Supplementary letter from Mr Jim Murphy
MP, Minister for Europe, to Lord Mance, Chairman of Sub-Committee
E (Law and Institutions)
INITIATION OF
EU LEGISLATION
Following my evidence session to your Committee
on 4 June, I promised to write to you with further details on
the Government's position on the current arrangements for initiation
of EU legislation, and the changes likely to ensue after implementation
of the Lisbon Treaty.
The Committee was interested in exploring some
of the reasoning behind the plan to change the right of sole initiative
by Member States on JHA issues to require at least a quarter of
Member States to put forward proposals, and asked why this was
not being extended to other First Pillar issues. The decision
to change the current provisions underline the sensitivity of
the issues (police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters)
concerned, but also reflect the reality of putting together workable
proposals from the outset. As I mentioned in my evidence, the
best proposals in this field have often been the ones that have
been sponsored by a group of Member States. JHA is very much a
special case, and will remain so after Lisbon. As far as existing
First Pillar policy areas are concerned sole right of initiative
rests with the Commission, and the UK supports continuation of
this.
I undertook to provide examples of instances
where an individual Member State has put forward Justice and Home
Affairs initiatives that have not found support from the other
Member States. In 2003, a Greek Presidency initiative for a Framework
Decision on the application of the principle "ne bis in
idem" (double jeopardy) did make some progress, but after
lengthy discussions it became clear that unanimity could not be
achieved.
A 2004 Belgian initiative for a Framework Decision
on recognition and enforcement of prohibitions arising from
convictions for sexual offences committed against children
suffered from a lack of proper preparation and co-sponsors. The
proposal was eventually dropped when it became clear that unanimity
could not be achieved (though some elements were incorporated
into a related Commission proposal on the exchange of criminal
records).
The Committee explored the issue of how far
Commission initiatives could come as a surprise to the Government.
The UK works closely with Member States and the Commission on
forward work programmes, and we make our views on policy and proposals
known through the UK Representation to the European Union and
other channels. Moreover, the general timescales on initiatives
make it hard for the Commission to bounce the Council on specific
issues. But it is sometimes the case that internal Commission
discussions can lead to formal proposals that differ from Member
State expectations. Ultimately, it is up to the Commission, the
Council and, in many cases, the European Parliament to work out
reasonable compromises.
The Committee asked me about the level of influence
of the House of Lords on European legislation. Through the scrutiny
process in particular, the Government takes Parliament's views
fully into account when deciding on our stance in European negotiation.
The reports of the EU Select Committee can help influence legislation.
As well as the success of the Committee's influence on mobile
phone telephony, I can also point to the Lords Report on the EU
strategy on biofuels "From Field to Fuel" (20 November
2006), which advocated the development of a European wide system
of evaluation and certification of the lifecycle environmental
performance of both imported and domestically produced biofuels.
Shortly after the report's publication the European Commission
started to work on such a system, which has now been incorporated
into the draft Renewable Energy Directive.
The Committee was interested in exploring the
scope for the UK to influence further the Commission's multi-annual
work programme. The Government is proactive in working with the
Commission and Member States to ensure a coherent work plan, both
at the five-year and annual levels (the Commission publishes an
annual policy strategy that is the subject of scrutiny by the
main Committee), and would welcome further interest in this strategic
policy work from the Committee.
At the evidence session, the Committee asked
me about Commission and EP proposals on regulating the activities
of lobbyists. I should like to draw the Committee's attention
to the fact that I have just signed an Explanatory Memorandum
on the Commission's recent Communication on the Voluntary Register
and Code of Conduct for Interest Representatives. The document
will, of course, be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.
The Committee asked me for my views on whether
the quality of drafting of legislative proposals in Brussels is
improving. There has been a great deal of reflection over the
years on how to improve quality of drafting of Brussels legislation
and valuable work has already been done in elaborating common
guidelines on the quality of drafting of EU legislation—underpinned
by Interinstitutional Agreements. But there is certainly room
for improvement here and the Government will continue to make
suggestions to the Commission about how to improve policy development
and legislation.
During the evidence session, I mentioned that
I had recently visited the Czech Republic for a seminar on better
regulation. During my visit, I signed a declaration with representatives
of the Czech, Swedish, Danish, Estonian, Dutch and German Governments.
June 2008
| 
