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
| 
