee wished to question, say, the Agriculture Commissioner, it would need to hear from him/her on a day when they were not busy in the Commission or in the European Parliament. It would also have to be a day on which the House was sitting and when a good attendance from MPs would be likely (so not Monday morning, Thursday afternoon or Friday). The arrangements would also have to be flexible enough to react to unforeseen developments in both London and Brussels—the potential damage done to the reputation of the UK Parliament by a Commissioner addressing a near empty committee room owing, for instance, to an urgent statement by the Prime Minister in the Chamber, would be considerable. 11. As we set out below (paras 16–21), we believe that a re-vitalisation of the European Standing Committees would achieve far more than any new grand committee. Were the Modernisation Committee to conclude that such a committee should be established, despite our reservations, we would recommend it take the following suggestions into account: (a) To avoid the diYculties experienced by the Standing Committee on the Convention, the quorum for such a grand committee should be set as low as practicable, and the membership be as broad as possible—ideally all Members of both Houses should be able to participate. (b) The committee should not meet overly frequently—initially biannually perhaps—and take place at times when Members feel that they are really able to influence decision-makers, both in Whitehall and Brussels. This would need careful consideration, but could be held at times when Members were able to discuss the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy (APS) for the following year, its finalised Legislative and Work programme and/or its preliminary draft Budget—that is, at the “ground floor” of the decision-making process. (c) The subjects chosen for discussion—whomever the Minister or outside speaker invited to answer questions be—should be ones that are clearly relevant to Members and their constituents. The motions for debate should be tightly-drawn, topical and relevant, and chairmen willing to rein in straying Members, in order to prevent old arguments and speeches simply being recycled ad infinitum. (d) Most importantly, the meetings should complement, and not undermine, the work already being carried out by the House on European matters, such as that done by select committees. 12. The key test for this suggestion, as indeed with all the proposals, must surely be: what value is added to existing means of debate and scrutiny by the creation of any new body.

Debates on the Floor 13. The Government, in its memorandum to the Modernisation Committee, asks for views on whether the current provision for debates on the ﬂoor of the House on European matters is still appropriate.19 As the memorandum notes, currently there are two debates a year, timed to coincide with the June and December EU Councils. 14. We are strongly of the view that, whatever other innovations are undertaken, the current number of debates on the ﬂoor of the House should not be reduced. The two annual debates currently held represent crucial opportunities for Members to debate key European issues, often while they are at the forefront of national political debate. 15. The Government also suggested that a cross-cutting questions session on “European matters” could be introduced in Westminster Hall.20 We would urge the Modernisation Committee to resist strongly any attempt to remove such questions from the Floor of the House. While seemingly innocuous, the proposal could ultimately result in Cabinet Ministers seeking to have diYcult questions on European matters eVectively “sidelined” in Westminster Hall, to be dealt with by junior ministers.

European Scrutiny System 16. The Government’s memorandum notes that: “There seems to be general agreement that the European Standing Committees have not worked out as it was hoped.”21 It goes on to identify a number of potential reasons for their failure: low attendance, lack of interest among most Members, “ritualistic” proceedings and “powerlessness”.

19 Ibid, para 15. 20 Ibid, para 17. 21 Ibid, para 20. 9893883007 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 114 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

17. The European Standing Committees, as currently constituted, do a very valuable and important job in exercising detailed scrutiny of individual European documents. They also present a relatively rare opportunity for back-bench MPs to follow a line of questioning with a Minister, in a way that is not possible during debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall. The Modernisation Committee will of course have to listen closely to what current Members and Chairmen of the European Standing Committees, and others, say on this issue, but, given these strengths, we would certainly be in favour of reforming the current system rather than abolishing it completely. 18. We urge the House to re-invigorate the European Standing Committees by allowing them to operate in way similar to a special standing committee (whose powers are set out in SO No 91). They should be given the power to hear evidence from witnesses, summon persons, papers and records, and, if necessary, report to the House. We would also recommend that such committees had permanent chairman, in the same way as select committees, and greater staV resources. 19. In this way, the Standing Committees could exercise proper, detailed scrutiny of specific pieces of legislation, recommended for their consideration by the European Scrutiny Committee, and would have a genuine opportunity to influence the Government’s negotiating position in Brussels. This should make them more attractive committees on which to serve, and ensure that both Government and opposition parties took their proceedings more seriously. 20. As the memorandum from the Leader of the House notes, at present if a European standing committee amends the motion before it, the Government simply tables the original motion in the House, making the committee’s deliberations seemingly irrelevant. In accordance with our conclusions above, we would suggest that if the motion actually agreed to by the committee were subsequently tabled in the House, where the Government could amend it upon debate, it would give Members of the committees some genuine influence. 21. Such an increase in the scope and powers of the European Standing Committees would need careful consideration, and may meet with considerable opposition from some quarters. The detail of the Committees’ working methods and its relations with both the European Scrutiny Committee and Departmental Select Committees would particularly need careful consideration.

Role of departmental select committees 22. The only other point in this section we would wish to comment upon is that on the role of departmental select committees (DSCs), raised by the Government in paras 28–30 of its memorandum. As the memorandum notes, DSCs already do a very valuable job in scrutinising issues of European policy and administration, especially since the publication of the Liaison Committee’s “common objectives for select committees.”22 In addition to our own work, which we comment upon below, and that of the European Scrutiny Committee, a number of select committee have examined European-related issues within their remits. Clearly, the EU blurs the traditional distinction between domestic and foreign aVairs. All DSCs now have an EU dimension to their work. For some, this dimension will be very substantial. 23. We agree with the Government that requiring DSCs to scrutinise EU documents—“replacing standing committees-”would impose a considerable workload on some Committees.”23 In our opinion, select committees work best when they have the proper time and resources to do the job required of them. It would be impractical to ask DSCs, as currently constituted and resourced, to exercise detailed scrutiny of documents emanating from Brussels and turn them around with the speed necessary to be eVective. We believe that the work done by ourselves and other departmental select committees in this area-detailed, in- depth, scrutiny of specific policy areas and initiatives-plays best to the strengths of the select committee system. 24. We should like to stress, however, that the House is right to expect all DSCs to fulfil their remit, in examining all aspects of their particular department’s work. This includes scrutiny of both the role the department plays in the formulation of European policy and how such policy aVects its work. We would also like to stress that while the examination of specific documents is best carried out by the European Scrutiny Committee and the European Standing Committees, the scrutiny of policy must remain firmly within the remit of individual DSCs.

Engagement in Europe 25. The Government also proposes that the European travel scheme be expanded to allow those Members who are enthusiastic so to do, to travel more than three times a year to the “allowable destinations”.24 The Committee welcomes any moves that increases the contact Members have with their European counterparts, and other relevant opinion formers. The European travel scheme is a potentially very useful tool for facilitating this contact. The Government’s suggestion in its memorandum, of extending

22 Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2002–03, Annual Report for 2002, HC 558, Appendix 3. 23 HC 508, para 28. 24 All EU institutions and agencies, national parliaments in EU member, candidate and applicant countries, and those in EFTA countries. 9893883008 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 115

the scheme to allow those Members desirous of so doing who wish to travel more often than currently permitted, therefore seems sensible. We would indeed urge the House authorities to consider extending the scheme to include the following areas: — “new neighbours” of the enlarged European Union, such as Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Russia (including Kaliningrad); — non-applicant/candidate countries in the Western Balkans-Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania; — selected regional capitals which are the seats of legislative assemblies, such as Pris˘tina and Barcelona; and — the headquarters of other international organisations based in Europe, such as NATO in Brussels, the UN in Geneva and Vienna, and the ICRC in Geneva. 26. We would also urge the Modernisation Committee to recommend in the strongest possible terms that Gibraltar be added to the list of allowable destinations under the scheme. We ﬁnd it wholly anomalous that MPs are unable to travel under the facility to a territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom has responsibility, and which is very much aVected by relations with the rest of the Union. It is also the only overseas territory, of any nation, within the continent of Europe. We have already written to the Members Estimates Committee urging them to rectify this omission from the scheme.25

Other Issues

27. As well as responding to the Government’s suggestions for change, we would also like to raise two other relevant issues in our memorandum: the role of the Foreign AVairs Committee; and the lack of a cut- oV point for legislative proposals from the European Commission.

Role of the Foreign AVairs Committee

28. The Foreign AVairs Committee (FAC) is appointed by the House under Standing Order No 152 to examine, “the expenditure, administration, and policy” of the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce (FCO), and its associated public bodies. The role of the FCO, in turn, is to “co-ordinate and pursue UK policies aboard,” and “give expert advice and support to the whole of Government in order to strengthen UK influence and bring about international actions that advance UK interests.”26 The FCO has the lead responsibility in Whitehall for managing the United Kingdom’s relations with its Union partners and for delivering UK policy objectives within the EU (for example, during the recent IGC). It is therefore, the responsibility of the FAC to scrutinise the work the Foreign OYce does in pursuing and co-ordinating the policies of HM Government in Europe. 29. The Committee has taken this aspect of its remit very seriously in this Parliament, as our successors have in previous ones.27 In July 2001, the Committee agreed to conduct an ongoing inquiry into “current and future developments in the European Union.”28 As part of this inquiry, we have visited each holder of the six-monthly rotating EU Presidency at the start of their term to discuss the holder’s priorities. We also held regular oral evidence sessions with the Foreign OYce ministers before European Councils (see Figure 1 below).29 30. In October 2001, the Committee also announced an inquiry into the IGC 2004.30 On 10 January in the following year, after an exchange of letters with the Foreign Secretary and questions on the floor of the House, the Committee agreed its first Special Report of the Session on the Appointment of Parliamentary Representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe.31 This urged the House to choose its own representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe, rather than allow them to be simply selected by the Government. This principle was subsequently accepted by the House and Rt Hon David Heathcoat Amory MP and Ms Gisela Stuart MP (a member of the FAC) were chosen to represent the House at the Convention. The Committee subsequently took evidence from the UK Government’s representative to the Convention, Rt Hon Peter Hain MP.

25 A copy of the letter is at Appendix C. 26 Foreign and Commonwealth OYce, UK International Priorities: A Strategy for the FCO, Cm 6052, p 6. 27 See, for example: Foreign AVairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2000–01, European Union Enlargement and Nice Follow- Up, HC 318. 28 “Britain and the European Union”, Foreign AVairs Committee press release no 3 (Session 2001–02), 20 July 2001. 29 For the oral and written evidence of the two most recent occasions, see Developments in the European Union, HC, 2002–03, 1233-i and HC, 2003–04, 129-i. 30 “Intergovernmental Conference 2004”, Foreign AVairs Committee press release no 6 (Session 2001–02), 31 October 2001. 31 Foreign AVairs Committee, First Special Report of 2001–02, Appointment of Parliamentary Representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe, HC 509. 9893883009 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 116 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Figure 1

RELEVANT ORAL EVIDENCE SESSIONS HELD BY THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE DURING THE CURRENT PARLIAMENT

Date Witnesses Published

5 December 2001 Laeken European Council HC 435 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs 13 March 2002 Barcelona European Council HC 698 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs 18 June 2002 IGC 2004: The Convention on the Future of Europe HC 965 Ms Gisela Stuart MP and Rt Hon David Heathcoat Amory MP, the House of Commons’ Representatives on the Convention on the Future of Europe 19 June 2002 Seville European Council HC 974 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs 10 December 2002 Copenhagen European Council HC 176 Dr Denis MacShane MP, Minister for Europe 1 April 2003 IGC 2004: The Convention on the Future of Europe HC 606 Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, Government’s Representative on the Convention on the Future of Europe Developments in the European Union HC 607 Dr Denis MacShane MP, Minister for Europe 10 June 2003 Thessaloniki European Council HC 774 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs 11 December 2003 Italian European Council Yet to be Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and published Commonwealth AVairs

31. We wish to make it very clear that we would strongly resist any move, undertaken as part of any reform, that undermined this Committee’s remit in scrutinising the UK’s policy towards the European Union. We raised this concern with both the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary and were very pleased to receive assurances that nothing would be done that adversely aVected our work. The Leader of the House stated: “I can assure you that the Government has absolutely no intention of proposing that the scrutiny of the FCO’s EU policy should be removed from the remit of your Committee.” 32 The Foreign Secretary similarly told us: “You state that the Committee would strongly oppose any attempt to remove EU policy from its remit. So would I. The Government greatly values the work done by the Foreign AVairs Committee in monitoring the Government’s EU policy.” 33 We have appended the full text of their replies to this memorandum (appendices A and B).

Withdrawal of Commission proposals

32. In its recent Report on The European Commission’s Annual Work Programme for 2004, the European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) commented on proposals made by the European Commission under the Precious Metals Directive that could adversely aVect the UK’s hallmarking system.34 The proposal originated in 1993 but it was eVectively agreed in 1998 that no progress could be made on the proposal,

32 Letter from the Leader of the House to the Chairman of the Foreign AVairs Committee, 25 March 2004 (Appendix B). 33 Letter from the Foreign Secretary to the Chairman of the Foreign AVairs Committee, 24 March 2004 (Appendix A). 34 European Scrutiny Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2003–04, The European Commission’s Annual Work Programme for 2004, HC 42-vi, paras 13–14. 9893883009 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 117

owing to fundamental diVerences between member states. As the ESC noted, however, in 2003 the Italian Presidency decided to place this “unwelcome proposal” back on the agenda of the November 2003 Competitiveness Council. Unsurprisingly, no progress was made. The ESC went on to say in its Report: This raises the wider question of the failure of the Commission to withdraw draft legislation which is not making progress. Unless draft legislation is withdrawn, any Presidency can take it up again, as in the hallmarking case, whereas new legislation would require the Commission to exercise its right of initiative. It does the reputation of the EU’s legislative system no good to have long-dormant proposals taken up again years later at the whim of the current Presidency, and for the organisations and individuals whose interests might be damaged to have the prospect of such legislation hanging over them indeﬁnitely.35 33. We agree wholeheartedly with this conclusion. It is unacceptable that the Government of the United Kingdom, or any other member state, should expend considerable time and energy in resisting a particular proposal from the Commission, for very good national interests, only to have to repeat the exercise a few years down the line when another Presidency picks up the draft measure. In the same way that draft legislation from the British Government falls if it is not agreed during the current session (except where covered by the “carry-over” rules), there should be some form of cut-oV point, or “sell-by date”, for proposals from the European Commission. This would force the Commission to withdraw proposals that have made no, or no substantial, progress within, say, 18 months or two years of inception. 34. We recommend that the Modernisation Committee raise this issue with the Government, who can in turn attempt to make progress on it at an EU-level. May 2004

APPENDIX A

Letter from the Foreign Secretary to the Chairman of the Foreign AVairs Committee (24 March 2004) Thank you for your letter of 16 March about the proposals for greater Parliamentary engagement with EU issues, which I outlined in my statement on 11 February. I am grateful for your positive response to the approach I took in my statement. You state that the Committee would strongly oppose any attempt to remove EU policy from its remit. So would I. The Government greatly values the work done by the Foreign AVairs Committee in monitoring the Government’s EU policy. I can assure you that I envisage no reduction in the FAC’s remit. The ideas I set out in my statement were designed to build on, not dilute, the existing structures for Parliamentary monitoring of European matters. Decisions on how to improve Parliamentary oversight of the EU are, as you say, a matter for the House. I understand that the Modernisation Committee will shortly begin its inquiry into these issues, and we look forward to assisting that inquiry and to the conclusions and recommendations which the Committee will produce in due course. I am copying this letter to Peter Hain. Rt Hon Jack Straw MP Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AVairs 24 March 2004

APPENDIX B

Letter from the Leader of the House to the Chairman of the Foreign AVairs Committee (25 March 2004)

PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN MATTERS Thank you for your letter of 16 March and for your positive response to our outline proposals for improving parliamentary scrutiny of European matters and more eVectively engaging the interest of Members in these matters. I would be very pleased if your Committee were to submit a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee in due course with your views on our detailed proposals: that would greatly assist our inquiry. I can assure you that the Government has absolutely no intention of proposing that the scrutiny of the FCO’s EU policy should be removed from the remit of your Committee. The purpose of our initiative is to enhance, not reduce, the valuable work that is already done in this ﬁeld. I am copying this letter to Jack Straw, who has, I know, also written to reassure you on this point. Rt Hon Peter Hain MP Leader of the House of Commons 29 March 2004

35 Ibid, para 14. 9893883009 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 118 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

APPENDIX C

Letter from the Chairman of the Foreign AVairs Committee to the Chairman, Members Estimates Committee (26 May 2004) The Foreign AVairs Committee has asked me to write, requesting that the Members Estimates Committee consider making a small amendment to the rules concerning “allowable destinations” for Members’ travel under the European travel scheme. At present, that scheme allows Members to make three return journeys per year between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg, or the national Parliament of another European Union member state, applicant member state or EFTA member state. One anomaly created by this arrangement is that Members may not use the scheme to visit the House of Assembly of Gibraltar, a territory which legally and geographically is part of the European Union—and whose citizens will be voting in the European Parliament Elections on 10 June—in which many Members of Parliament continue to take a close interest. I hope the Committee will feel able to make this modest change, and add Gibraltar to the list of allowable destinations. Rt Hon Donald Anderson MP Chairman of the Committee 26 May 2004

Submission from Mr Jim Cousins MP

SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN MATTERS—THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ACTION PLAN This plan covers a whole suite of directives and other proposals. It is obviously important that the British Parliament is fully involved. The UK ﬁnancial services industry has a great deal at stake in the FSAP. Parliamentary scrutiny of the FSAP package has been poor, and has been limited to occasional snapshot considerations of particular Directives—usually too late in the day for eVective comment or intervention. Monitoring the evolution and implementation of a major policy package must include the drafting and pre-legislative phase. It must also include work with relevant UK organisations, both statutory, trade and professional. It seems to me that the proper course of action would be to create a special EU programme review Committee for the FSAP. This would not limit the work of the present scrutiny Committee or a subject Select Committee in anyway. I would hope that a Programme Review Committee would have the powers of a Select Committee “to call for person and papers”; and that it would report regularly to Parliament. I have attached a summary of the FSAP to illustrate its scope [not printed]. Although the FSAP is now well under way, the critical enforcement phase is still to come. This, of course, is the cause of much anxiety and scepticism by UK interests. A Programme Review Committee would have important work to do in monitoring the implementation process. May 2004

Submission from the Procedure Committee

Introduction 1. The Procedure Committee welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Government Memorandum on the House’s scrutiny of European matters presented by the Leader of the House to the Modernisation Committee and published by them. The paper suggests several issues on which our views might be sought, and we have also taken the opportunity to comment on some of the other proposals. We refer where appropriate to our last Report on the subject, published in March 1997.36

AJoint European Grand Committee 2. The Leader’s paper proposes the establishment of a committee consisting of Members of both Houses of Parliament and UK Members of the European Parliament, to debate European matters, with European Commissioners and possibly other senior representatives of EU bodies attending to make statements and answer questions. Neither the MEPs nor those making statements would have the status of witnesses, and MEPs would take part in the debates.

36 Procedure Committee, Third Report, Session 1996–97, European Business, HC 77. 9893883011 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 119

3. As the paper mentions (paragraph 8), the procedural implications of inviting persons who are Members of neither House to take part in its proceedings has already arisen (in relation to proposals for formal joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales). A joint working party of oYcials has reported to the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Clerk of the National Assembly that it would be procedurally possible for non-Members to take part in the House’s formal activities (other than as witnesses) without jeopardising the status of those activities as “proceedings in Parliament” for the purpose of Parliamentary privilege and, in particular of article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.37 We have made a Report on the issue in relation to joint activities with the National Assembly, and the working party’s report appears as an appendix to our Report.38 4. It is, of course, desirable that there should be regular contact between MEPs and Members of this House, and we encouraged the development of informal links in our Report of 1997, while expressing scepticism on the need for formal structures.39 The European Scrutiny Committee already holds meetings with the United Kingdom’s MEPs, involving members of other select committees and of the Lords’ European Union Committee. 5. It would be a big step to move from informal links to a formal structure in which MEPs would participate in joint debates with Members of both Houses, and we remain to be convinced that this is desirable. We believe that it would be preferable to build on the existing informal arrangements. 6. Decisions would need to be made on how often the European Grand Committee should meet, what topics should be discussed and which Commissioners should be invited to attend. The Grand Committee itself would probably not be an appropriate body to take such decisions, and in the absence of any other mechanism they would fall to be decided on the ﬂoor of each House. The Leader’s paper (paragraphs 10 and 12) envisages that the Government would take the initiative after soundings with other parties through the usual channels. An alternative might be to hold such meetings when recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee, perhaps acting jointly for this purpose with the European Union Committee of the House of Lords. We believe that this would be preferable.

Debates on the Floor of the House 7. The Leader’s paper questions the length and timing of the current six-monthly general EU debates on the ﬂoor of the House and suggests that occasional debates on EU documents, or cross-departmental questions on particular EU subjects, should take place in Westminster Hall. 8. We believe that the six-monthly EU debates in the House should continue; in addition, it would be worth experimenting with the use of Westminster Hall in the ways proposed, but we hope that this will not reduce the number of opportunities for debates on select committee reports.

European Standing Committees 9. The Leader’s paper (paragraph 20) says that “the European Standing Committees have not worked out as it was hoped . . . there is a very strong case for reform”. Among the reforms suggested are arranging for the membership of European Standing Committees to overlap with the European Scrutiny Committee or the relevant departmental select committee; considering documents on a take-note motion rather than a motion of substance; or replacing debates by evidence-taking, either by reformulated European Standing Committees or by departmental select committees or their sub-committees. 10. We believe that the European Standing Committees have been more successful than the Leader implies. Obviously the level of attendance will vary depending on the subject-matter, but the current provisions for permanent membership, for any other Member to be able to attend and speak, for questions to Ministers followed by a debate, and for the division of documents between the committees on the basis of departmental responsibilities strike us as being right. Brieﬁng packs are already available for these debates, and these include the relevant Report from the European Scrutiny Committee. The Leader suggests (paragraph 24) “stronger linkage” between the European Standing Committees and the European Scrutiny Committee, and in its memorandum, that committee has responded positively by suggesting either that one of its members should attend each debate or (preferably) that its membership should include a representative of each European Standing Committee. We warmly welcome this suggestion. 11. We see the suggestion of replacing the current amendable motion with a neutral motion as a retrograde step: before 1980, European Community Documents were considered by the same type of committee as Statutory Instruments on a motion that the Committee had considered the instrument; we have been arguing, in the contrary direction, that Statutory Instruments should be debated on substantive, amendable motions.

37 The working party quotes the same precedent as the Leader in the provision for the participation of non-Members in the 1933–34 Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform. 38 Procedure Committee, Third Report, Session 2003–04, Joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales, HC 582. 39 HC 77 (1996–97), para 67. 9893883011 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 120 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

12. Referring EU documents to departmental select committees instead of debating them would have the disadvantage of barring other Members from taking part; and, given the short timescale within which such documents have to be discussed, it could be seriously disruptive of their other work. The select committees can already consider any EU document whenever they wish, and indeed the consideration of policy proposals including those emanating from EU institutions already forms one of their core tasks as advocated by the House and the Liaison Committee.

The Proposed “Subsidiarity Early Warning Mechanism” 13. The draft EU Constitutional Treaty contains provisions for national Parliaments to object to EU proposals for failing to comply with the principle of subsidiarity.40 The European Scrutiny Committee consulted us last year about how, if this provision comes into force, the House could express its view on documents which that Committee identified as potentially breaching the principle of subsidiarity. We agreed that any decision on the floor of the House should be without debate, to ensure that the Government could provide the opportunity for decision within the six-week deadline currently proposed without needing to find time for a debate, and this is in line with the Leader’s proposal in paragraph 31 of his paper. However, we also recommended that there should be an opportunity for debate (our suggestion was that this should take place in the relevant European Standing Committee), before the House took its decision, and we hope that the Modernisation Committee will agree that such a debate would improve the process. May 2004

Submission from Mr Richard Allan MP This response reﬂects my experience as a Member of the House of Commons interested in information technology issues which are frequently dealt with at the EU level.

The Problem I have found the European Scrutiny system of the Commons to be diYcult to follow amongst the rest of my workload in Parliament. It is also out of step with the political debate around issues that are being dealt with by the EU. My comments generally relate to EU Directives that are going to lead to changes in UK law. There may be some merit in separating these out from other documents that are not part of the UK legislative process. It is important that all Members should have the potential to have input into the EU scrutiny process and I would therefore hope that the Modernisation Committee would resist any plans to move European scrutiny wholly to Departmental Select Committees. There are many Members with speciﬁc issue interests such as mine who are not on the relevant Departmental Select Committee and who would be excluded from the process by such a move. The objective of any reform should be to enable every Member to have as much input as possible into the EU process on subjects of interest to them at the time when this can make a diVerence. Far too often EU documents are only brought to the attention of Members when it is too late to do anything about them.

What Should be Done The solution I would suggest to the Committee is one of improving the current system rather than replacing it. This can best be done by making information about the progress of EU documents available in a more timely and relevant way. For example, subject based lists could be set up such that Members can register an interest in a particular subject area and automatically be notified about documents in that area. This can be based on the output of the Scrutiny Committee sifting process. It would essentially be the presentation of the material considered by the European Scrutiny Committee in a more accessible form. An element of prioritisation would be required to make such lists manageable. This could go further than that carried out in the current sifting process on the basis that the full list of documents is still available in the normal way. A change to the process that would be of great help would be improving the mechanism for reviving debate around a Directive that becomes politically significant after its first consideration. An example of this that I am currently looking at is the Directive on the Patentability of Computer Related Inventions. This was considered by the European Scrutiny Committee on 22 November 2002 and cleared as

40 “In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be suYciently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or eVects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.” (Draft Treaty, July 2003, Article 9.3). 9893883012 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 121

uncontentious. This became a very lively political issue during its passage through the European Parliament during 2003. Many Members received correspondence from constituents on this. It is currently being passed back to the Council of Ministers by COREPER over a very short timescale and whilst it remains contentious there is now no opportunity for the Commons to scrutinise the proposals in light of the experience of the last 18 months. An information resource could also be provided such that the progress of EU proposals can be traced. This again would be an accessible re-presentation of existing material available from the European institutions. What would be most helpful would be to have this material presented as part of the UK legislative process. In this way, we would see the various stages of the EU decision making process linked with each other and then linked to the legislative stages in the UK Parliament that implement the Directive. Any subsequent revisions of the Directive and consequent changes on UK regulations should be shown. We should also ensure that any references to EU documents are more explicitly made in UK legislation and regulations. Explanatory notes frequently do refer to the EU documents but these references can be buried and are not always suYciently comprehensive.

How This Can be Achieved

The UK Parliament is currently updating its information architecture with work going on across both Houses. A great deal of progress could be made by asking the people responsible for presenting information to address this task of making the EU stages accessible and linking them in with the UK stages.

Conclusion

If it were easy for any Member to quickly find out what stage has been reached for any issue of interest and how they might have input then we would significantly enhance the eVectiveness of Members. Most of the information is already there but it is presented in an obscure way that means it is extremely hard for the average Member to follow. This need not necessarily be the case. The Modernisation Committee should make addressing this information deficit its priority as simply altering the structures will not achieve the goal of better scrutiny by Members. May 2004

Submission from British Bankers’ Association

1. The BBA is pleased to provide evidence to the Modernisation Committee on the Government’s memorandum on scrutiny of European Matters. With over 240 member banks from over 60 countries, the BAA is the authoritative voice of the banking industry in the UK, and represents members’ interests in both wholesale and retail markets. BBA members have a particular interest in EU legislation and the British Bankers’ Association has been closely involved in lobbying on behalf of its members in relation to key Financial Services Action Plan (FSAP) measures and also in the creation of the Lamfalussy process, the Securities Committee and the Committee of European Securities Regulators (CESR). We have made many individual submissions to the EU institutions and others. 2. In this submission we comment only on the areas of the Committee’s inquiry relating to the New Joint European Grand Committee; the European Scrutiny System and Engagement in Europe. We are not in the position to comment upon the Parliamentary procedural issues highlighted in the memorandum.

Joint European Grand Committee

3. We agree with the establishment of a new Committee to cover the remit of the whole of the EU’s work. To reconnect EU citizens and EU decision making the scrutiny of EU legislation must be improved and become more transparent. The formation of the Committee would be a welcome forum for debate on EU legislation. In particular we welcome the involvement of MEPs and other stakeholders in the process. Our experience of lobbying on European issues is that the structures at Westminster do not encourage suYciently early engagement by UK parliamentarians in EU issues. The Westminster process only engages parliamentarians once the EU legislative process has been completed and virtually nothing can be done about the resulting legislation. A Grand Committee could allow UK parliamentarians to become engaged in the key policy debates at a much earlier stage and, so far as appropriate, input views into the EU policy formation process while EU legislation is still being developed. 9893883013 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 122 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

European Scrutiny System 4. Around 60% of UK legislation is derived from the EU yet there is inadequate scrutiny of legislation by the European Standing Committees. Scrutiny of EU legislation should be on an equal footing with domestic UK legislation rather than seen as an optional extra. A. For example, our experience with the FSAP has shown that the biggest threat to UK interests is the threat that some of the legislation is too narrowly European in focus and potentially could damage the competitiveness of global markets based in the City of London. Excepting the EU Select Committee of the House of Lords inquiry into FSAP, this largely occurred without any serious scrutiny or influence by the Commons/UK Parliament. B. The Consumer Credit Directive (CCD) will have a huge cost implication for the UK banking industry with little if any benefit to the consumer. We have worked hard to propose changes to the existing deeply flawed draft of the Consumer Credit Directive and we remain seriously concerned that the EU could rush through revised proposals which could seriously impair credit markets without benefits to consumers. 5. The European Commission will be responsible for eVective enforcement and implementation of FSAP. It is planning to work more closely with member state governments on implementation issues. We support this in principle. It is too early to say how successful this new approach will be—but if properly resourced it should be more eVective than current practice. Competition regulators will have a continuing role in helping to break down inappropriate barriers within the internal market. It is impossible to give definitive views about issues which will arise as the single market framework is implemented and enforced. One could expect, however, that closer attention to enforcement could produce resistance in some areas due to a wish to protect sectors or institutions which may be regarded as economically vulnerable in a truly integrated single market. 6. Problems in the lack of proper scrutiny of EU policy development is also mirrored in the implementation of EU legislation in the UK. Implementation tends to over elaborate and ‘gold plate’ EU directives and we can only agree with Robin Bellis in his report on the implementation of EU legislation: “I was given instances of provisions of directives which were intended to be applicable in the same terms throughout the Community being given greater precision in the United Kingdom rather than being copied out.”41 7. W appreciate that ‘gold-plating’ could be the result of the UK’s traditional literal interpretation of legislation compared with the purposive approach adopted by Napoleonic code countries but there are times when UK implementation is incompatible with the purposes of the directive and breaches the uniformity principle of EU legislation. During work on the current MIFID (formerly known as ISD 2) it became apparent that the UK had implemented the existing ISD in much more detail than many other EU member states.

Engagement in Europe 8. For financial services the amount of legislation derived from Europe is huge but the UK needs to argue its case more strongly in the EU. The changes resulting from the FSAP will have an impact on the competitive position of London and EU markets. Much of the BBA’s work is directed towards ensuring that the changes either have a positive impact, or minimise any negative impacts. We consider that the laws most likely to have a significant impact on London and on EU competitiveness include the Investment Services Directive and the Regulatory Capital Directive. BBA experience with the European Banking Federation and the work of the Securities Committee and the Committee of European Securities Regulators is such that we can see the relevance and argue a good case for greater UK engagement with the EU. 9. Greater UK enagement is needed as it is extremely important to avoid a flood of new EU financial services legislation. The FSAP measures which are being adopted and will soon be implemented will create a heavy burden of change on EU financial institutions. We would oppose significant new measures. June 2004

Supplementary Government memorandum to the Modernisation Committee 1. The Committee has asked for an additional note setting out in more detail how the Government envisages that meetings of the proposed joint European committee will be summoned. This memorandum responds to that request. 2. The Government’s memorandum proposed that the new Committee would meet pursuant to resolutions of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown (para 12). This would follow the standard practice for Commons Grand Committees. This procedure has practical advantages: involvement of the usual channels helps ensure that a mutually convenient date and time can be found. The decision on whether to meet as proposed remains with the House.

41 “Implementation of EU Legislation—An independent study for the FCO” by Robin Bellis December 2003. Page 16. 9893883014 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 123

3. The Government anticipates that the motion put to the Commons would specify the subject for debate and the time and place of meeting. 4. The procedure which would apply in the House of Lords is subject to discussion in that House. 5. It would be up to Ministers to seek to secure the attendance of European Commissioners, or other senior EU oYcials or representatives of the European Parliament or other European institution, as appropriate. As the Foreign Secretary said to the House on 11 February: “I very much hope to be able to make arrangements for EU Commissioners to attend and to make statements of the kind that I am making today. While speaking informally with commissioners about the body, I have made the point that they have a job to do simply in explaining to the British Parliament and people what their job is.” (OYcial Report, 11 February 2004, col. 1424) The new joint Committee would not have the power to summon witnesses. 6. The Government envisages that the joint committee might meet three or four times a year; though there would be benefit in retaining the flexibility to respond to circumstances. On one of these occasions, it might be thought appropriate for the Committee to meet to debate the Commission’s annual work programme, and for that it would obviously make sense for a Commissioner to attend. 7. The Government anticipates that, when a Commissioner was to attend a meeting of the Committee, a Minister of the Crown would also be present. It might be possible to have a joint question and answer session, with both the Commissioner and the Minister responding to questions. It is always possible—as with Ministers—that unforeseen events might prevent the Commissioner from attending: for instance, there might be an overriding summons to a meeting with a European Parliament Committee. In these circumstances, the Government anticipates that the meeting would go ahead, with questions to the Minister alone. 8. The European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) has suggested that some of the meetings of the proposed joint committee could be used to discuss subjects proposed by them and by the European Union Committee in the Lords (para 10). The Government’s memorandum makes a similar suggestion (para 12). The standing order establishing the Standing Committee on the IGC included a provision for adjournment debates on specific topics. This was intended to allow for topics recommended by the ESC to be debated, although to date the Committee has not made such a recommendation. The Government would be happy for this provision to be included in the standing order setting up the new Committee. The Committees could write to the Leader with a proposed topic, and the Government would consult the usual channels on whether a meeting of the committee should be arranged at which this could be debated. The debate would be preceded by questions to a Minister on the same subject. Leader of the House of Commons June 2004

Submission from Dr Doug Naysmith MP

Thank you for your letter of 21 April 2004, inviting comments on your memorandum on scrutiny of European matters by the House of Commons. I apologise for my delay in responding. As a long-standing supporter of UK membership of the European Union, and a former delegate to the Council of Europe, I welcome the Modernisation Committee’s proposals to make the UK Parliament more pro-active and engaged in the scrutiny of EU legislative proposals both at the preliminary stage (pre- legislative scrutiny) and in Standing Committees. The proposed subsidiarity early warning system is also interesting. It is regrettable that too often EU legislation only attracts public attention at the point of Regulations being presented for the implementation of Directives. I write just brieﬂy in support of proposals for a new Joint European Grand Committee, and welcome in particular the proposed closer co-operation between Members and UK MEPs, and the opportunity for EU Commissioners to be invited to such a Committee. I welcome the suggestion that Questions on European matters might be established in Westminster Hall, based on the Cross-cutting Questions facility. Scrutiny must remain a central function, and I would support suggestions for making the process more focussed and political. Maybe ad-hoc membership for meetings would increase the range of MPs involved in this work. It is clearly necessary to make scrutiny more visible and transparent: this ties closely with the aims of the proposed EU Constitution, to make the general public aware of the relevance of EU legislation. I know from my occasional visits with the Health Select Committee that travel and contact with EU institutions and other EU national parliaments is valuable in deepening understanding. If time permitted, I would be interested in language training. June 2004 9893883016 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:01 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 124 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Submission from Lawrie Quinn MP

The Leader of the House’s memorandum to the Modernisation Committee makes strong criticisms of the European Standing Committees, saying that they “are badly attended and seen to be irrelevant” and that “their proceedings have a ritualistic quality and are largely devoid of much political interest”. I would like to support the European Scrutiny Committee’s proposals for reforming the Standing Committee system, including a larger number of more specialised committees and the Scrutiny Committee, more of a corporate existence, with their own elected Chairmen, and new procedures if a Standing Committee amends or rejects a government motion. It seems to me that many members do not wish to attend Standing Committees for a number of reasons. There are many documents to study which are very technical and do not include the views of interested parties outside the House. Standing Committees have no continuity or corporate existence, as they have no Chairmen of their own (meetings are chaired by a member of the Chairmen’s Panel) and no staV of their own. There is no publicity for the meetings and little press or public interest.

Proposals — Five European Standing Committees instead of three—to ensure that there is more focus on a speciﬁc policy area. — More of a corporate existence for Standing Committees—elected Chairmen or Convenors and staV with particular responsibility for them. The Chairman could be the representative on the ESC, and could make representations more generally on its behalf. —StaV to be responsible for ensuring that meetings are publicised, particularly to the relevant specialist press, and that the Committee had all the brieﬁng it needed. — The motion moved in the House should always be the one agreed by the Standing Committee, that if the Government did not wish to move it another Member should do so, and that in such circumstances a brief explanatory statement by the mover and a Minister should be permitted. Or a provision that, if the Government moved a motion diVerent from that agreed by the Standing Committee, there should be a brief statement from the Minister and from someone opposing the motion. In addition to my support for the proposals clearly asserted by Jimmy Hood’s committee can I place some emphasis on the frustration of receiving European documents a few Parliamentary working days before a committee meeting. It has always felt to me that the pitiful time for consideration of very important issues works against eVective scrutiny and therefore falls short of the job United Kingdom’s electors expect of us as Parliamentarians. I would be very pleased to present oral evidence if this helps the consideration of the Modernisation Committee or to have a conversation with any members of the committee since my seven years’ experience of working as a member of the European Standing Committee A has obviously allowed me to formulate a wealth of experience. June 2004

Submission from Norman Lamb MP

I am responding to Peter Hain’s letter of 21 April. I am a member of European Standing Committee A. Unfortunately, the Standing Committee frequently sits at the same time as the Treasury Select Committee and so I am unable to attend many of the debates. In my experience since becoming a member of Standing Committee A, I do not believe that the House of Commons eVectively scrutinizes European legislation. The issues dealt with by European Standing Committee A cover quite a wide range of issues and there is rarely time to fully understand the issues involved and one does not get the sense that there is any real opportunity to inﬂuence the course of European legislation. In my view a reformed, democratic House of Lords could make a very important contribution by proper scrutiny of European legislation using Members who could develop an expertise in the subject areas concerned. Inevitably, the volume of European legislation also creates problems for proper scrutiny. There is a strong case for reducing this volume. I appreciate, however, that this goes well beyond the scope of the Leader of House’s consultation! June 2004 9893883018 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 125

Submission from Dr Nick Palmer MP I should like to submit comments to the Modernisation Committee, with particular regard to Peter Hain’s memorandum. I am a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee and have been a member of Standing Committee Euro-B since, I think, soon after my election in 1997. Since my appoointment as PPS to DEFRA last year, I have attended three Euro-A sessions as well.

1. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Arrangements When I was a member of the ESC, I felt that its scrutiny was somewhat haphazard, and due to the enormous volume of documents to peruse there was what seemed to me an unspoken culture on the Committee encouraging routine rubber-stamping. The chairman would read out the document numbers (1...2...3...4...)anditwasuptoMembers to interrupt the ﬂow swiftly (“Stop, I’d like to discuss number 17”) if they wished to have a discussion on any speciﬁc document. If all the documents needed to be gotten through, it wasn’t clear that there was a better way, but certainly it didn’t encourage the feeling of detailed scrutiny. A current member tells me that this has in his view changed, so my view may be out of date, but there is clearly a serious problem in how to identify the important issues in a large volume of documents. Euro-B has in my view and that of other members with whom I’ve discussed it some of the best debates in Parliament. The format of an hour for questions and the remaining time for speeches gives strong interaction between members and the Minister attending, and the lack of media attention encourages serious debate and discussion of detailed issues rather than routine point-scoring. That said, attendance among Opposition members has declined in the last two years, and it was noticeable that at the recent debate on EU asylum and immigration policy, a subject of some public interest, there were no Conservative (or, I think, other Opposition) members of the Committee present at all. Part of this may be due to the lack of media coverage and the fact that the outcome is normally approval of the Government’s position—though this could be said of any standing committee, and perhaps the perceived distance from European policy-making is relevant too. Another problem is the lack of overlap between membership of the ESC and membership of the Standing Committees. The ESC often refers documents to Euro-B with recommendations that particular points be pursued which do not necessarily seem especially important to Euro-B members, who may instead want to pursue other aspects. It would be sensible if one ESC member could attend each Standing Committee debate to represent the view of the parent committee and ensure their concerns are followed.

2. Possible Reforms Following the order of the Leader of the House’s memorandum: — The joint European Grand Committee seems an excellent idea. — It would be particularly useful if MEPs and Commissioners were able to attend in the ways suggested. The still-limited communication between MPs and MEPs is a significant issue, since it would be natural if national MPs’ concerns were pursued in the European Parliament and vice versa. — Debates on the floor of the House seem roughly appropriate in frequency. The general adjournment debates are of limited value, since their unfocused nature tends to attract little interest beyond the circle of Members with very strong views on Europe as such. It might be helpful to split them into a general, shorter, adjournment debate and a debate with a vote on a specific theme expected to feature at the next European Council meeting. — As noted above, I do not really share the view in para 19 that the ESC works very well, but my view may be out of date. — As noted above, I strongly disagree with the view (para 20) that the proceedings of the Standing Committees have a ritualistic quality (on the contrary, I think this is much less true than in Delegated Legislation Committees, perhaps the closest domestic equivalent), and while it is certainly true that they do not attract much outside interest, it is often not the case that the issues discussed have little political interest. Modernisation Committee members might like to look at Hansard reports of recent Standing Committee sessions to form their own view of the quality of the debate. — In para 24, it is suggested that Members should get a briefing pack including the Scrutiny Committee’s report, but this is in fact already the case. As noted above, I do agree that the ESC should send a representative where they have discussed an issue, though below I question whether dual discussioin in ESC and Standing Committees should normally take place. — I should like to suggest an alternative to the options on Membership discussed in the following paragraphs. The core membership could be reduced, perhaps to around eight members, and for specific documents three additional members of the relevant departmental Select Committees could be added—so, for instance, a discussion of European financial issues would be enriched by 9893883018 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 126 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

the inclusion of three members of the Treasury Select Committee. This would provide an element of continuity with members with an ongoing interest in European issues, as well as specialised input on the subject at hand. — If it is agreed that document overload is still a problem for the ESC, it could be resolved as follows: (a) The ESC chair and committee staV would conduct a triage, assigning documents as “Of particular political importance, for full discussion on the ESC” “Requiring detailed scrutiny but not of suYcient weight for the ESC, to be referred to Standing Committees or Departmental Select Committees” “Routine documents requiring no further scrutiny, for routine approval” This selection would be communicated by email or other means to the ESC members, any of whom would be free to put a document which had been foreseen for delegation or pro-forma approval on the main ESC agenda after all. All pro forma items would be approved en bloc at the end of the ESC meeting. (b) The ESC would then be able to discuss the key issues in a more focused way. They would still be free to refer documents that they had debated for further study in Standing Committee (or Departmental Committee), but this might become the exception rather than the rule. This approach avoids further overloading the Departmental committee agendas, but enables Departmental members to ‘look over the fence’ and see European papers where relevant. It would reduce the ESC workload and increase its focus. Conversely, the Standing Committees would not be duplicating the ESC’s work, but applying detailed scrutiny to the more complex issues, with the help of Department members. I agree with all the points from para 31 onwards. June 2004

Submission from CBI

The CBI is the national body which represents the views of the UK-based business community to the UK government and to other authorities in the UK, Europe and elsewhere. It is an independent, non-party political organisation funded entirely by its members in industry and commerce. The organisation has a direct corporate membership employing over four million and a trade association membership representing over six million of the workforce. We very much welcome this opportunity to set out our views, based on the CBI’s experience of lobbying in Westminster, Whitehall and Brussels. It is becoming increasingly apparent that a lack of timely scrutiny at national level is costly to British business because frequently there is no formal opportunity to put our case to UK parliamentarians. We are pleased the Modernisation of the House of Commons Select Committee has identiﬁed this as an area that requires re-thinking, and hope that our evidence is a valuable addition to the inquiry.

Shortfalls in the Current System 1. There is little opportunity for outside interest groups to make timely representations. It is of great importance that outside organisations are engaged in debate on European matters. All stakeholders should have the opportunity to set out their views at a point in the European legislative process when it is still possible to inﬂuence the outcome, but our experience is that this is not the case at present. As a consequence, British business is losing out because any opportunity to lobby on European issues in Westminster is too little, too late. Whilst the CBI is able to lobby Commissioners and MEPs directly thanks to our Brussels oYce, there are many occasions where the potential impact of a proposal on British business is huge, and yet UK Parliamentarians remain in the dark. These are set out in more detail in the Examples below. 2. Poor signposting. We would like to see better sign-posting of up-coming legislation. Outside groups should be warned early on of any Commission proposal, so that they have time to react. Whilst we understand that this is as much an issue for the Commission to resolve as UK Parliament, it is an essential principle that any future scrutiny arrangement within UK Parliament must prioritise. 3. Late involvement by UK Parliament. All too frequently national parliamentarians only become aware of a piece of European legislation, in particular the problems associated with it, at its ﬁnal stage of national implementation. It is clearly far too late to do anything at this time. Greater involvement of UK Parliament during the early stages of the development of such legislation might well ensure that a large proportion of the diYculties are resolved, or at the very least highlighted, in advance of adoption by the Government. Any scrutiny by UK Parliament of a Commission proposal must be early on—ideally prior to the Commission producing a proposal, but at the very least before the European Parliament beginning First Reading. Such an arrangement would ensure that Government is fully informed of Parliament’s view, before it proceeds with any European Council negotiations. 9893883019 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 127

4. UK Government is able to ‘wash its hands’ of decisions that are taken in Brussels. At present there appears to be little Ministerial accountability for negotiations on key aspects of the European Council agenda. Without UK Parliament having set out their position in advance, there is no yardstick against which to measure what the Government has conceded and achieved in European negotiations. This issue is now all the more pertinent with the proposal, contained in the Constitutional Treaty, to give National Parliaments a mandate for participating in the EU legislative system. 5. UK MEPs lack accountability because there is little interest from the public or parliament in what they do. There is little direct interface between MEPs and their ‘constituencies’ and often, MEPs fail to make a connection between an issue being debated at the EU level and its impacts at the national level, both in terms of policy discussion and any subsequent transposition and implementation. For business, it is often only when MEPs are directly lobbied by business representatives that they become fully cognisant of the impact of the issues being debated. A lack of communication between MEPs and MPs can mean that each individual is not kept fully informed of legislation that will aVect their constituents. To allow MPs to keep track of European AVairs they should be receiving regular and easy-to-digest briefing on past and upcoming business. 6. The situation is becoming more serious with the increasing proportion of decisions aVecting business being taken at European level. The current Government estimates that nearly 50% of all legislation debated in Parliament is EU derived.42 This 50% is an overall figure, and for some sectors the proportion is much higher. As the transfer of powers from the UK to the EU continues, so the opposite transfer, from EU back to the UK does not occur. Whilst this may be inevitable, it becomes increasingly important for UK Parliament to seek to influence proceedings in Brussels.

Memorandum from the Leader of the House of Commons

7. Peter Hain’s paper “Scrutiny of European Matters in the House of Commons” rightly acknowledges that there are certain areas where UK Parliamentary scrutiny of European Matters is insuYcient. The experience of the CBI is very much in accordance with the diagnosis he makes in paragraph 2 of the introduction. We agree that changes should be made to the existing system to encourage greater involvement of Members in European matters and to enhance the scrutiny process. 8. Joint European Grand Committee. Specifically, we support the Government’s proposal to establish a new Joint European Grand Committee in which Ministers, and possibly Commissioners could conduct statements, questions and debates, and which MEPs could also attend. This Committee should serve to raise the profile and exposure of European matters in Westminster, and for this reason is welcomed. 9. Reform of the European Standing Committees. We harbour a little more scepticism about the proposals to reform the European Standing Committees. Whilst we agree that the present system does need reforming, we also believe that the Scrutiny Committee’s idea to increase the number of Committees, thereby allowing a higher degree of specialisation, should not be dismissed. In the CBI, policy specialists deal with policy both from the UK and Europe, and surely it makes sense for UK Parliament to be organised in the same way. To create a separate policy area of ‘Europe’ requires such a degree of generalisation that its eVectiveness will be compromised. 10. It is not clear how stronger links between the Scrutiny Committee and the Standing Committees, or abolishing the core membership of the Standing Committees, as the paper suggests, would make a diVerence to the eVectiveness of the scrutiny process. We do, however, support giving the Standing Committees power to take evidence, as this would facilitate greater consultation of outside interests. 11. The House of Lords. The House of Lords appears to do a much better job scrutinising European proposals. We believe that this is a consequence of the greater specialisation that is made possible by having a larger number of Committees. Peers can develop a degree of expertise thanks to the more narrowly defined policy areas. Whilst duplication of work done in the Lords is to be avoided, this does not discount the possibility of establishing Committees covering similar areas in the Commons. Perhaps it would also be worthwhile exploring the option of Joint European Standing Committees. 12. Greater focus on the need for better scrutiny. Overall it seems the proposals in Mr. Hain’s paper do not go far enough to tackle head-on the lack of scrutiny of European matters. Whilst this may result indirectly from the higher profile achieved by creating a new European Grand Committee, none of the suggested changes would actually lead to more frequent and in-depth discussions on the merits of a proposal that comes from Brussels. Not only is this type of discussion necessary to facilitate full scrutiny by UK Parliament, but so are other measures not included in the paper, but touched on above. These include: the involvement of outside interest; eVective signposting of upcoming matters; and involvement of UK Parliament at an early stage when there is most leeway to influence the outcome.

42 http://www.cabinet-oYce.gov.uk/regulation/docs/europe/word/pqagssrep.doc. 9893883019 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 128 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Examples:

Case Study 1: The Commission’s strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling The European Commission released a strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling in May 2003. Although this is still at an early stage, it opens the door for a whole host of regulation on waste that is of great importance to CBI members. In relation to waste prevention the possibility of targets was raised, as was legislation such as the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive. It also suggests an EU wide recycling target which may be met through tradable certificates. The CBI met the Environment Directorates-General and submitted a response to the consultation. DEFRA held a restricted consultation of stakeholders, but some key bodies (such as the EEF) were not included, and some key issues (such as the definition of waste) were not discussed. The European Scrutiny Committee considered the document and concluded the following: ‘This is an interesting document, in as much as it provides an analysis of the current situation within the Community in this area, together with a number of suggestions regarding the direction which waste management policy might take in future. For that reason, we are drawing it to the attention of the House. However, we note that it will be followed by the thematic strategy which it is seeking to develop, and that in turn will presumably lead to specific legislative proposals in certain areas. In view of this, we do not think any further consideration of this subject is called for at present, and we are therefore clearing the document.’ The CBI argues that this is precisely the time when UK Parliament could usefully get involved. Waiting for specific legislative proposals to surface from Brussels would be missing a crucial opportunity to shape the direction of European Waste Policy.

Case Study 2: Company Law and Corporate Governance Action Plan The Action Plan contains a series of measures in the ﬁeld of company law and corporate governance. Many of these will have profound impacts on UK companies. Below is an example, but the Action Plan covers a much wider area and it is surprising that this has not been an area scrutinised by Parliament, particularly because of the question of the transfer of additional powers from Westminster to Brussels and because of the potential overlap with various UK legislative proposals as part of the Company Law Review, directors and auditors liability, etc.

Non-executive directors, annual corporate governance statement and eVect on UK’s Combined Code Various recommendations have been made that corporate governance should be dealt with by national codes. The UK recently revised its own Combined Code and some other member states (eg Sweden) have only just introduced a code for the ﬁrst time. The Commission is proposing to bring forward a recommendation in the autumn on non-executive directors, but the consultation document covered so much detail that we cannot see how such a detailed recommendation can be anything other than an attempt to dictate the contents of national codes. While the CBI supports the principle of a corporate governance statement, as already exists in the UK, the recent Commission consultation on amendment of the 4th and 7th company law directives suggested requiring such a statement in a directive. We believe that the contents of such a statement should be set at national level and we strongly disagree with EU legislation detailing what should be included in such statements. This would require legislation in the UK, overriding the UK’s Combined Code, which is recognised as being both ﬂexible and at the forefront of corporate governance. This would be an extremely useful area for UK Parliament to be involved. There needs to be a better debate on whether such decisions should be taken at national or European level, and what level of detail is appropriate at EU and National level.

Case Study 3: The European Court of Justice InsuYcient scrutiny by UK Parliament of EU matters can have damaging and lasting implications. In particular, the ECJ is now interpreting existing EU law, especially the basic freedoms—free movement of goods, persons, services and capital—in such a way as to erode Member States’ tax regimes. Whilst there is all round agreement that the UK’s tax regime should remain the sovereign jurisdiction of the UK, there appears to have been no understanding at the time of the establishment of the ECJ that its powers could stretch this far. The debate on the draft Constitutional Treaty provides an opportunity to revisit the role of the ECJ in tax and other matters of fundamental concern to business. However, once again, the main parliamentary debate on the Constitution will occur after the text has already been agreed by the Government and at a stage when it is too late to make changes. July 2004 9893883020 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 129

Submission from Mr Kelvin Hopkins MP I am writing in response to the invitation by Peter Hain MP to comment on the provisions for scrutiny of European matters in the House of Commons. I write as a Member with strong European Union interests, having been a member of European Standing Committee ‘B’ for the last seven years and more recently an active attender, and active participant in the meetings of the Standing Committee on the Convention and the IGC. May I say from the start that while I understand the Select Committee’s interest in improving where possible the scrutiny of EU matters, the existing system has worked as well as could be expected, albeit imperfectly. The real problem is persuading Members to take an active interest in the matters for consideration by the various European scrutiny committees. Evidently, most Members are not really interested in EU matters. I listened with interest to the Foreign Secretary’s statement in the House about the new proposals and broadly supported what he said. The proposed new Joint European Grand Committee would be a welcome replacement for the previous Standing Committee on the Convention. I am pleased that the proposal as set out in the Select Committee Report HC508 would provide for a core membership, but also allow other Members to participate. On balance, I think this would be preferable to having a Grand Committee of all Members of both Houses. My suspicion is that with a core membership and others able to attend, more Members are likely to attend than simply having a Grand Committee of all Members of both Houses. The previous Standing Committee on the Convention sometimes had diYculty in securing and sustaining a quorum and it seems to me that having a core membership plus others able to attend, with all to be counted in the quorum would be more likely to succeed in achieving quorate meetings than the alternative proposal. As to UK members of the European Parliament participating, I don’t believe this would be acceptable. We should be able to call Commissioners and MEPs to appear before us, but the Committee should function like a UK Parliamentary standing committee. As to the European Scrutiny system, I am in broad agreement with the Select Committee report and note that the Government believes the European Scrutiny Committee itself workseVectively. As perhaps the only Member who has served on European Standing Committee ‘B’ throughout the last seven years, the decline in its eVectiveness has been significant and very noticeable. I am sometimes the only member on the Government side who really wishes to speak in the debate on referred items and on occasion there have been jocular (?) suggestions from fellow Members that I might forego my speech to get the meeting over with more quickly! This is all good humoured stuV, but it does suggest that Standing Committee business is not always taken as seriously as it should be. For my part, I find that the Standing Committee provides excellent opportunities to express a view to Ministers and to fellow Members, and also to civil servants and House staV dealing with the policy issues under consideration. Meetings are also in public which is useful. If other Members do not wish to take such opportunities, obviously that is their choice, but I wish to continue as an active participant in the Standing Committee and doing what I can to influence policy in a modest way. The Select Committee report suggests having five Standing Committees covering narrower policy fields. I am not convinced this would help, and share the Government’s view that it does not make sense to increase the number of Standing Committees. The opportunity to put amendments and with any amended motions debated on the floor of the House could make them more interesting, although I am not really convinced that it would persuade more Members to participate. I would agree with the Select Committee’s suggestion in paragraph 24 that the present suggestion should be retained but made to work better. If the Scrutiny Committee sent representatives to Standing Committees to explain the Scrutiny Committee’s view, this might enliven proceedings and make the Standing Committees more eVective. If attendance at Standing Committees became entirely optional, with no whipping, one suspects attendances would be very poor and the level of participation in Committee discussion even poorer. This would surely make a nonsense of the scrutiny procedure. The suggestion in paragraph 27 that documents be referred instead to a Select Committee does not appeal. One suspects that they would merely be nodded through with very little discussion. The adversarial style of a Standing Committee is I believe a much better format for debating European matters and teasing out the key issues.

Conclusion On balance, I would prefer to stick with the existing system of scrutiny and with no more than three standing committees. A new Joint European Grand Committee with a core membership and other members permitted to attend and participate, and all comprising part of a relatively low quorum would also be welcome. The opportunity to question Commissioners would be a great attraction. 9893883020 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 130 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Inevitably, there is only a minority of Members with a signiﬁcant interest in EU matters, and this is evidenced on the ﬂoor of the House when the only minority of enthusiasts for EU debates regularly attends. This group includes both EU enthusiasts and sceptics and although the debates are not especially well attended, the key issues are generally brought out in debate. It is diYcult to see how many more Members might be encouraged to take an interest in EU issues, and it might just be better to accept the present level of interest among Members as realistic. Perhaps what we have now is the best we can achieve and we should appreciate what we have. I hope my comments are helpful, and look forward to further reports from the Select Committee and indeed from Government. July 2004

Submission from UK National Parliament OYce Brussels

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY SYSTEMS IN EU MEMBER STATE PARLIAMENTS

Introduction:The Overall Picture 1. Before the recent enlargement of the EU, there were 24 chambers from 15 member state national parliaments, each engaging with European aVairs in their own way. There are now 25 parliaments and 37 chambers in EU member states. Comparative analyses of the scrutiny of European aVairs by national parliaments all have to acknowledge that there is a great variety of systems, each reflecting the constitutional and political circumstances of each member state. Indeed, there is not even any common definition of the concept or scope of parliamentary scrutiny. This note takes “scrutiny” to mean the procedural mechanisms adopted by parliaments in order to influence, control and hold to account their governments for their legislative activities in the Council of Ministers. It does not therefore consider the wider opportunities for questioning, debate and examination of European policy which are present in all national parliaments. 2. One common factor in nearly all parliamentary chambers is the presence of a committee on European aVairs,43 and where recognizable scrutiny takes place these committees usually play a central role. There are however major diVerences in: — the remit of the committees, including whether they concentrate on examination of documents, as in the case of the UK, or on scrutiny/control of governmental activity in the Council of Ministers, as in the Danish and other Nordic systems. There is also variation in committees’ ability to examine Second and Third Pillar matters; — the power of the committees, including their legal and political degree of control over their governments and their ability to act independently of their chambers; — the relationship between the committees and other subject committees of the chamber (in some cases European aVairs committees simply sift legislative proposals on to subject committees for more detailed consideration, in others they are the primary forum for scrutiny); and — the composition of the committees, with some allowing participation of national MEPs, with or without voting rights. 3. Particularly when considering committees’ powers, whether or not exercise of those powers requires approval of the parliamentary chamber as a whole, it is essential to bear in mind that, in practice, they may rarely if ever be used to their full extent. This is especially the case in respect of formal powers to control governmental positions in Council. On paper, for example, the European aVairs committees of the Austrian Nationalrat and Bundesrat have probably the most extensive powers over their government of any national parliament: each may issue a “binding opinion” constituting a negotiating mandate from which the Austrian Government may not depart in Council. However the number of such binding opinions has dropped dramatically since the early days of Austria’s membership of the EU, and they have come to be phrased in such a way as to allow Ministers latitude to negotiate. Conversely, committees with few formal powers may exercise some influence in informal ways, though this is more diYcult to demonstrate. In certain cases a general political consensus in favour of European integration shared between parliament and government may make parliaments less inclined to scrutinise or question European legislation or ministerial actions in Council. The Spanish Parliament could be cited as an example, with its Joint Committee meeting about once a month, producing few reports and mainly conducting its business by holding hearings, which tend to take the form of general debates. 4. Regardless of whether parliaments have traditionally carried out “strong” or “weak” scrutiny, over the last few decades there has been a discernible trend in nearly all parliaments to strengthen their capacity to scrutinise. Specialised European aVairs committees have been established in parliaments or chambers where they did not previously exist (eg in the French National Assembly and Senate in 1979; in the Dutch Senate in 1986; in the Greek Parliament in 1990), or their scope and remit has been extended, particularly in relation to Second and Third Pillar documents. At the same time these committees have sought ways of

43 Luxembourg has a single committee covering foreign and European aVairs and defence, and Portugal a committee on European aVairs and foreign policy. The Irish and Spanish Parliaments have a Joint Committee on European AVairs of both Houses. 9893883021 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 131

co-operating with each other, primarily through the forum of COSAC, established in 1989. It is also noteworthy that the scrutiny systems recently set up in the new central and eastern European member states nearly all have a means of mandating Ministers at their core.

Scrutiny Models 5. It is generally agreed that there are two basic models for those parliaments attempting to carry out serious scrutiny: the “document-based” model, as adopted at Westminster, and the “mandating” model, pioneered by the Danish Parliament and followed, with modifications, by certain other parliaments. The former concentrates on the early stage of legislation, when a Commission draft legislative proposal is first adopted; the latter focuses on the conclusion of negotiations in the Council. This is not, however, a hard and fast distinction. At Westminster scrutiny continues on legislation when significant amendments are made in the European Parliament and the Council, Commons resolutions on documents recommended for debate by the European Scrutiny Committee could be regarded as a rudimentary and general form of mandate, and the ESC carries out some pre- and post-Council scrutiny. At the same time, the Danish Parliament has comprehensive arrangements to obtain draft legislation and other EU documents when they are produced, together with government explanatory memoranda, and, since 1996, it has held hearings and produced opinions on some Commission Green and White Papers. As the ESC said in its 2002 Report European Scrutiny in the Commons: “just as we are not exclusively focussed on documents but also sometimes question Ministers before or after Council meetings, our Danish counterparts are not exclusively focussed on Ministers and Council meetings; however, no Committee is likely to have time to cover both documents and Councils systematically”.

Document-based systems 6. EVective document-based scrutiny depends upon comprehensive and timely transmission of EU documents and information to parliaments. It also depends upon an obligation for governments to transmit agreed categories of documents, such as those set out in Standing Order No. 143 of the House of Commons. For some parliaments transmission of EU documents depends largely on the discretion of the government, especially under the Second and Third Pillars. Even under the First Pillar there is a great variety in the number and type of documents submitted to parliaments, although draft Commission legislative proposals are received by most. In most cases EU documents are accompanied by government explanatory memoranda. These memoranda vary greatly in quality, and those supplied by the UK Government are generally considered to be among the most informative. Whereas the Commons ESC receives about 1,100 documents in total for scrutiny each year, the Austrian Parliament receives a vastly greater number, including agendas of meetings. During its XXth Legislative Period, from January 1996 to October 1999, the Austrian Parliament received a total of 75,958 EU documents. Only 155 of these were placed on the agenda of the Nationalrat’s EU Main Committee. Excess of information can be as discouraging to eVective document-based scrutiny as lack of information. 7. The main features of the Commons European scrutiny system are described in Annex 1 to the European Scrutiny Committee’s memorandum to the Modernisation Committee. The closest parallels in other EU member states are the recently-reformed scrutiny arrangements of the Irish Oireachtas, and the systems adopted by both chambers of the French Parliament. 8. Following the Irish European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002, a sub-committee of the Oireachtas’s Joint Committee on European AVairs considers draft Community legislation and CFSP joint actions and common positions, and refers those measures requiring further scrutiny to specialised sectoral committees. Government Ministers are required to “have regard to any recommendations” made by either House or their committees, and to report to the Oireachtas on measures adopted in Council before they have been laid before both Houses. There is no scrutiny reserve. 9. The French scrutiny system, as operated by the European aVairs committees (“delegations”) of both chambers of the French Parliament, has essentially developed during the 1990s: before that time neither the Senate nor the National Assembly wielded much influence over the French government’s negotiating prerogatives within the Council. The seminal moment was the introduction of Article 88-4 into the French constitution in 1992 as part of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. The Article, which was further amended in 1999 during ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, obliges the government to forward all proposals of a legislative nature, under all three Pillars, and a variety of other EU documents, to both Houses, if they are matters falling within the French domestic legislative sphere. In 2003 there were 312 documents formally transmitted to the Parliament in accordance with the Article 88-4 provisions, though the government also lays a large number of additional documents. Documents are not usually accompanied by government explanatory memoranda. The Houses have four weeks from receipt of proposals to inform the government of their intention to adopt a resolution on a proposal; in such cases the government applies a parliamentary scrutiny reserve if necessary in Council. The French committees sift proposals on the grounds of their importance, and refer a minority to other committees. Resolutions on documents may be adopted by committees themselves on behalf of each chamber, or by the chambers themselves. In the 9893883021 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 132 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

2002–03 parliamentary session, the National Assembly adopted eight resolutions, and during 2003 the Senate adopted seven resolutions. Resolutions of the French Parliament, which may cover a number of individual documents, do not have a binding eVect on the French government in its negotiations in Council. 10. Amongst the new member states, the Czech Parliament is almost alone in having adopted an essentially document-based scrutiny system. Draft acts of the European Communities and the EU, accompanied by explanatory memoranda, have to be sent to both the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate committees,44 together with other documentation at the Government’s discretion or if the committees request it. If resolutions on documents are agreed by the Chamber of Representatives, the Czech government must take account of them when negotiating in Council (an element of a mandating system). It may take account of such resolutions agreed by the Senate. Both chambers may apply a scrutiny reserve, in the case of the Senate limited to a maximum of 35 days. Scrutiny in the Hungarian Parliament is also essentially document-based, but before Council meetings ministers or their deputies have to present themselves if the Parliament so requests.

Mandating systems 11. The template for mandating systems is that of the Danish Folketing, introduced on Denmark’s accession to the EEC in 1973. On their accession to the EU both Sweden and Finland established similar systems, and, as mentioned above, so did Austria and most of the new member states which acceded on 1 May 2004. 12. The Danish model of mandating works almost entirely through the Folketing’s European AVairs Committee, which meets every Friday. When Council meetings are taking place the following week, the Minister who will be attending presents the government’s desired mandate to the committee, running through the Council agenda, and explaining the government’s proposed negotiating position in terms of the history and substance of the items to be discussed and the likely attitudes of other member states. The mandate sought by the government is therefore an oral one, formulated by the Minister himself or herself. Following the Minister’s presentation of the mandate, questioning by party spokespeople takes place, during which modifications to the mandate can be made by the Minister. Finally the chairman of the committee seeks to establish, without a formal vote, whether there is a majority against the proposed mandate. Each party representative at the meeting carries a voting weight reflecting his/her party’s strength in the Folketing: voting does not therefore depend on individual MPs present at the meeting. It is very rare for there to be a majority against a mandate, which has the consequence that the Minister may not support legislation at the Council meeting. More often amendments are made to the mandate originally proposed by the Minister. The mandate is politically binding on the government, and there is debate in Denmark as to whether it is also legally binding. Following Council meetings Ministers publish reports on their outcome, allowing the committee to check whether the mandate was observed. If the committee desires clarification, it can take written or oral evidence from the Minister. 13. In essence, the Swedish and Finnish systems are the same, but whereas in the Folketing attempts to integrate subject committees into the mandating process have not met with much success, in the Riksdag and the Eduskunta the opinions of other committees form an important basis for the EU AVairs Committee and the Grand Committee respectively when considering their government’s negotiating mandates. In Finland Second Pillar matters fall to the responsibility of the Foreign AVairs Committee, not the Grand Committee. 14. All three Nordic Parliaments have comprehensive arrangements to obtain EU documentation from their governments when it is produced, accompanied by explanatory memoranda, and have sought, through involvement of subject committees and by hearings, to follow legislation before the moment at which it reaches the Council for political agreement or formulation of a common position. As all the parliaments operate a scrutiny reserve as well as a mandate, it is clearly in their governments’ interests to provide the fullest possible information in advance of the presentation of a negotiating mandate for adoption. 15. The Nordic mandating system depends for its success on several factors: — a strong parliamentary tradition of control over governments (in Denmark minority governments are the norm); — a willingness to allow a committee to act on behalf of the parliament as a whole (and to allow the committee chairman to sanction changes in mandate if contacted by the Minister as Council negotiations unfold); and — the lack of a second chamber, avoiding the possibility of conflicting mandates being adopted. 16. Among the old EU-15 member state parliaments, in addition to the Austrian case mentioned above (paragraph 3) there are some other examples of parliamentary approval or sanction being possible or required before Ministers may agree to proposals in the Council. The Dutch Parliament, for example, must give prior consent, explicit or tacit (more usually the latter), to Third Pillar measures post-Maastricht,

44 In the case of the Senate, Second and Third Pillar documents go to the ForeignAVairs, Defence and Security Committee rather than the European AVairs Committee. 9893883021 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 133

whether or not those policy areas have since been shifted to the First Pillar. In cases of European legislation covering matters where German La¨nder have jurisdiction, the Bundesrat may deliver legally-binding decisions which must be followed in the Council by German Ministers. 17. An account of scrutiny systems in new member states is given in chapter 6 of the ﬁrst COSAC biannual report on EU procedures and practices, from which it is clear that the Nordic model has made a strong impression. Most new member state parliaments have established a scrutiny system involving mandating. Before Council meetings the Polish Government will be obliged to present its negotiating position to the Sejm’s European AVairs Committee and to take account of the committee’s opinion. All oYcial positions of the Latvian Government have to be approved by the parliamentary committee. The Estonian and Slovenian committees are empowered to mandate their governments before Councils, and in Hungary the committee may adopt a politically binding opinion. One of the diYculties faced by mandating systems is that decisions may already have been taken in Council working groups and COREPER before a matter comes to the Council itself: the Hungarian Parliament is attempting to address this problem by requiring the government to keep the committee informed of negotiations in working groups from the start of the legislative process. In Slovakia discussions continue between the government and the parliament over whether parliamentary opinions should be mandatory on the government, or couched in the form of recommendations. 18. A particularly interesting “traYc-light” scrutiny system is likely to be established in the Lithuanian Parliament. This could be described as a hybrid of the document-based and mandating systems. On receipt of EU documents they will be placed in one of three categories: (i) requiring the Parliament to produce a politically-binding mandate (ie “red”), (ii) requiring the Parliament to be consulted (ie “yellow”), and (iii) of little or no interest to the Parliament (ie “green”). 19. It is too early to assess how the various mandating systems established in the new member states will actually operate in practice. Some have not yet entered into force. While they allow for mandates, of diVering degrees of rigour, they do not in general oblige the parliaments to provide mandates. It is possible that the systems will diverge, with some of the parliaments settling into a pattern of systematic and comprehensive mandating on Nordic lines, and others making sparing use of their theoretical powers, as has happened in Austria.

Other scrutiny systems 19. Parliaments which would not classify themselves as falling into either the document-based or the mandating scrutiny categories might be dubbed “supportive” or “consensual” scrutinisers of European policy and legislation. Some of these parliaments, such as those in Greece, Italy and Portugal, have very few levers for inﬂuencing their governments’ approach in Council. Others, such as the German Bundestag and the Dutch Parliament, may have greater formal powers, but have tended to share a general political approach on Europe with their governments which disinclines them from seeking to invoke close or rigorous control mechanisms. While all these parliaments have tried in recent years to tighten their procedures for receiving EU documentation and then dealing with it, it remains the case that, insofar as they wish to inﬂuence their governments in Council negotiations, the preferred route is generally informal and political rather than procedural and systematic.

Conclusion:AComparison between Document-based and Mandating Systems 20. Both document-based and mandating systems have their own advantages and disadvantages, and parliaments practising each one have attempted to import aspects of the other to strengthen their overall scrutiny. In considering the question of whether to assimilate further aspects of a mandating system into the Commons’ approach to European scrutiny, the Modernisation Committee may wish to consider the following factors: — mandating systems provide an objectively stronger form of parliamentary control than document- based systems, where the intention is to inﬂuence rather than control ministerial actions in Council; — a mandating system guarantees more intensive government information and accountability to parliament in relation to ministerial activity in Council; on the other hand, a document-based system generates a greater amount of public information. Though Nordic parliaments do publish a great deal of information to the public on European matters, this is not integral to their scrutiny. European aVairs committee meetings in the Nordic parliaments to establish mandates are held behind closed doors and with only a limited amount of information being released subsequently; — a document-based system, especially when it concentrates on the initial publication of draft legislation, may have diYculties in coping with amendments made to legislation as it continues through the legislative process; on the other hand, a mandating system may ﬁnd that it is seeking to exert control too late in the legislative process, when decisions have already been made in Council working groups and COREPER; 9893883021 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 134 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

— mandating systems have worked best in strong unicameral parliaments; in other settings, so far, they have tended to be underused. Even in the Nordic parliaments there is an element of circularity in the mandating process, with the government tending to obtain the mandate which it had sought; — a watertight mandating system relies on delegation to a committee of the power to define the parliament’s position, and on that committee sitting during parliamentary recesses as often as necessary (August is the only month of the year when Council meetings do not usually take place); — strict mandates may cause Ministers to be sidelined in Council negotiations on matters subject to qualified majority voting, leading in some cases to a worse outcome in terms of national interest; — the timing of the lifting of a parliamentary scrutiny reserve is usually more predictable in a mandating system, coming as it does at the time the mandate is agreed; in a document-based system such as the UK’s there is more uncertainty; — should the constitutional treaty come into eVect, the introduction of procedures at national parliament level to implement a subsidiarity early-warning mechanism will fit more comfortably as part of a document-based system focused on the initial publication of legislative proposals. July 2004

Sources National Parliaments on their Ways to Europe: Losers or Latecomers?; Andreas Maurer/Wolfgang Wessels (eds), Centre for European Integration Studies 2001. Thirtieth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 2001–02, European Scrutiny in the Commons, HC 152-xxx. European AVairs Committees: The Inﬂuence of National Parliaments on European Policies: An Overview, European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation, 2002. Chapter 6 and Annexes of the COSAC biannual report on EU procedures and practices, May 2004 (www.cosac.org).

Submission from Jonathan Evans MEP, Leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament Earlier this year, I was invited to give oral evidence to the Select Committee on Modernisation on the scrutiny of European matters by the House of Commons. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend on the proposed date, so my colleague Timothy Kirkhope MEP, who served on the national parliaments working group of the European Convention, gave evidence in my place. Naturally, I endorse the points made by Mr Kirkhope. Similarly, I endorse the points relevant to this matter made in the Conservative Research Department Policy Unit pamphlet, “Reversing the Drivers of Regulation: the European Union”, published on 18 August. A copy is being submitted for the Committee’s consideration (not printed). There are a number of points I would like to highlight in particular: — Conservative MEPs have consistently pressed for improved scrutiny of EU policy and legislation, both in the European Parliament and at Westminster. We welcome this important and timely opportunity to bring about much-needed improvements to current arrangements. — To improve the consistency of scrutiny throughout the legislative process, there must be better exchange of MEPs and MPs between London and Brussels (or Strasbourg) respectively. Worthwhile ideas that have been suggested in this area include, for example, MPs being invited to pre-legislative hearings in the European Parliament, and MEPs being involved in the scrutiny of implementing measures in the UK, whether in the proposed “Grand Committee” or in some other way. In each case, members of whichever parliament should participate on an equal footing and all meetings should be held in public. — It will be important to pay attention to timetabling if such arrangements are to be successful: meetings involving both MPs (or Peers) and MEPs should not be held at times that conﬂict with the normal Parliamentary business of one or other group of members. Joint meetings should ideally be held when one of the Parliaments is in recess, or if both are sitting, not on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. — Scrutiny at Westminster of Commissioners or other senior EU oYcials would also be welcome, not least in helping to interest the Westminster-based media in EU issues. Similarly, consideration should be given to mechanisms for improving the accountability of ministers before and after Council meetings. Conservative MEPs have long campaigned for improved transparency and accountability of the Council of Ministers and any steps in this direction would be a positive development. 9893883022 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 135

— In general, consideration should be given to ways to foster relations with other national parliaments (and the European Parliament) on a bilateral as well as a multi-lateral basis. Scope for improved sharing of best practice for scrutiny of European matters certainly exists. — In particular, as the Leader of the House’s memorandum points out, mechanisms whereby national parliaments indicate their unhappiness with an EU proposal need to be elaborated. Conservatives have called for a “red card” provision whereby national parliaments can block a Commission proposal in certain circumstances. It is extremely important that national parliaments are given more “teeth” in the legislative process. Communication channels between parliaments will clearly be a vital part of enhancing the role of national parliaments. Whatever institutional arrangements are settled upon, it would be politically helpful to MPs (and for that matter MEPs) if they were able to establish at an early stage that a number of national parliaments shared a concern, for example, that a certain Commission proposal was in breach of subsidiarity or was not accompanied by an adequate impact assessment. — The value of visits, both formal and informal, for example by MPs and Peers to Brussels or Strasbourg (or indeed other national Parliaments) should not be under-estimated. Such visits foster important political relationships and improve information ﬂows. In particular, visits facilitate “early warning” on controversial proposals. Such visits should be more frequent and better publicised, for example to enable a visit to Brussels by members of a Select Committee to incorporate a political dimension, such as a meeting between MEPs and MPs of the same party. There is much that could be done within existing structures to enhance regular contacts. Visits by MPs and Peers are often arranged at very short notice and with vague agendas. There is no regular contact between MEPs on speciﬁc Committees and their Westminster counterparts. The Commons has a staV member based in the European Parliament but he appears to be briefed solely to respond to Westminster rather than facilitate dialogue between Parliaments. I would of course be delighted to elaborate upon all of these points, and I look forward to the outcome of the Modernisation Committee’s deliberations. September 2004

Submission from Derek Wyatt MP

If the EU is to be fully understood in each of the 25 nations then the UK should put forward, as one of its planks for reform when it has the Presidency later this year, an end to the week in Strasbourg. Itself a huge cost to taxpayers and a great upheaval for MEPs. In its place, every MEP should have to return to their national parliament and give evidence and debate what they have been discussing themselves in the previous three weeks in Brussels. Only Finland makes this a condition and it should be copied by all member states. Otherwise as the EU grows it becomes more distant and less relevant to our national parliaments. This in turn will aVect any constitutional arrangement and any chance of joining the euro. January 2005

Letter to Rt Hon Peter Hain MP from Mr Jimmy Hood MP, Chairman, European Scrutiny Committee

REQUEST BY EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE TO MEET IN PUBLIC WHEN DELIBERATING The European Scrutiny Committee reconsidered today its request to be allowed to meet in public when deliberating, and decided to withdraw that request. It is important to emphasise here that the request related to a specific aspect of the Committee’s work, namely deliberating on documents and other matters. Our evidence sessions are already in public, and our decisions on documents, with the reasoning underlying them, are published in our weekly reports. The proposal to deliberate in public is only one of many that emerged from the Committee’s discussions on how best to involve politicians and the public with the process of European scrutiny. To some it is a matter of principle that the full scrutiny system should be visible to the public, including the Committee’s discussions with legal and other advisers. Supporters of the proposal do not accept the reasons advanced in opposition to it. How the Committee deliberates is central to its function. We usually consider about 30 or 40 documents at each weekly meeting, but in practice only about a quarter or a fifth are discussed. If every document on the agenda were discussed even for five minutes, each meeting would last about three hours. Moreover, in the majority of cases there is unlikely to be controversy about whether a document is important, about the questions which need to be put to the Minister and about whether it should be debated. Taking examples from our third report of this session, everyone is likely to agree that the Services Directive should be debated and the Decision on trade in steel between the EU and Kazakhstan should not. To the casual observer, therefore, the Committee’s deliberative process could appear (wrongly) to be cursory and staV-driven. The public would also need to understand that clearance of a document does not imply approval. 9893883023 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 136 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

The staV who serve the Committee, either in an administrative or advisory role, should not be compromised by the potential for public misunderstanding or be an object for political point-scoring that could result from such a change in procedure. The Committee’s deliberations are vital to the quality of our scrutiny, and an important part of that deliberation is discussion between staV and Members, sometimes about factual aspects and sometimes about the suggested Committee decision on the document. Holding such discussions in public would give prominence to the views of staV (hitherto invisible) at the expense of Members, and would probably make staV advice less frank; it is unlikely that such exchanges could continue in their present form in public. Also, for the public to understand the proceedings they would need to see the written briefing provided, which might therefore also become more guarded. The Committee also has concerns about the eVect on Members of the Committee, namely the possibility that meeting in public would encourage Members to debate the merits of EU documents, whereas our core function is to sift documents on the basis of their political or legal importance and to refer the most important for debate on merits by Standing Committees or (by agreement with the usual channels) on the floor of the House. Some who spoke at our meeting on Wednesday expressed an understanding of some of the opposing viewpoints. But the Committee decided that the benefits of deliberating in public would be outweighed by the considerable disadvantages. It continues to be our policy to widen and make as much information public as we can and to meet in public as much as possible, but, as indicated above, we are now withdrawing our request to be allowed to meet in public when deliberating. We believe attention should be concentrated on making the European Standing Committees, where the merits of documents are debated, more eVective and more visible to the public. January 2005

Note from the Clerk of the European Scrutiny Committee

Questions Raised at the Meeting on 2February 2005

Proceedings in the House if a European Standing Committee amends the Government’s motion 1. The proposal from the European Scrutiny Committee is that if the Government’s motion is amended in the Committee, the amended motion (rather than the Government’s original motion) should be put to the House; the Government could then propose an amendment to restore the original wording (or to change it in some other way), and if it did so there would be some time for debate, such as 10 minutes for the mover of the motion agreed in the Committee and ten minutes for the amendment proposed by the Government. 2. Such a procedure would probably be invoked only rarely, given that the Government has a majority on the Standing Committees. 3. Assuming any division was a deferred division, the time needed would be up to 20 minutes. This time could be either at the beginning of the day’s business (after ministerial statements and PNQs) or at the end (before the daily adjournment debate). It would either add to the length of the sitting or take time away from the House’s main business of the day. 4. If the 20 minutes was at the start of the day’s business, it would take time away from the House’s main business. An exception to this would be if the main business had been allotted a certain length of time from its commencement, in which case the time taken for EU business would in eVect be added at the end of the day (though not necessarily after the time for the interruption of business). In order to have a deferred division, the relevant standing order would need to be changed, since it currently provides for deferred divisions only after the time for the interruption of business. It might be desirable to avoid Tuesdays and Wednesdays, when there are 10-minute rule Bills. 5. If the 20 minutes was at the end of the day’s business, it would add to the length of the sitting. However, provided that any divisions were deferred, there would be no requirement for a substantial number of Members to stay to vote. 6. Occasionally, when a decision in the Council of Ministers is imminent, the Government would not be able to wait for a deferred division on the following Wednesday. The same timing options—at the start of the day’s business or the end—would apply, but in the latter case the deferred division procedure would need to be disapplied (under standing order No 41A(3)). 7. If the members of the Standing Committee had felt strongly enough about the Government’s motion to amend it, it is likely that they would be willing both to table and to move the amended motion in the House, but a procedure would be needed in case they failed to do so. As regards tabling, it could be provided that, either (i) if the motion as amended by the Committee was not placed on the Remaining Orders (Future Business part C) by the time for the interruption of business on the day of the Committee’s sitting, the Government could put its own motion to the House; or (ii) when the Government placed the item on the Remaining Orders, it would automatically put down the motion as amended by the Committee in the name of the Member who had moved it in the Committee. The standing order could also provide that, if the 9893883023 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 137

original motion was not moved, a Minister could move the motion in the form it would be in if the Government’s amendment was agreed. This would be simpliﬁed if the Government’s motion always replaced all the eVective words of the motion with new words. 8. It would not be possible to have deferred divisions both on the Government’s amendment and on the motion as amended, since one would be contingent on the other. Therefore a procedure analogous to that on Opposition Days is suggested, ie “if such amendment involves leaving out all the eVective words of the motion the Speaker shall, after the amendment has been disposed of, forthwith declare the main question (as amended or not as the case may be) to be agreed to” (standing order No 31(2)(b)). There would then be only a single deferred division, on the Government’s amendment. 9. In the past, European Standing Committees have sometimes negatived the Government’s motion instead of amending it. In such a case the Chairman reports to the House that the Committee has come to no resolution. This constitutes a Report from the Committee, and the Government can then put a motion to the House for decision forthwith. It would be consistent with the principle that the motion put to the House must reﬂect what the Committee agreed for the Government not to be able to bring forward the motion negatived by the Committee. However, it is diYcult to see how this could work in practice, since there would be no alternative wording and not even the name of a Member to attach to any new motion; there would be nothing for the Government to place on the Order Paper. It is suggested, therefore, that the Government retain the right to put to the House a motion negatived by the Committee, in the expectation that, in the Committee, those opposed to the Government’s motion will seek to amend it rather than negative it. It might, in that case, be appropriate to allow for the question to be put on any amendment selected by the Chair when the time allowed for the sitting has elapsed (instead of just any amendment which has already been proposed).

Consequences in the past when European Standing Committees have amended the Government’s motion 10. I have been able to identify one occasion when an amendment was agreed in a European Standing Committee on a division, with Government Members voting against. It related to state aid for Irish steel, in December 1995. The motion subsequently put to the House by the Government was neither the original motion nor the amended motion, but a new version with stronger wording then the original. 11. On a number of occasions amendments have been agreed without a division. In one case, on guarantees for consumer goods in June 1994, the amendment regretted that the debate had not taken place in good time and agreed that debates must take place before the Government submits a response to the Commission; this was omitted from the motion proposed in the House. Otherwise the Government has put the amended motion to the House (though once with the amended part re-worded). There were six examples of this in 1990–91, but otherwise never more than two per session up to 1996–97. 12. There were seven occasions from 1990–91 to 1996–97 when the motion was negatived on a division, and the Chairman reported to the House that the Committee had come to no resolution. In most cases a motion was subsequently agreed by the House, but in a few no further proceedings are recorded.

Five European Standing Committees instead of three 13. Debates in the two most recent sessions could have been divided between five European Standing Committees as follows: European Committee for the Environment (DEFRA, Food Standards) 2002–03 (total 11) Greenhouse gas emission trading Community strategy for dioxins etc Sustainable use of pesticides Spread of foot and mouth disease Quality of bathing water Additives in animal nutrition Identification of sheep and goats Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy Recovery of cod and hake stocks OYcial food and feed controls Emissions of volatile organic compounds from paints 2003–04 (total 13) Controls on fluorinated greenhouse gases Protection of groundwater against pollution CAP: tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar Levels of certain heavy metals in ambient air Fisheries: catch quotas and eVort limitation 2004 Recovery of sole stocks in the Western Channel and Bay of Biscay 9893883023 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 138 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Protection of animals during transport Marketing of sweetcorn from genetically modified maize Nutrition and health claims made on foods Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals Marketing of maize genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance Establishment of a Community fisheries control agency Marketing of oilseed rape genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance

European Committee for Transport (DFT) 2002–03 (total 5) Denied boarding compensation for air passengers Safety at sea Maritime transport security Trans-European networks Major accident hazards involving dangerous substances

2003–04 (total 3) Trans-European Transport Network Global Navigation Systems Driving licences

(Note: If DEFRA subjects were split, environmental matters could be transferred to the Committee dealing with transport, giving the following totals:

European Committee for Agriculture and Fisheries: 6 in 2002–03, 9 in 2003–04 European Committee for Transport and the Environment: 10 in 2002–03, 7 in 2003–04.)

European Committee for Trade and Industry (DTI, DoH, DFES, DCMS ) 2002–03 (total 5) Takeover bids Security of energy supply Better environment for business in the EU Competition policy: mergers Quality and safety of human tissues and cells

2003–04 (total 5) European space policy Changes to the Working Time Directive Disposal of batteries and accumulators Doha Development Agenda Industrial policy for an enlarged Europe

European Committee for Home and Foreign AVairs (HO, LCD, FCO, DFID, DCA, remaining Depts) 2002–03 (total 7) EU enlargement StaYng needs of the Commission Judgments in matrimonial matters Financial penalties Criminal law Racism and xenophobia Programme for action on three major communicable diseases

2003–04 (total 7) Security at European Council meetings Procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status Asylum systems Co-operation with the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip Establishment of a European defence Agency StaV Regulations of oYcials of the EC Approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions

European Committee for Finance (HMT, DWP) 2002–03 (total 4) Protecting the Community’s ﬁnancial interests Broad Economic Policy Guidelines Annual Policy Strategy for 2004 and the Preliminary Budget Reduced rates of VAT 9893883024 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 139

2003–04 (total 6) Activities of OLAF and the fight against fraud Value added tax Preliminary Draft Budget Integration of financial markets General arrangements for excise Credit institutions and investment firms

Attendance at the European Scrutiny Committee 14. Attendance in this Parliament has been:

2001–02 58% 2002–03 61% 2003–04 54% Dorian Gerhold February 2005

Letter to the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee from the Chair, European and External AVairs Committee, National Assembly for Wales At its meeting today, 27 May, the Assembly’s European and External AVairs Committee considered a letter received from the Chair of the House of Commons’ European Scrutiny Committee, concerning your Committee’s inquiry into the scrutiny of European matters by the House. The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee has sought the views of the Assembly’s European and External AVairs Committee on its proposal for the National Assembly for Wales and other devolved administrations to be invited to send representatives to the proposed “European Grand Committee”. This Committee very much supports the proposal for representation on any new Standing Committee created, while noting that this will of course be a matter for the UK Parliament to decide. The opportunity to participate in such a forum would be a welcome measure, enhancing the existing close links between UK parliaments and assemblies in relation to scrutiny of EU matters. Members would welcome any further information that would clarify the intended purpose and composition of the proposed Committee, including whether it would have a purely parliamentary scrutiny function, or a wider scope in its consideration of EU matters. Should the proposal for Assembly representation be taken further, we would also welcome the opportunity to be involved in any future discussion on the exact nature of that representation. The Committee hopes that its views will be taken into consideration by the Modernisation Committee in the course of its inquiry into the scrutiny of EU matters, and looks forward to learning the outcome of its deliberations. I am also sending a copy of this letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, Jimmy Hood MP, for his information. Sandy Mewies AM May 2004

Note from UK House of Commons IPEX Correspondent

IPEX: CO-OPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTSAND THE SCRUTINY MECHANISM IPEX is an ambitious project to construct a shared inter-parliamentary website to help national parliaments share information on scrutiny of European legislative proposals. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons may wish to note the progress made to date. The IPEX site is already in operation at www.ecprd.org/ipex The current “static” IPEX website comprises links to existing pages on each national parliament’s website in a common English language format, so that one can easily navigate to pages on equivalent Committees, Constitutional provisions and other European matters. We plan to pick up good ideas from other countries’ “static” webpages on how to present European information on the www.parliament.uk website. The new Deputy Web Content Manager in the UK Parliament’s Information Architecture Support Unit (Jackie Ahrens) starts on 21 February 2005, moving from her current post as Committee Assistant to the European Scrutiny Committee. Plans to re-vamp the House of Commons’ European website pages have to take their place among other priorities ﬂowing from the implementation of the Modernisation Committee’s Report on Connecting Parliament with the Public. 9893883024 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 140 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

It is planned that from June 2005, IPEX will start displaying “dynamic” pages. These will comprise a database of new European legislative proposals with a scoreboard where each Chamber of each national parliament in the EU can record its scrutiny of EU documents. The navigation of the IPEX website, which will be freely available to the public on the Internet, will be in French and English, with the scorecards kept as straightforward as possible, using easy-to-follow symbols to see at a glance how far scrutiny in each Chamber has progressed on a certain document and, crucially, whether a reasoned opinion on subsidiarity has been sent to the EU institutions. The underlying purpose of IPEX is to be a way of bringing the EU closer to the electorate. IPEX has been endorsed in principle by the Conference of Speakers of the European Union Parliaments as a platform for the electronic exchange of EU-related information between parliaments in the European Union. The IPEX project has been led by the Secretary General of the Swedish Parliament, and staV from the Danish and Italian Parliaments and the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation [ECPRD]45 have invested both skill and resources in the elaboration of the structure, layout and technical platform of the new website. In addition to those mentioned, the UK, French and Polish parliaments are represented on the IPEX Steering Group of oYcials. Liam Laurence Smyth February 2005

Note from the Clerk of Delegated Legislation

IMPLEMENTATION AND TRANSPOSITION OF EU LEGISLATION

Where does legislation come from?

1. In their Foreword to the Better Regulation Task Force’s December 2004 report, Make it Simple— Make it Better—the benefits of simplifying EU legislation for citizens and businesses, David Arculus and Michael Gibbons repeat the observation that “about half of all major legislation in the UK originates in Europe”.46 It is hard to find evidence to support this statement, not least since there is no agreed definition on what constitutes “major” legislation.47 To take the Bills introduced in this Session’s Queen’s Speech, for example, apart from the European Union Bill only a handful of Clauses refer explicitly to European Union legislation.48 A recent written Answer indicated that only 16% of statutory instruments laid before Parliament in 2004 were made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.49 2. A European Directive may give rise to several statutory instruments, or a single instrument might implement several Directives.50 EU Regulations which have direct eVect require no transposition into UK law but may yet require changes to UK law to enable their enforcement. Some statutory instruments may update references to EU Directives without changing the law, as happens not infrequently in financial matters. According to the House of Commons Library— “A frequently asked question concerns the amount of UK legislation arising from EC legislation. It is impossible to answer this question accurately for a number of reasons. UK laws implemented as a result of EC legislation might have been brought into UK law anyway and existing UK laws may already adequately implement all or parts of an EC law.”51

45 The European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation is a joint operation between the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The EP have provided the web location, the server and software development. 46 Better Regulation Task Force, Make it Simple—Make it Better—the beneﬁts of simplifying EU legislation for citizens and businesses, Cabinet OYce Publications & Publicity Team, December 2004, page 3. 47 This question was raised in the Modernisation Committee’s oral evidence session with the Chairman and Clerk of the European Scrutiny Committee on 5 May 2004, HC 565-i, QQ28–44. 48 For example, the Schedule 5 to the Road Safety Bill [Bill 10] includes references to the Community Recording Equipment Regulations. The Explanatory Notes to the Disability Discrimination Bill [HL Bill 6-EN] refer to SI 2003/1673 and SI 2003/ 2770, which implemented certain aspects of the EC Employment Directive 2000/78/EC relating to disability discrimination in employment and pensions. 49 The Leader of the House’s answer to Mr John Hayes was as follows: “1,032 made statutory instruments and 200 draft statutory instruments were laid before Parliament during 2004. 172 of the made instruments were made under powers contained in section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. How many instruments were made under the provisions of other legislation which may have originated in the European Communities is not recorded”—HC Deb 12 January 2005 vol 429 col 571W. Not all statutory instruments are laid before Parliament: the total number of all SIs, including local instruments, in 2004 was 3,448. See Annex 1 (not printed) for extracts from the European Communities Act 1972. 50 In the EU Constitutional Treaty, the terms “Directives” and “Regulations” are replaced by European Framework Law and European Law. Regulations (European Laws) are legislative acts of general application which are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Directives (European Framework Laws) are binding as to the result to be achieved but the choice of form and methods is left to national authorities. 51 Library Standard Note SN/1A/2888 of 3 February 2004 on EC Legislation. 9893883024 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 141

3. The terms of reference of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, appointed on 17 December 2003, include a power to draw the special attention of the House to an instrument which it considers to be inappropriately implementing European Union legislation.52 As I mentioned in my oral evidence to the Modernisation Committee in September 2004,53 this has led to a requirement for Departments to explain how they are going about implementing their European obligations.54

Transposition Notes 4. The Cabinet OYce is at the moment revising its Transposition Guide, which will set out principles for handling Commission proposals for directives, and in transposing agreed directives into UK law. Since November 2001, UK legislation enacting European legislation is accompanied by a Transposition Note explaining how the Government has transposed the main elements of the relevant European directive into UK law or proposes to do so.55 Statutory Instrument Practice now requires an explanatory memorandum to accompany each statutory instrument subject to aYrmative or negative resolution, and for a Transposition Note to be attached to the explanatory memorandum on a statutory instrument, explaining in broad terms the approach to transposition, highlighting any diYcult areas. 5. Although the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons did not explicitly address the question of Transposition Notes in its 1997 Report on Explanatory Material for Bills,56 it had set out in its earlier Report on The Legislative Process its view that “there would be considerable value in the production and publication by the appropriate Government Department of a guide to the main provisions of the legislation”.57 The Committee recognised that some choice would have to be made between simplicity and comprehensiveness, but stressed its view that “the paramount consideration must be the production of a document written in plain English”.58 6. The Modernisation Committee may wish to consider whether Transposition Notes should be included as a matter of course in the Explanatory Notes on relevant Bills, as well as being attached to Explanatory Memoranda on statutory instruments.

Scrutiny History 7. Statutory Instrument Practice requires that where an instrument implements EU legislation, Departments should include in the Transposition Note a brief scrutiny history of when it was considered by the EU Scrutiny Committees.59 8. The House of Lords Constitution Committee’s Report on Parliament and the Legislative Process recommended that Explanatory Notes on all Bills giving eVect to EU obligations should provide information on the scrutiny undertaken at an earlier stage by the European Scrutiny Committee in the Commons and by the European Union Committee in the House of Lords.60 As Lord Grenfell, the Chairman of the EU Committee, told the Lords Constitution Committee— “Where a public bill implements EU legislation, the scrutiny work done by the House at an earlier stage ought likewise to appear in the Explanatory Notes. Government departments have already compiled and collated information on it, so it is not asking too much of them simply to transfer that to the Explanatory Note.”61

52 In its Special Report of 16 November 2004, which reviewed the work of the Committee in the 2003–04 Session, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments recommended that its terms of reference should be amended to require the Committee to draw to the special attention of the House those instruments which may inappropriately implement European Union legislation rather than requiring the Committee to make a finding that the instrument actually does so— Twenty-fifth Report from the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, Session 2003–04, HL 206, para 39. The only occasion in 2004 when the Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments actually reported an instrument on the grounds of inappropriately implementing EU legislation was in relation to the Horse Passports (England) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1397. The Committee has published correspondence relating to four other SIs, in relation to late implementation (feeding stuVs), the EU Motorcycle Directive, diVerences in the definition of “food” between UK and EU legislation and interaction between UK and possible EU trawling bans in territorial waters. 53 HC 565-v, 15 September 2004, Q 221. 54 The guidance in Statutory Instrument Practice states: “If the instrument implements EU legislation, attach a Transposition Note; explain in broad terms the approach to transposition highlighting any diYcult areas; and include a brief scrutiny history of when it was considered by the EU Scrutiny Committees.” As well as being laid before Parliament, Explanatory Memoranda on SIs are also made available to the public at the HMSO website www.hmso.gov.uk—Statutory Instrument Practice Circular 3 (04). 55 This requirement stems from a proposal made by the Trade and Industry Committee—See Twelfth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1998–99, The 1999 Post OYce White Paper, HC 94, para 19. 56 Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 1997–98, Explanatory Material for Bills, HC 389. 57 First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 1997–98, The Legislative Process, HC 190, para 37. 58 ibid. 59 Statutory Instrument Practice Circular 3 (04), Annex para 4 (ii). 60 Fourteenth Report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Session 2003–04, Parliament and the Legislative Process, HL 173, para 103. 61 ibid. Q465. 9893883025 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 142 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

9. The House of Lords Constitution Committee considered that an important point of principle was involved, namely “that we should not be taking primary legislation through the House in ignorance of what had gone on before”.62 The Lords Committee’s view was that “the better the House is informed about the purpose and provisions of a bill, the greater the potential for eVective scrutiny and ensuring that the measure is ﬁt for purpose”.63 10. The Modernisation Committee may wish to consider whether Transposition Notes on Bills should also include as a matter of course the scrutiny history of legislation originating from the EU legislative process.

Use of Transposition Notes—a Commons Merits Committee?

11. Transposition Notes provide a potentially useful analysis for the use of Members as well as researchers, interested parties and the general public. There is, however, no systematic requirement for Transposition Notes to be subjected to formal parliamentary scrutiny. It is up to Members to make such use of them as they will. 12. In 1996, the Procedure Committee recommended a package of changes to parliamentary consideration of delegated legislation, including the establishment of a single Commons Sifting Committee to consider and assess all SIs laid before Parliament.64 In 2000, the Procedure Committee re-visited its predecessor’s Report, endorsed the 1996 package and called for rapid progress to be made in their implementation.65 In its 2000 Report, the Procedure Committee reported that the 1996 proposals had been endorsed by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, chaired by Lord Wakeham, which had argued that “the logical course could be to establish a Joint Sifting Committee”.66 13. With regard to the Royal Commission’s proposal that the sifting of SIs should be entrusted to a Joint Committee, the Procedure Committee considered that this might be a sensible way of avoiding duplication of eVort, but its view was that measures would need to be taken to ensure that recommendations relating to Commons business were taken by the Commons members of any such committee alone.67 14. As Members of the Modernisation Committee will recall, Mr Robin Cook’s December 2001 Reform Programme suggested that— “There could be merit in experimenting with a Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for a period of one year which would sift Statutory Instruments in the same way the present European Scrutiny Committee sifts European legislation. The role of such a committee would be to identify those few Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure which were of suYcient substance to justify debate in Standing Committee or perhaps Westminster Hall.”68 15. The Modernisation Committee’s Report of September 2002 stated its intention to return in the following Session to the issue of scrutiny of secondary legislation, including the possibility of a sifting committee, adding that “in assessing such a proposal we will wish to monitor the experience of the similar committee in the House of Lords”.69 16. In March 2003 the Commons Procedure Committee welcomed the Lords’ decision to appoint a sifting committee, but emphasised its view that it would be advantageous for discussions to begin immediately with a view to establishing a Joint Committee for sifting delegated legislation from the outset. The Procedure Committee’s view at that time was— “The alternative of waiting for the Lords Committee to start and then attempting to join in later strikes us as much less sensible.”70 17. Later in 2003 the Procedure Committee expressed its disappointment at the Government’s decision not to accept its recommendation that sifting should be undertaken by a joint committee from the outset.71

62 ibid. Q467. 63 ibid. para 102. 64 Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1995–96, Delegated Legislation, HC 152. 65 First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1999–2000, Delegated Legislation, HC 48. 66 Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, A House for the Future, Cm. 4534, paras 7.23–24. 67 First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 1999–2000, Delegated Legislation, HC 48, para 41. 68 Memorandum submitted to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2001–02, Modernisation of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme for Consultation, HC 440, para 25. 69 Second Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2001–02, Modernisation of the House of Commons: A Reform Programme, HC 1168, para 53. 70 First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2002–03, Delegated Legislation: Proposals for a Sifting Committee,HC 501, para 11. 71 Second Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2002–03, Delegated Legislation: Proposals for a Sifting Committee: The Government’s Response to the Committee’s First Report, HC 684. 9893883025 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 143

18. In the event, the Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments which has developed its own methods, naturally tailored to the needs of the Upper House, began issuing reports on statutory instruments from April 2004.72 19. The Modernisation Committee may wish to bear in mind the scrutiny of Transposition Notes as a possible task for any future Commons sifting committee.

How are we getting on with meeting our EU obligations? 20. The European Commission keeps a public record of progress of national measures implementing directives, with a calendar for transposition of Directives, and details of infringements, on its Eur-Lex website— http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat —general/sgb/droit com/index en.htm 21. Among the Directives with deadlines expiring in January 2005, for example, are 1999/77/EC on asbestos restrictions, 2002/85/EC on speed limitation devices and 2003/92/EC on insurance mediation. Every two months the Commission publishes a league table showing overall performance by each member state in implementing Directives (see Annex 2 (not printed)).

Gold-plating 22. Gold-plating arises when EU Directives are interpreted by Member States more strictly than the minimum Commission requirement. Mr Richard Corbett MEP raised this with the Modernisation Committee— “We, as MEPs, often—and I am sure you do too—get complaints from constituents on what is commonly called ‘gold plating’ where Whitehall, as it were, adds bits to European legislation. We get the blame for it, everyone else is quite happy to leave us taking the blame for it, and I think that is something that needs attention.”73 23. In recent evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, another MEP thought that this was a peculiarly British problem— “there is a problem which I think has made Brussels highly unpopular, certainly at the level of popular discussion, the over-regulation but I would add that the over-regulation, from which this country suVers and suVers acutely, I would say, is the work of Whitehall, not of Brussels. I am talking about ‘gold plating’ and I think that is a UK problem. The United Kingdom has created its own acquis communautaire which no other country has, it is a unique problem.”74 24. Mr Michael Jack, the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Committee, suggested that a departmental select committee could have a role where a Directive allowed member states suYcient room to manoeuvre— “For example, we have been carrying out some work on the most fundamental piece of legislation in the field of water that will aVect Britain over the next 20 years, the Water Framework Directive. This is an interesting piece of legislation in that the policy has been decided but unusually for Europe the implementation has been very much left to member states. Therefore there, the select committee-as we have done-can have an influence on how matters are brought into eVect in the United Kingdom. In those circumstances if the design of the regulation or the directive gives more flexibility to the member state, then a select committee does have a role in talking to ministers about practical implementation and hopefully avoiding some of the worst examples of gold plating.”75 25. In giving evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee, Mr Douglas Hogg described the way he had instructed MAFF oYcials to go about presenting information on transposition of Directives for ministerial decision— “the problem is both in Parliament but it is even more in the ministries because what of course happens is that departments have to translate into statutory language through statutory instruments the Directives which come out of Europe. Some are direct right across and some have to be interpreted and ministers are asked to approve it and you will appreciate that ministers really have not got a clue. So what I did, and it survived not one day beyond my departure, was to require a spreadsheet and on the spreadsheet on the left-hand column was the European Directive. On the

72 See Twenty-fifth Report from House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, Session 2003–04, Review of the Work of the Committee, HL 206. In its Report the Committee reflected on its first months of operation and commented on examples of good and bad practice. It also commented on the benefits arising from the Government’s decision to provide Explanatory Memoranda with all aYrmative and negative instruments and noted the generally high standards that Departments had achieved. 73 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, 14 July 2004, HC 565-iii, Q120. 74 Mr Gyo¨rgy Scho¨pflin MEP, a Hungarian member of the EPP-ED Group, was one of a panel of members of the European Parliament’s Constitutional AVairs Committee giving evidence on the Constitutional Treaty—European Scrutiny Committee, 25 January 2005, HC 132-ii, Q214. 75 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, 8 September 2004, HC 565-iv, Q191. 9893883025 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 144 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

right-hand, in the next column, was what the oYcials recommended we did about the Directive to show what our language was like. The next column was to be a statement by the oYcials as to whether we were going beyond or under-shooting the Directive language and the next column was to be an explanation as to our stance, one way or the other. The object of this was to enable ministers to actually understand what their oYcials were proposing.”76 26. The Foreign and Commonwealth OYce commissioned a study carried out by Mr Robin Bellis, a retired Government lawyer, the results of which were published in November 2003.77 Mr Bellis’ analysis included comparisons with France, Spain and Sweden. His suggestions included: increased use of cross-Whitehall EU Directive project teams along the lines of the existing Bill project teams; the “copy-out” of ambiguous EU legislation into UK law (rather than elaborating the text with clarifications); further strengthening of departmental drafting expertise; establishment of an independent body of lawyers with drafting expertise at the EU level, independent and appointed in the same way as judges and advocates-general of the European Court of Justice. 27. Commenting on the Bellis Report, the Foreign Secretary said— “The correct transposition and implementation of EU legislation is easily overlooked by those outside the legal profession. Yet it has a major impact on our businesses and our global competitiveness. If we interpret EU Directives in a more stringent way than our EU partners, we can put our businesses and economy at a disadvantage. Conversely, lax transposition can leave the UK open to actions in the European Court of Justice. Both outcomes are clearly detrimental to the UK’s interests.”78 28. In his statement of 11 February 2004, which pre-figured the Leader of the House’s memorandum to the Modernisation Committee, the Foreign Secretary raised the gold-plating issue— “Transposition of EU legislation into national law also needs attention. The risk of gold-plating the original texts, thereby imposing on British businesses more stringent conditions than those that their competitors in other member states face, is real. With that in mind, 18 months ago I commissioned the distinguished European lawyer, Robin Bellis, to prepare a report on our implementation of EU legislation and I published it on 24 November last year. In December I held a seminar to discuss its recommendations with representatives from across Government, the House, the EU institutions and the Confederation of British Industry. I have asked the relevant Departments to report back to me in six months on the steps that they have taken to implement the recommendations.”79 29. The Government’s response to the Bellis Report was set out in the 2004 Pre-Budget Report (see Box).80 The 2004 Pre-Budget Report also made other significant announcements about implementation of legislation aVecting business, including common commencement dates on 1 April and 1 October each year, already in place for employment law and from 2005 to be extended to health and safety, work and pensions, company and consumer legislation.81 30. The Modernisation Committee may wish to consult the Liaison Committee on whether scrutiny of Government Departments’ annual implementation plans for European legislation should be a “core task” for departmental select committees. 31. While the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments preclude its commenting on either the merits of a statutory instrument or the policy behind it, among the grounds on which it is required to determine whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to an instrument, with a report giving its reasons, are: (vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made; (vii) that for any special reason its form or purport calls for elucidation; (viii) that its drafting appears to be defective.82

76 House of Lords Constitution Committee, Parliament and the Legislative Process, Minutes of Evidence, Wednesday 16 June 2004, HL 173-II, Q292. 77 Implementation of EU legislation, an independent study for the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce by Robin Bellis, FCO, November 2003. 78 FCO Press Release 24 November 2003. 79 HC Deb 11 February 2004 vol 417 col 1417. 80 On 9 February 2004 the Government published a Report on economic reform in the EU which discussed regulatory reform in Europe at paras 4.20 to 4.34—Advancing long term prosperity Economic reform in an enlarged Europe, HM Treasury, February 2004. 81 Pre-Budget Report, December 2004, Cm 6408, para 3.35. 82 House of Commons Standing Order No. 151(1). 9893883026 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 145

32. The Government’s plans “to mirror as closely as possible the original wording of the directive except where there is a clear justiﬁcation for doing otherwise, having regard to the impact on business and the workability and ﬁt of the legislation in its domestic context”83 could lead to more use of “copy-out” of obscure or ambiguous language in European Directives. The Modernisation Committee may wish to note that the terms of reference of the JCSI already provide for safeguards against defective drafting, the lack of elucidation and the unexpected use of powers.

33. It has to remembered, however, that ultimately the European Court of Justice is the sole arbiter over the interpretation of directives. There are risks in trying to resolve uncertainty by using more precise language in expressing a European obligation in UK law, since the view taken on what the Directive actually means may not necessarily be shared by the ECJ. It follows that the UK could be in danger of being found guilty of inadequate implementation in such cases and possibly even liable in damages for any consequences. It can be argued that the aim of removing uncertainty in Directives through more speciﬁc national implementation is a mirage, and a dangerous and potentially costly one at that.

34. The Government’s commitment in the 2004 Pre-Budget Report to publish revised transposition guidelines for European legislation “early next year” is being taken forward by the Cabinet OYce, as referred to above. The ﬁrst edition of the Cabinet OYce Guidance in March 2003 followed on from the European Union’s Better Regulation Action Plan of June 2002, which was itself informed by the work of the Mandelkern Group.84

Extract from Pre-Budget Report December 2004: Regulating only when necessary: EU legislation 3.40 The Government does not go beyond the minimum requirements of European legislation unless there are exceptional circumstances, justified by strong cost benefit analysis and extensive consultation with businesses. A good example is the 2001 Money Laundering Directive. The Government is putting in place safeguards to ensure that strict adherence to this approach will be continued in the future, and in addition the Foreign and Commonwealth OYce has proposed a range of measures to ensure that Parliament has a greater and more eVective role in scrutinising draft EU legislation. Following the Bellis report, commissioned by the Foreign Secretary, which compared transposition practices across Member States, the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary are today setting out new measures to continue to ensure that businesses do not face unnecessary burdens from European law. In future: all emerging European legislation, and measures to implement this legislation in the UK, with significant costs for businesses, will be given tough scrutiny by the Prime Minister’s Panel for Regulatory Accountability (PRA); the transposition of European directives into UK law must avoid costly additions to the requirements for businesses, meet only the minimum standards and scope necessary to comply with the European legislation, and take advantage of derogations when less burdensome for business, except where there is a strong cost benefit rationale for doing otherwise, specifically approved by PRA. Transposition should mirror as closely as possible the original wording of the directive except where there is a clear justification for doing otherwise, having regard to the impact on business and the workability and fit of the legislation in its domestic context. The Government will publish revised transposition guidelines for European legislation early next year; a comparison with other Member States’ approaches to transposition will be required during implementation so that the relative burdens of diVerent approaches are well understood, and the Government will be exploring the scope for introducing this on a comprehensive basis, and for sharing best practice across Member States, with the Commission; all departments will publish annual implementation plans for European legislation, so that the eVects on UK businesses are transparent; legal advice will take into account the policy context consistently and rigorously, with specific consideration of the costs and benefits for businesses; the Government will take into account the approaches taken by other Member States when implementing directives and the potential impacts on the competitivenessofUK businesses; and the Government proposes to work with the European Commission and other Member States to create stronger enforcement mechanisms, which will provide incentives for Member States to implement legislation on time.

83 Pre-Budget Report, December 2004, Cm 6408, (see Box). 84 The Mandelkern Group on Better Regulation was a high-level advisory group formed following the Lisbon Council of March 2000. Annexes to its Report of November 2001 include the 1995 OECD checklist on regulatory decision-making and a note on simplification initiatives at EU level, including the SLIM (Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market), BEST (Business Environment Simplification Task Force) and the Inter-Institutional Agreement on drafting quality. There has subsequently been another significant Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-making in 2003, which required more use of regulatory impact assessments. 9893883026 Page Type [E] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Ev 146 Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence

Publication of Transposition Notes 35. There is at present no reliable place where the general public can ﬁnd Transposition Notes. Some Departments include them in the Explanatory Memoranda accompanying statutory instruments which appear on the www.hmso.gov.uk website but there is no requirement for Transposition Notes, unlike consultation documents or regulatory impact assessments for example, to be displayed on a Department’s website. 36. The Modernisation Committee may consider that it would be helpful to Members and committees of the House of Commons, as well as to the general public, to have a central EU transposition website on the Cabinet OYce website with links to each Department’s own sites with full texts of Transposition Notes, as well as to the Departments’ annual implementation plans, the HMSO site, the parliamentary scrutiny committees and the European Commission’s periodic reports on implementation.

Conclusion 37. Once the Cabinet OYce has published its new version of the guidance on transposition, there might be a case for a focussed parliamentary inquiry into implementation of European directives. The Better Regulation Task Force’s December 2004 report, Make it Simple—Make it Better—the beneﬁts of simplifying EU legislation for citizens and businesses, studied a few concrete examples in food labelling, data protection and pollution control. Similarly, the Bellis Report examined how the groundhandling Directive (competition at airports) and the electronic signature Directive were implemented in the UK, France, Spain and Sweden. 38. This note includes a few suggestions where the Modernisation Committee might consider working with the grain of current arrangements and planned developments in Whitehall to press for greater openness of information about how European proposals lead to UK legislation. Greater awareness of the scrutiny history of primary and secondary legislation, for example, might build up over time a wider appreciation of the role and consequences of scrutiny Committee decisions at each stage from European proposal to UK implementation. Liam Laurence Smyth 7 February 2005

Letter from Mr Peter Hain MP, Chairman, Modernisation Committee to Jose´ Manuel Barroso, President, European Commission

IMPROVING PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN BUSINESS Congratulations on your appointment as President of the European Commission. The Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons, which I chair, is currently examining the scrutiny of European business in the House. We are considering the merits of a new committee composed of MPs and members of the House of Lords to look at European matters. The committee would beneﬁt from the occasional involvement of European Commissioners, and I would welcome your views on the proposal before we make any formal recommendations early next year. The Modernisation Committee’s inquiry has been prompted in part by the new formal role which national parliaments will have under the Constitutional Treaty. The Government has put forward a series of proposals to the Committee, which are set out in the enclosed Memorandum. The proposal for a committee of both Houses of Parliament is that it would meet around four times each year and would not follow the traditional committee model. It is hoped that the committee will be a forum for discussion rather than interrogation. Speakers, such as Commissioners or representatives from other EU institutions, would be invited to start a discussion on a particular policy area with a short talk. This would be followed by a general debate with the MPs and Peers. We are also looking at the possibility of involving UK MEPs in the committee. I hope that such an innovation would provide a way of broaching European matters in a less adversarial way than is usually the case in the House of Commons. Its more constructive approach, I believe, could help to improve links between the UK Parliament and EU institutions. But I also feel it will provide a diVerent form of media coverage, and perhaps help to inform UK citizens of Europe’s work. To this end, I believe our proposals will help contribute to the achievement of Mrs Wallstro¨m’s objectives of building a culture of co-operation and reconnecting with people. The Committee is due to report on the subject by February of next year and I would be very interested to hear your views on the occasional attendance of Commissioners at meetings of the kind we propose. We 9893883027 Page Type [O] 17-03-05 00:54:02 Pag Table: COENEW PPSysB Unit: PAG1

Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons: Evidence Ev 147

shall also need to give further thought as to how to plan meetings of the new committee and would be glad to consider practicalities of that sort with you or with Margot Wallstro¨m (to whom I am copying this letter). I look forward to hearing from you. December 2004

Letter to Mr Peter Hain MP, Chairman, Modernisation Committee from Jose´ Manuel Barroso, President, European Commission Thank you for your letter dated 9 December 2004. I apologise for the delay in sending my reply. The Commission attaches great importance to the role played by national parliaments in scrutinising the preparation and the implementation of European legislation. My decision to include the responsibility for relations with the national parliaments in Vice President Wallstro¨m’s portfolio clearly signals the Commission’s commitment. The Commission is keen to help make this task easier for national parliaments, particularly by better explaining its proposals. I was very interested to read about the initiative currently being considered by the Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons which I believe could contribute to a better examination of the Commission proposals. I want to reiterate what Vice President Wallstro¨m has already signalled to you, i.e. that we see it as the Commission’s obligation always to be accessible and prepared to assist the national parliaments in their enquiries into EU policy. This said, for agenda reasons, Members of the Commission may not always be able to participate in work of national assemblies for each European debate. Therefore, the Commission will, in consultation with the national parliaments, endeavour to ﬁnd the most eVective and viable ways of communicating and discussing issues, for example, its strategic objectives and work programs, with national parliaments and their elected Members. February 2005

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 03/2005 989388 19585 ISBN 0-215-02306-4

9 780215 023063