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
difficulty 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
works effectively. As perhaps the only Member who has served on
European Standing Committee `B' throughout the last seven years,
the decline in its effectiveness 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 stuff, 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 staff
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 effective.
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.
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 difficult 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
| 
