Note from the Clerk of the European Scrutiny
Committee
QUESTIONS RAISED
AT THE
MEETING ON
2 FEBRUARY 2005
Proceedings in the House if a European Standing
Committee amends the Government's motion
1. The proposal from the European Scrutiny
Committee is that if the Government's motion is amended in the
Committee, the amended motion (rather than the Government's original
motion) should be put to the House; the Government could then
propose an amendment to restore the original wording (or to change
it in some other way), and if it did so there would be some time
for debate, such as 10 minutes for the mover of the motion agreed
in the Committee and ten minutes for the amendment proposed by
the Government.
2. Such a procedure would probably be invoked
only rarely, given that the Government has a majority on the Standing
Committees.
3. Assuming any division was a deferred
division, the time needed would be up to 20 minutes. This time
could be either at the beginning of the day's business (after
ministerial statements and PNQs) or at the end (before the daily
adjournment debate). It would either add to the length of the
sitting or take time away from the House's main business of the
day.
4. If the 20 minutes was at the start of
the day's business, it would take time away from the House's main
business. An exception to this would be if the main business had
been allotted a certain length of time from its commencement,
in which case the time taken for EU business would in effect be
added at the end of the day (though not necessarily after the
time for the interruption of business). In order to have a deferred
division, the relevant standing order would need to be changed,
since it currently provides for deferred divisions only after
the time for the interruption of business. It might be desirable
to avoid Tuesdays and Wednesdays, when there are 10-minute rule
Bills.
5. If the 20 minutes was at the end of the
day's business, it would add to the length of the sitting. However,
provided that any divisions were deferred, there would be no requirement
for a substantial number of Members to stay to vote.
6. Occasionally, when a decision in the
Council of Ministers is imminent, the Government would not be
able to wait for a deferred division on the following Wednesday.
The same timing options—at the start of the day's business
or the end—would apply, but in the latter case the deferred
division procedure would need to be disapplied (under standing
order No 41A(3)).
7. If the members of the Standing Committee
had felt strongly enough about the Government's motion to amend
it, it is likely that they would be willing both to table and
to move the amended motion in the House, but a procedure would
be needed in case they failed to do so. As regards tabling, it
could be provided that, either (i) if the motion as amended by
the Committee was not placed on the Remaining Orders (Future Business
part C) by the time for the interruption of business on the day
of the Committee's sitting, the Government could put its own motion
to the House; or (ii) when the Government placed the item on the
Remaining Orders, it would automatically put down the motion as
amended by the Committee in the name of the Member who had moved
it in the Committee. The standing order could also provide that,
if the original motion was not moved, a Minister could move the
motion in the form it would be in if the Government's amendment
was agreed. This would be simplified if the Government's motion
always replaced all the effective words of the motion with new
words.
8. It would not be possible to have deferred
divisions both on the Government's amendment and on the motion
as amended, since one would be contingent on the other. Therefore
a procedure analogous to that on Opposition Days is suggested,
ie "if such amendment involves leaving out all the effective
words of the motion the Speaker shall, after the amendment has
been disposed of, forthwith declare the main question (as amended
or not as the case may be) to be agreed to" (standing order
No 31(2)(b)). There would then be only a single deferred division,
on the Government's amendment.
9. In the past, European Standing Committees
have sometimes negatived the Government's motion instead of amending
it. In such a case the Chairman reports to the House that the
Committee has come to no resolution. This constitutes a Report
from the Committee, and the Government can then put a motion to
the House for decision forthwith. It would be consistent with
the principle that the motion put to the House must reflect what
the Committee agreed for the Government not to be able to bring
forward the motion negatived by the Committee. However, it is
difficult to see how this could work in practice, since there
would be no alternative wording and not even the name of a Member
to attach to any new motion; there would be nothing for the Government
to place on the Order Paper. It is suggested, therefore, that
the Government retain the right to put to the House a motion negatived
by the Committee, in the expectation that, in the Committee, those
opposed to the Government's motion will seek to amend it rather
than negative it. It might, in that case, be appropriate to allow
for the question to be put on any amendment selected by the Chair
when the time allowed for the sitting has elapsed (instead of
just any amendment which has already been proposed).
Consequences in the past when European Standing
Committees have amended the Government's motion
10. I have been able to identify one occasion
when an amendment was agreed in a European Standing Committee
on a division, with Government Members voting against. It related
to state aid for Irish steel, in December 1995. The motion subsequently
put to the House by the Government was neither the original motion
nor the amended motion, but a new version with stronger wording
then the original.
11. On a number of occasions amendments
have been agreed without a division. In one case, on guarantees
for consumer goods in June 1994, the amendment regretted that
the debate had not taken place in good time and agreed that debates
must take place before the Government submits a response to the
Commission; this was omitted from the motion proposed in the House.
Otherwise the Government has put the amended motion to the House
(though once with the amended part re-worded). There were six
examples of this in 1990-91, but otherwise never more than two
per session up to 1996-97.
12. There were seven occasions from 1990-91
to 1996-97 when the motion was negatived on a division, and the
Chairman reported to the House that the Committee had come to
no resolution. In most cases a motion was subsequently agreed
by the House, but in a few no further proceedings are recorded.
Five European Standing Committees instead of three
13. Debates in the two most recent sessions
could have been divided between five European Standing Committees
as follows:
European Committee for the Environment
(DEFRA, Food Standards) 2002-03 (total
11)
Greenhouse gas emission trading
Community strategy for dioxins etc
Sustainable use of pesticides
Spread of foot and mouth disease
Quality of bathing water
Additives in animal nutrition
Identification of sheep and goats
Implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy
Recovery of cod and hake stocks
Official food and feed controls
Emissions of volatile organic compounds from paints
2003-04 (total 13)
Controls on fluorinated greenhouse gases
Protection of groundwater against pollution
CAP: tobacco, olive oil, cotton and sugar
Levels of certain heavy metals in ambient air
Fisheries: catch quotas and effort limitation 2004
Recovery of sole stocks in the Western Channel and
Bay of Biscay
Protection of animals during transport
Marketing of sweetcorn from genetically modified
maize
Nutrition and health claims made on foods
Registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals
Marketing of maize genetically modified for glyphosate
tolerance
Establishment of a Community fisheries control agency
Marketing of oilseed rape genetically modified for
glyphosate tolerance
European Committee for Transport (DFT)
2002-03 (total 5)
Denied boarding compensation for air passengers
Safety at sea
Maritime transport security
Trans-European networks
Major accident hazards involving dangerous substances
2003-04 (total 3)
Trans-European Transport Network
Global Navigation Systems
Driving licences
(Note: If DEFRA subjects were split, environmental
matters could be transferred to the Committee dealing with transport,
giving the following totals:
European Committee for Agriculture
and Fisheries: 6 in 2002-03, 9 in 2003-04
European Committee for Transport and the Environment:
10 in 2002-03, 7 in 2003-04.)
European Committee for Trade and Industry
(DTI, DoH, DFES, DCMS )
2002-03 (total 5)
Takeover bids
Security of energy supply
Better environment for business in the EU
Competition policy: mergers
Quality and safety of human tissues and cells
2003-04 (total 5)
European space policy
Changes to the Working Time Directive
Disposal of batteries and accumulators
Doha Development Agenda
Industrial policy for an enlarged Europe
European Committee for Home and Foreign
Affairs (HO, LCD, FCO, DFID, DCA, remaining Depts)
2002-03 (total 7)
EU enlargement
Staffing needs of the Commission
Judgments in matrimonial matters
Financial penalties
Criminal law
Racism and xenophobia
Programme for action on three major communicable
diseases
2003-04 (total 7)
Security at European Council meetings
Procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status
Asylum systems
Co-operation with the Occupied Territories of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip
Establishment of a European defence Agency
Staff Regulations of officials of the EC
Approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement
of criminal sanctions
European Committee for Finance (HMT,
DWP)
2002-03 (total 4)
Protecting the Community's financial interests
Broad Economic Policy Guidelines
Annual Policy Strategy for 2004 and the Preliminary
Budget
Reduced rates of VAT
2003-04 (total 6)
Activities of OLAF and the fight against fraud
Value added tax
Preliminary Draft Budget
Integration of financial markets
General arrangements for excise
Credit institutions and investment firms
Attendance at the European Scrutiny Committee
14. Attendance in this Parliament has been:
| 2001-02 | 58%
|
| 2002-03 | 61% |
| 2003-04 | 54% |
Dorian Gerhold
February 2005
| |
| 
