Submission from Jonathan Evans MEP, Leader
of the Conservatives in the European Parliament
Earlier this year, I was invited to give oral
evidence to the Select Committee on Modernisation on the scrutiny
of European matters by the House of Commons.
Unfortunately, I was unable to attend on the
proposed date, so my colleague Timothy Kirkhope MEP, who served
on the national parliaments working group of the European Convention,
gave evidence in my place.
Naturally, I endorse the points made by Mr Kirkhope.
Similarly, I endorse the points relevant to this matter made in
the Conservative Research Department Policy Unit pamphlet, "Reversing
the Drivers of Regulation: the European Union", published
on 18 August. A copy is being submitted for the Committee's consideration
(not printed).
There are a number of points I would like to
highlight in particular:
— Conservative MEPs have consistently
pressed for improved scrutiny of EU policy and legislation, both
in the European Parliament and at Westminster. We welcome this
important and timely opportunity to bring about much-needed improvements
to current arrangements.
— To improve the consistency of scrutiny
throughout the legislative process, there must be better exchange
of MEPs and MPs between London and Brussels (or Strasbourg) respectively.
Worthwhile ideas that have been suggested in this area include,
for example, MPs being invited to pre-legislative hearings in
the European Parliament, and MEPs being involved in the scrutiny
of implementing measures in the UK, whether in the proposed "Grand
Committee" or in some other way. In each case, members of
whichever parliament should participate on an equal footing and
all meetings should be held in public.
— It will be important to pay attention
to timetabling if such arrangements are to be successful: meetings
involving both MPs (or Peers) and MEPs should not be held at times
that conflict with the normal Parliamentary business of one or
other group of members. Joint meetings should ideally be held
when one of the Parliaments is in recess, or if both are sitting,
not on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.
— Scrutiny at Westminster of Commissioners
or other senior EU officials would also be welcome, not least
in helping to interest the Westminster-based media in EU issues.
Similarly, consideration should be given to mechanisms for improving
the accountability of ministers before and after Council meetings.
Conservative MEPs have long campaigned for improved transparency
and accountability of the Council of Ministers and any steps in
this direction would be a positive development.
— In general, consideration should
be given to ways to foster relations with other national parliaments
(and the European Parliament) on a bilateral as well as a multi-lateral
basis. Scope for improved sharing of best practice for scrutiny
of European matters certainly exists.
— In particular, as the Leader of the
House's memorandum points out, mechanisms whereby national parliaments
indicate their unhappiness with an EU proposal need to be elaborated.
Conservatives have called for a "red card" provision
whereby national parliaments can block a Commission proposal in
certain circumstances. It is extremely important that national
parliaments are given more "teeth" in the legislative
process. Communication channels between parliaments will clearly
be a vital part of enhancing the role of national parliaments.
Whatever institutional arrangements are settled upon, it would
be politically helpful to MPs (and for that matter MEPs) if they
were able to establish at an early stage that a number of national
parliaments shared a concern, for example, that a certain Commission
proposal was in breach of subsidiarity or was not accompanied
by an adequate impact assessment.
— The value of visits, both formal
and informal, for example by MPs and Peers to Brussels or Strasbourg
(or indeed other national Parliaments) should not be under-estimated.
Such visits foster important political relationships and improve
information flows. In particular, visits facilitate "early
warning" on controversial proposals. Such visits should be
more frequent and better publicised, for example to enable a visit
to Brussels by members of a Select Committee to incorporate a
political dimension, such as a meeting between MEPs and MPs of
the same party. There is much that could be done within existing
structures to enhance regular contacts. Visits by MPs and Peers
are often arranged at very short notice and with vague agendas.
There is no regular contact between MEPs on specific Committees
and their Westminster counterparts. The Commons has a staff member
based in the European Parliament but he appears to be briefed
solely to respond to Westminster rather than facilitate dialogue
between Parliaments.
I would of course be delighted to elaborate
upon all of these points, and I look forward to the outcome of
the Modernisation Committee's deliberations.
September 2004
|
