APPENDIX 3: CALL FOR EVIDENCE
The House of Lords Select Committee on the European
Union, chaired by Lord Roper, is conducting an inquiry into the
implications of the codecision legislative procedure for parliamentary
scrutiny in the Lords. The aim of the inquiry is better scrutiny
and therefore, ultimately, better legislation. The Committee seeks
evidence from anyone with an interest.
Written evidence is sought by 14 April. Public hearings
will be held in May and June. The Committee aims to report to
the House, with recommendations, in July. The report will receive
a response from the Government, and may be debated in the House.
The inquiry will aim to:
- assess the effect that the process and developments
in its practice, in particular the increase in first and early
second reading deals, have had on the Committee's ability to scrutinise
legislative proposals effectively;
- assess the Government's practice in keeping the
Committee up to date on developments in negotiations on legislative
proposals subject to codecision and whether this needs improvement;
- compare this aspect of the UK system with that
operating in some other Member States;
- assess whether the current scrutiny procedures
need adjustment; and
- assess how to increase the impact of the Committee's
scrutiny on the Government and, if considered appropriate, on
the European Parliament.
The inquiry will not assess the pros and cons of
the codecision procedure itself.
As part of this inquiry the Select Committee is
seeking views on the following questions:
The codecision procedure itself
(1) Are there aspects of the codecision procedure
which make it particularly difficult to achieve effective parliamentary
scrutiny?
(a) What effects have "first reading
deals" and "early second reading deals" had on
the ability of national parliaments to conduct effective scrutiny?
(b) Does the confidential nature of some negotiating
documents hinder national parliamentary scrutiny of codecision
legislation? If so, how can this problem be resolved?
(2) Are there any examples of legislative proposals
negotiated under codecision which have been particularly difficult
or complex to scrutinise effectively in national parliaments?
Governments and the EU Institutions
(3) What role is there for governments and
the EU's Institutions in ensuring that national parliaments can
conduct effective scrutiny of proposals negotiated under codecision?
What information should be provided, when and by whom? Is this
role being performed satisfactorily?
(4) What role is there for parliaments to address
the results of their scrutiny to those beyond their own government:
for example, the European Parliament, Commission or other national
parliaments?
Scrutiny procedures in parliaments
(5) How effective are the scrutiny procedures
in national parliaments (or your own parliament) at ensuring effective
scrutiny of proposals subject to codecision? Which particular
aspects of the parliamentary scrutiny procedure are key to effective
scrutiny?
(6) At which points in the codecision procedure
should parliaments seek to scrutinise the proposals? Should they
maintain oversight throughout the negotiations or should they
scrutinise only the initial legislative proposal from the Commission?
(7) You need not address all these questions,
and you may wish to draw the Committee's attention to other issues.
17 March 2009
| 
