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 Affairs 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 effectively 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 Office could, with the help of other Departments,
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 effect 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 Affairs, 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 Office 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
| 
