DOCSLIB.ORG

National Parliaments the EU - Stock-Taking for the Post Amsterdam Era

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Parliaments the EU - Stock-Taking for the Post Amsterdam Era National Parliaments the EU - stock-taking for the Post Amsterdam Era Helsinki 13 October 1999 EDUSKUNNAN KANSLIAN JULKAISU 1 / 2000 SEMINAR National Parliaments and The EU – Stock-Taking for the Post-Amsterdam Era Helsinki 13 October 1999 CONTENTS Parliamentary Scrutiny of the EU Decision-making: Tapio Raunio, University of Helsinki ............................................................................... .. 7 Sten Ramsted, European Parliament................................................................................. .. 20 Ana Fraga, Assembleia da República, Portugal .................................................................... .. 23 Interaction between the Government and Parliament in scrutiny of the EU decision making; Finnish experiences and general problems Mika Boedeker, The Finnish Parliament and Petri Uusikylä, University of Helsinki ......................... .. 27 Christophe Lescot, Assemblée nationale, France .................................................................. .. 43 Hans Hegeland, Riksdagen, Sweden................................................................................ .. 53 Elizabeth Flood, House of Commons, United Kingdom ......................................................... .. 57 National Parliaments and Goverments in the EU Institutional System after the Amsterdam Treaty Olli Rehn, European Commission ................................................................................... .. 69 Michael Fuchs, Bundestag, Germany ............................................................................... .. 79 D. Lucion, Belgie ...................................................................................................... .. 85 Bjorn Einersen, Folketing, Denmark ................................................................................ .. 95 List of participants................................................................................................... .. 99 In connection with the XXI COSAC in Helsinki in October 1999, the Secretariat for EU Affairs of the Finnish Parliament organized a seminar on the role of National Parliaments in the EU. The purpose of the seminar was to provide an opportunity to exhange experiences concerning the different systems of national parliamentary scrutiny of EU affairs. Recent Finnish research relating to the role of national parliaments in the EU was also presented at the seminar. The seminar was mainly intended for parliamentary officers and for scholars of political science and law interested in institutional European issues. On behalf of the Grand Committee, I´d like to thank all of you for taking part in this Expert seminar. It was interesting to exchange ideas and opinions concerning the different systems of national parliamentary decision making processes in EU-related matters. My special recongnition goes to those of who gave your contribution to this booklet. Tiina Kivisaari Information Officer Parliament of Finland Parliamentary Scrutiny of EU Decision-Making: Comparing National Systems Tapio Raunio Post-doctoral research fellow Department of Political Science PL 54 00014 University of Helsinki FINLAND Tel: 358 9 1918902 Fax: 358 9 1918832 Email: [email protected] Report prepared for the seminar National Parliaments and the EU — Stock-Taking for the Post-Amsterdam Era, Eduskunta, 13.10.1999 INTRODUCTION National parliaments are involved in European Union (EU) decision-making in three ways: legislatures 1) scrutinise national policy formulation on Community legislation; 2) monitor Member State representatives attending the meetings of the Council of Ministers and the European Council; and 3) have specific Treaty-regulated functions such as ratification of Treaty amendments and implementation of directives. The first two aspects are not regulated by European legislation, and it is up to each national parliament — constitutional and political limitations notwithstanding — to decide to what extent it seeks to influence EU governance. Whatever organisational solution the respective legislatures implement, their input is always indirect, involving a delegation of authority to governments which represent Member States in the Council. Therefore the main problem facing legislatures is how to reduce informational asymmetry in order to ensure effective parliamentary accountability so that the agent (government) behaves according to the instructions of the principal (parliament). 1 This report analyses the formal, procedural similarities and differences between Member State legislatures in their scrutiny of EU decision-making, and discusses the political implications of the various organisational designs. The report is structured as follows. Part two contains a brief institutional discussion on how and when legislatures process European legislation. The third section focuses on specialized bodies within national legislatures, the European Affairs Committees (EAC). The fourth section examines factors which explain cross-national variation in parliamentary scrutiny. The fifth section suggests some practical improvements for improving the input of national legislatures. THE GENERAL MODEL OF PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY While there is considerable variation in both the formal procedures and especially in the activity of the legislatures, the similarities nevertheless outweigh the differences. In principle parliamentary involvement at the national level follows the process described in Figure 1. The Figure is a simplified version of a much more diverse reality, but the main characteristics apply throughout the Union. The implementation phase is disregarded here, as we are interested in parliamentary scrutiny before decisions are taken by the EU institutions.2 1 The role of national parliaments in EU governance has in the post-Maastricht era received much- needed attention from legislative scholars. For comparative research, see Bergman (1997), Judge (1995), Norton ed. (1996), Laursen and Pappas eds. (1995), Raunio (1999), and Smith ed. (1996). In the Nordic context, see Bergman and Damgaard eds. (2000) and Wiberg ed. (1997). 2 The following is necessarily a broad overview and ignores detailed national differences. For more information on the formal procedures in the fifteen parliaments, see EP (1998). Figure 1. Parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation at the national level COMMISSION proposal EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL proposal GOVERNMENT PARLIAMENT at information least six Responsible EU Affairs Committee weeks ministries and and specialized standing other relevant committees deliberate bodies prepare the matter Cabinet adopts EU Affairs Committee its position voting instructions COUNCIL OF MINISTERS decides EU AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Government reports on the Council meeting The main function of the EACs is to influence and control national decision-making on individual pieces of EC legislation. Member State governments have the obligation to inform national parliaments of Commission’s legislative proposals that fall within the competence of the legislatures. In most countries legislatures have also the right to receive documents on the preparation of international agreements between the EU and third parties, co-operation in JHA and CFSP matters, Green and White papers, the proposal for the annual EU budget, and other Commission consultation documents. National legislatures receive also at the end of the year the Commission’s annual legislative programme, and have thus the opportunity to prepare in advance for the forthcoming legislative initiatives. The individual legislative proposal should, ideally from the parliament’s point of view, reach the national parliament and the government at the same time. Unfortunately this is far too seldom the case. The government and the parliament then debate the issue. While certain legislatures, perhaps most notably the Finnish one, form their own separate viewpoints, far too often the parliaments simply rely on memoranda and summaries from the government. The government informs the parliament of its stand, and the legislature scrutinizes the cabinet position. It is essential that the parliament is kept up-to-date, as the initiatives are often quite significantly amended by the Council and the EP. Particularly important is the input of specialized standing committees. Their sufficiently early and active participation can substantially increase the whole legislature’s policy expertise vis-à- vis the government, which due to its superior organizational resources and regular presence in the Council and Commission working groups enjoys a huge informational advantage over the parliament. The procedure is most developed in Finland, where the standing committees of the Eduskunta must according to the law process EU matters falling within their competence. (Wiberg and Raunio 1996) Also in the German Bundestag the standing committees have become actively involved. This has two positive consequences. Firstly, the whole parliament and the EAC benefit from the policy expertise of the committees when scrutinising government behaviour. Secondly, this mechanism provides an opportunity for all MPs — and not just the small minority sitting in the EAC — to handle EU matters. The EACs may fear that delegating authority to specialized committees will diminish their own role, but this need not happen when they reserve to themselves the right to give voting instructions to ministers. Thus EACs would benefit from the expertise of the standing committees while maintaining their
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government Response to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee Report HC 109-1 of Session 2013-14 Reforming the Scrutiny System in the House of Commons
    Government Response to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee Report HC 109-1 of Session 2013-14 Reforming the Scrutiny System in the House of Commons Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty July 2014 Cm 8914 Government Response to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee Report HC 109-1 of Session 2013-14 Reforming the Scrutiny System in the House of Commons Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty July 2014 Cm 8914 © Crown copyright 2014 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v.2. To view this licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ or email [email protected] Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. Print ISBN 9781474109796 Web ISBN 9781474109802 Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. ID P002659226 42260 07/14 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Government Response to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee 24th Report HC 109-1 of Session 2013-14, Reforming the Scrutiny System in the House of Commons The Government welcomes the European Scrutiny Committee’s Inquiry into Reforming the Scrutiny System in the House of Commons and the detailed consideration the Committee has given this important issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF on Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation in Relation To
    REPORT Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation in Relation to the UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union By Simon Patrick First published in Great Britain in 2017 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London, SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978-0-9954703-8-5 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. Contents About the Author 4 Summary 5 Introduction 6 The current procedures for delegated legislation 7 - Definition of ‘delegated legislation’ 7 - Types of Parliamentary control 7 - Scrutiny of instruments by select committees 9 - Procedure for formal consideration of instruments: Commons 10 - Procedure for formal consideration of instruments: Lords 11 Procedures in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as presented 11 Possible criticisms of the procedure 12 - The context 12 - The existing proposals 12 - Henry VIII powers 13 Proposals for change 14 - Who should decide the procedure? 14 - Debates and examination of the merits of delegated legislation 15 - A possible solution 16 Resources required 17 Conclusion 17 SCRUTINY OF DELEGATED LEGISLATION ON BREXIT 3 About the Author Simon Patrick OBE was a House of Commons Clerk for 38 years, during the last ten of which he was a Principal Clerk responsible for, successively, delegated legislation, bills and select committees. He has also been Clerk of the European Scrutiny Committee and of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons 3 the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons 4
    PARLIAMENT 20 1 5 PARLIAMENT 2 01 5 WELCOME TO PARLIAMENT COMMONS COMMONS OFHOUSE IN THE SYSTEM SCRUTINY EUROPEAN THE MAY 2015 20Scrutiny Committee1 5Commons European of House the of staff guideA short by the WELCOME TO PARLIAMENT 2 1 0 5 CONTENTS Introduction 5 The purpose of the scrutiny system 6 The scope of the House of Commons system 7 The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) 10 THE The European Scrutiny Committee 12 EUROPEAN The European Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of documents 14 SCRUTINY The scrutiny reserve resolution 17 SYSTEM European Committees 21 Proceedings on the Floor of the House 23 IN THE Pre- and post- Council scrutiny 25 HOUSE OF Other aspects of scrutiny 26 COMMONS The strengths of the European scrutiny system 29 Sources of information 30 Appendix 1 32 © Parliamentary Copyright Orders of reference of the European Scrutiny Committee 32 (House of Commons) 2015 Appendix 2 34 May be reproduced for purposes of private Standing Order on European Committees 34 study or research without permission. May be reproduced for purposes of private Appendix 3 37 study or research without permission. Reproduction for sale or other commercial (The scrutiny reserve resolution) 37 purposes not permitted. Reproduction for sale or other commercial purposes not permitted. Contact information 40 2 THE EUROPEAN SCRUTINY SYSTEM IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 3 THE EUROPEAN SCRUTINY SYSTEM IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 4 INTRODUCTION This guide describes the European Union scrutiny system in the House of Commons. Further advice is available from the Clerk of the European Scrutiny Committee (Sarah Davies, [email protected], x5467) and her colleagues.
    [Show full text]
  • Westminster Seminar on Effective Parliaments 2019
    Westminster Seminar on Effective Parliaments 2019 UK SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES PARLIAMENTARIANS PROGRAMME SESSION 2: DIVERSITY WITHIN PARLIAMENT BARONESS LIZ BARKER MONDAY 25 NOVEMBER Baroness Barker has been a Liberal Democrat Peer since 1999. She has been a spokesperson on pensions and health, charities and social en- SESSION 1: EFFECTIVE PARLIAMENTS AND OUR ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES terprise, and LGBT rights. She is Vice-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBTI Rights, HIV/AIDS, APPG on Sexual and Reproductive Health. She is a member of APPGs on Nigeria and India. A supporter of Open for Business, Liz is the CEO of ThirdSectorBusiness, a consultancy DAME MARGARET HODGE which specialises in charities and social enterprise. She advises parliamen- tarians, companies and NGOs around the world on how to work together to Margaret became the Labour Member of Parliament for Barking in June accelerate change. Justice for minorities, equality for women and girls, and 1994. She has served in government, holding portfolios across education, respect for older people are the themes which recur through Liz’s work. She work and pensions, business and culture. In 2010, Margaret also became is currently leading work in parliament on trans, non-binary and intersex le- the first elected Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and was also its gal recognition and celebrating equality developments in Northern Ireland. first female Chair. Today, Margaret is the Chair of the APPG on Responsible Tax, as well as the Chair for organisations in the arts and higher education. PIPPA PATTERSON Pippa Patterson is the Clerk of the House of Lords EU Home Affairs Com- mittee, which scrutinises the UK Government’s approach to EU policy on immigration, asylum, police and security cooperation, healthcare, sport and PROFESSOR PHILIP NORTON education.
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum to the Standing Orders 11 January 2021
    ADDENDUM TO STANDING ORDERS PUBLIC BUSINESS 11 January 2021 Reprinted from the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons 16 and 21 January, 3 February, 2, 19 and 24 March, 20 May, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 23 June, 1, 20 and 22 July, 2 and 23 September, 13 and 22 October, 3 November and 30 December 2020 AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS 41A. Deferred divisions 119. European Committees 122B. Election of select committee chairs 143. European Scrutiny Committee 149. Committee on Standards 150. Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 152K. Public Bodies: draft orders STANDING ORDER DISAPPLIED FOR THE DURATION OF THE 2019 PARLIAMENT 122A. Term limits for chairs of select committees STANDING ORDERS DISAPPLIED UNTIL 30 MARCH 2021 7. Seats not to be taken before prayers 8. Seats secured at prayers 38. Procedure on divisions 40. Division unnecessarily claimed 83J. Certification of bills etc. as relating exclusively to England or England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence 83K. Committal and recommittal of certified England only bills 83L. Reconsideration of certification before third reading 83M. Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions 83N. Reconsideration of bills so far as there is absence of consent 83O. Consideration of certified motions or amendments relating to Lords Amendments or other messages 83P. Certification of instruments 83Q. Deciding the question on motions relating to certified instruments 83R. Deciding the question on certain other motions 83S. Modification of Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83N in their application to Finance Bills 83T. Modification of Standing Orders Nos. 83P and 83Q in their application to financial instruments 83U.
    [Show full text]
  • Codecision and National Parliamentary Scrutiny
    HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 17th Report of Session 2008–09 Codecision and national parliamentary scrutiny Report with Evidence Ordered to be printed 7 July 2009 and published 21 July 2009 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 125 The European Union Committee The European Union Committee of the House of Lords considers EU documents and other matters relating to the EU in advance of decisions being taken on them in Brussels. It does this in order to influence the Government’s position in negotiations, and to hold them to account for their actions at EU level. The Government are required to deposit EU documents in Parliament, and to produce within two weeks an Explanatory Memorandum setting out the implications for the UK. The Committee examines these documents, and ‘holds under scrutiny’ any about which it has concerns, entering into correspondence with the relevant Minister until satisfied. Letters must be answered within two weeks. Under the ‘scrutiny reserve resolution’, the Government may not agree in the EU Council of Ministers to any proposal still held under scrutiny; reasons must be given for any breach. The Committee also conducts inquiries and makes reports. The Government are required to respond in writing to a report’s recommendations within two months of publication. If the report is for debate, then there is a debate in the House of Lords, which a Minister attends and responds to. The Committee has seven Sub-Committees which are: Economic and Financial
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum to the Standing Orders 2 October 2020
    ADDENDUM TO STANDING ORDERS PUBLIC BUSINESS 2 October 2020 Reprinted from the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons 16 and 21 January, 3 February, 2, 19 and 24 March, 20 May, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 23 June, 1, 20 and 22 July, 2 and 23 September 2020 AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS 41A. Deferred divisions 119. European Committees 122B. Election of select committee chairs 143. European Scrutiny Committee 149. Committee on Standards 150. Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 152K. Public Bodies: draft orders STANDING ORDER DISAPPLIED FOR THE DURATION OF THE 2019 PARLIAMENT 122A. Term limits for chairs of select committees STANDING ORDERS DISAPPLIED UNTIL 3 NOVEMBER 7. Seats not to be taken before prayers 8. Seats secured at prayers 38. Procedure on divisions 40. Division unnecessarily claimed 83J. Certification of bills etc. as relating exclusively to England or England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence 83K. Committal and recommittal of certified England only bills 83L. Reconsideration of certification before third reading 83M. Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions 83N. Reconsideration of bills so far as there is absence of consent 83O. Consideration of certified motions or amendments relating to Lords Amendments or other messages 83P. Certification of instruments 83Q. Deciding the question on motions relating to certified instruments 83R. Deciding the question on certain other motions 83S. Modification of Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83N in their application to Finance Bills 83T. Modification of Standing Orders Nos. 83P and 83Q in their application to financial instruments 83U. Certification of motions upon which a Finance Bill is to be brought in which would authorise provision relating exclusively to England, to England and Wales or to England, Wales and Northern Ireland 83V.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty-Fourth Report of Session 2019–21
    House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2019–21 Documents considered by the Committee on 8 October 2020 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 8 October 2020 HC 229-xx Published on 14 October 2020 by authority of the House of Commons Notes Numbering of documents Three separate numbering systems are used in this Report for European Union documents: Numbers in brackets are the Committee’s own reference numbers. Numbers in the form “5467/05” are Council of Ministers reference numbers. This system is also used by UK Government Departments, by the House of Commons Vote Office and for proceedings in the House. Numbers preceded by the letters COM or SEC or JOIN are Commission reference numbers. Where only a Committee number is given, this usually indicates that no official text is available and the Government has submitted an “unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum” discussing what is likely to be included in the document or covering an unofficial text. Abbreviations used in the headnotes and footnotes AFSJ Area of Freedom Security and Justice CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy ECA European Court of Auditors ECB European Central Bank EEAS European External Action Service EM Explanatory Memorandum (submitted by the Government to the Committee) * EP European Parliament EU European Union JHA Justice and Home Affairs OJ Official Journal of the European Communities QMV Qualified majority voting SEM Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum TEU Treaty on European Union TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union Euros Where figures in euros have been converted to pounds sterling, this is normally at the market rate for the last working day of the previous month.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitting the Bill: Bringing Commons Legislation Committees Into Line with Best Practice
    DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE FITTING THE BILL BRINGING COMMONS LEGISLATION COMMITTEES INTO LINE WITH BEST PRACTICE MEG RUSSELL, BOB MORRIS AND PHIL LARKIN Fitting the Bill: Bringing Commons legislation committees into line with best practice Meg Russell, Bob Morris and Phil Larkin Constitution Unit June 2013 ISBN: 978-1-903903-64-3 Published by The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy UCL (University College London) 29/30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax: 020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ ©The Constitution Unit, UCL 2013 This report is sold subject to the condition that is shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First Published June 2013 2 Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 7 Part I: The current system .................................................................................................... 9 The Westminster legislative process in
    [Show full text]
  • The Shape of Future Parliamentary Scrutiny of UK-EU Relations
    House of Commons Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union The shape of future parliamentary scrutiny of UK-EU relations Fifth Report of Session 2019–21 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 14 January 2021 HC 977 Published on 21 January 2021 by authority of the House of Commons Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union The Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union is appointed by the House of Commons to examine matters relating to the negotiations on the future relationship with the European Union. Current membership Hilary Benn MP (Labour, Leeds Central) (Chair) Lee Anderson MP (Conservative, Ashfield) Mr Peter Bone MP (Conservative, Wellingborough) Joanna Cherry QC MP (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh South West) Sir Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Mark Eastwood MP (Conservative, Dewsbury) Florence Eshalomi MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Sally-Ann Hart MP (Conservative, Hastings and Rye) Antony Higginbotham MP (Conservative, Burnley) Dr Rupa Huq MP (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton) Stephen Kinnock MP (Labour, Aberavon) Seema Malhotra MP (Labour, Feltham and Heston) Nigel Mills MP (Conservative, Amber Valley) Nicola Richards MP (Conservative, West Bromwich East) Gary Sambrook MP (Conservative, Birmingham, Northfield) Mr Barry Sheerman MP (Labour, Huddersfield) Jane Stevenson MP (Conservative, Wolverhampton North East) Wes Streeting MP (Labour, Ilford North) Matt Vickers MP (Conservative, Stockton South) Dr Jamie Wallis MP (Conservative, Bridgend) Dr Philippa Whitford MP (Scottish National Party, Central Ayrshire) The following Members are former members of the Committee: Mark Fletcher MP (Conservative, Bolsover); Matthew Pennycook MP (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich) Powers The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally under a Temporary Standing Order of 16 January 2020 (amended on 2 March 2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Scrutiny of European Union Documents
    Parliamentary Scrutiny of European Union Documents Guidance for Departments August 2013 CABINET OFFICE Page 1 PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS GUIDANCE FOR DEPARTMENTS KEYWORD INDEX SECTION 1: PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY: OVERVIEW SECTION 2: DEPOSIT OF DOCUMENTS IN PARLIAMENT 2.1 Depositable documents 2.2 Documents the Committees have agreed need not be deposited 2.3 Documents not suitable for deposit 2.4 Procedure for deposit SECTION 3: EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA 3.1 Timetable 3.2 Form and content 3.3 Unnumbered EMs 3.4 Supplementary EMs 3.5 EMs on Proposals subject to the Ordinary Legislative Procedure 3.6 EMs on Proposals subject to the Special Legislative Procedure 3.7 Short EMs 3.8 Corrigenda to EMs 3.9 Circulation of EMs 3.10 Withdrawal of EMs SECTION 4: THE SCRUTINY PROCESS 4.1 The Commons Committee 4.2 The Lords Committee 4.3 Liaison with the Committees 4.4 Preparation for Committee meetings 4.5 Consideration by Committees 4.6 Scrutiny clearance 4.7 Further scrutiny 4.8 Withdrawal of debate recommendations 4.9 Cabinet Office records 4.10 Giving evidence to the Committees 4.11 Commission Legislation 4.12 Correspondence with the Scrutiny Committees SECTION 5: SCRUTINY DEBATES 5.1 Arranging Commons debates 5.2 European Committee Debates 5.3 Floor Debates 5.4 Government Motions and amendments 5.5 Second Debates Page 2 5.6 Debates in the Lords SECTION 6: UNCLEARED PROPOSALS: ACTION TO BE TAKEN 6.1 Government undertaking (Scrutiny Reserve Resolution) 6.2 Action required on uncleared proposals 6.3 Parliamentary scrutiny reserves 6.4 Statements to the House SECTION 7: PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED DURING RECESSES AND BETWEEN PARLIAMENTS 7.1 Procedure during recesses 7.2 Procedure between Parliaments 1.
    [Show full text]
  • WMID Methodology
    Methodology European Institute for Gender Equality Gender Statistics Database Women and men in decision- making Methodology Methodology last updated: 16 September 2021 Table of contents Table of contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.1. Coverage ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2. General definitions ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.3. Release policy and frequency of dissemination ................................................................................................................. 8 2.4. Data quality and relevance ................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.5. Comparability and coherence .............................................................................................................................................. 8 2.6. Data revision .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.7. Statistical processing ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]