Examination of Witnesses (Questions 57-59)
23 JUNE 2004
RT HON
DAVID HEATHCOAT-AMORY
MP AND MS
GISELA STUART
MP
Chairman: Thank you very much for coming.
The style of this Committee is perhaps a little less formal than
other Select Committees. One of the things I wanted to emphasise
is that what we are trying to do is to look at the European business
more effectively within the Commons as opposed to it being a topic
for expert consideration amongst a limited group of members. I
am interested in the procedural issues rather than whether you
think the Constitutional Treaty is a good thing or a bad thing,
or whether you think the existing policy on Europe is a good or
bad thing. What we are interested in is really the scrutiny and
accountability issues involved in the relationship between the
House of Commons and the European Union and how we operate as
a House. Having set the scene for that, I would be 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 experience in Europe, especially yours, David, as a former
Europe minister and Gisela as well. Perhaps David Kidney could
ask the first question.
Q57 Mr Kidney: Is it worth trying at
all to improve the procedures for scrutinising European legislation
or is it just inevitable that Members here are going to regard
our business as more immediate and that it is far too remote and
we will never engage the majority of Members at all? David, what
do you think?
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I do not think
that institutional reform will do the trick here unless we tackle
the question of the sheer volume of legislation 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
Qualified Majority Voting becoming general and with the Commission
getting explicit delegated powers to legislate under Article 35
of the Constitution. So any problems we have now will be enormously
magnified. The other qualitative issue we must address is that
of giving Members a real feeling that they can make a difference.
I think one reason why our colleagues do not turn up as often
as they should to the Standing Committees is that, frankly, it
makes no difference if they pass an adverse motion, the Government
still passes the motion forthwith on the floor of the House. People
are not stupid, if you cannot make a difference you do not turn
up. I think simply altering the numbers of committees and their
specific expertise will not tackle this growing problem by itself.
Q58 Mr Kidney: Gisela?
Ms Stuart: I think the House needs
to make a decision as to whether it wishes to scrutinise, to be
a place which is for wider information about what goes on or whether
it wishes to be a House to influence politically. Assuming we
only scrutinise, we face two very specific problems, one of which
is the timescale. The negotiations in Brussels are long and at
times they may go on for ten years. It is very difficult for the
House to key in at an appropriate time to have any influence.
The now negotiated opt out for the Working Time Directive for
junior doctors is an example. By the time I got involved in 1999
this had been going on for ten years. The second is the way negotiations
are conducted: very often it comes back to the House as a package
and you cannot unravel the package. An example is that when we
had to get the lifting of the beef ban there was a whole package
which had to be agreed in terms of how we deal with slaughterhouses
and you simply could not unravel it. So I think there is a real
procedural problem in terms of scrutiny, the timescale we operate
within and what the House does. One of the suggestions which would
be helpful is if when the Commission puts forward the proposals
it could actually also have a timescale by which agreement has
to be reached, which would allow the House to scrutinise much
more effectively.
Q59 Mr Kidney: David's points and yours
about the unravelling of a package seems to me to be the same,
which is that MPs here are only going to be interested if they
feel they can make a difference to the process. Is that what you
are saying, the same as David, that we just do not have the power
anyway?
Ms Stuart: We would have to get
involved at a much earlier stage. You may want to look at the
way both the Danish Parliament and the Finnish Parliament scrutinise
their ministers much earlier and in a much more specific and co-ordinated
way.
Mr Kidney: I think someone else wants
to ask about how other parliaments do it so I will leave that
to them.
| 
