Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: European Scrutiny Committee's Books

The depth and pace of EU integration has demonstrated the need for effective democratic parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of Government at Westminster. This is the first major inquiry into the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons for eight years. There is more that the Committee could do to look at the impact of new proposals. There should be a new requirement to appoint 'Reporters' to take the lead within Committees on EU issues, as well as a more coordinated approach to the Commission Work Programme. Whilst the system need not be scrapped as some have said, it must be enhanced. Many problems arise from the fact that new Members are appointed for each document. The Committee argues forcefully for a return to the permanent membership system, new powers and a change of name to reflect the Committees' core purpose: EU Document Debate Committees. The Committee also examined how EU business is taken on the floor of the House, and the procedures which apply to it. They set out a series of recommendations about the way debates are scheduled and conducted and put the case for a new session of 'EU Questions'. They also review working practices and the visibility of the House's scrutiny of the EU in the media. It concluded that now is the time to propose the introduction of a form of national veto over EU legislative proposals, and then to explore the mechanics of disapplication of parts of existing EU obligations, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972

The depth and pace of EU integration has demonstrated the need for effective democratic parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of Government at Westminster. This is the first major inquiry into the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons for eight years. There is more that the Committee could do to look at the impact of new proposals. There should be a new requirement to appoint ’Reporters' to take the lead within Committees on EU issues, as well as a more coordinated approach to the Commission Work Programme. Whilst the system need not be scrapped as some have said, it must be enhanced. Many problems arise from the fact that new Members are appointed for each document. The Committee argues forcefully for a return to the permanent membership system, new powers and a change of name to reflect the Committees' core purpose: EU Document Debate Committees. The Committee also examined how EU business is taken on the floor of the House, and the procedures which apply to it. They set out a series of recommendations about the way debates are scheduled and conducted and put the case for a new session of ’EU Questions'. They also review working practices and the visibility of the House's scrutiny of the EU in the media. It concluded that now is the time to propose the introduction of a form of national veto over EU legislative proposals, and then to explore the mechanics of disapplication of parts of existing EU obligations, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972

Joint response to HC 978, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215066169); HC 954, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215066091); and HC 972, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215066152). These were in turn Government responses to the European Scrutiny Committee's 21st report, HC 683, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215063465); the Home Affairs Committee's 9th report, session 2013-14, HC 615, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215063410); and the Justice Committee's 8th report, HC 605, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215063403) respectively

With correction slip dated December 2013

This is an assessment of each of the 129 measures subject to the United Kingdom's block opt-out, including the European Arrest Warrant. This is an area of policy which is highly legally complex and politically sensitive. Yet the Government has failed to provide the information Parliament needs to scrutinise these measures properly. There are two sets of conclusions in the Report: first, the Committee asks detailed follow-up questions on a number of the measures in question, including the European Arrest Warrant. Second, the Government's overall approach is thoroughly analysed. The Committee sees signs of incoherence in Government policy - probably a consequence of coalition politics - and observes that several of the explanations for the 35 measures the Government wants to rejoin appear to have been written as if the Government was not intending to rejoin them, and vice versa. The Committee concludes that the House must be given the opportunity to vote on each of the measures the Government proposes to rejoin before formal negotiations with the European Commission and Council begin

Opting into international agreements and enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of opt-in Decisions : Thirtieth report of session 2010-12, Vol. 2: Oral and written Evidence

The dissolution of the Western European Union (WEU) and its Assembly in 2011 threatens to leave the EU's inter-governmental Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) without inter-parliamentary scrutiny. The inter-governmental nature of decision-making in the CFSP and CSDP, and the significance of the CFSP and CSDP activities to which EU Member States may agree, make it important that inter-parliamentary oversight should be continued, with national parliaments taking the lead. This short Report puts forward a proposal for successor arrangements to the WEU Assembly which has been drawn up in a process of consultation among relevant Select Committee Chairs of both Houses of Parliament, with a view to putting this proposal before each House for its approval. The Report recommends that the WEU Assembly should be succeeded by an EU Inter-parliamentary Conference on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security (COFADS). COFADS would secure continued inter-parliamentary scrutiny of this area of EU activity, would not be an autonomous institution and would minimise costs, while adding value to the work that each national parliament does on its own in this field.

work of the Committee In 2008-09 : Sixth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal Minutes

Incorporating HC 565-i to v, session 2003-04

This report was produced online to coincide with the second reading of the European Union Bill (Bill 106, session 2010-11, ISBN 9780215557339) on 7 December 2010. The Committee is critical that it had been given only four weeks to investigate and prepare a report on the Bill's provision affirming the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. This report sets out in detail the legal relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union and the current debate on the scope of Parliamentary sovereignty, then evaluates the sovereignty clause (clause 18) in the light of evidence received. The evidence suggests that the legislative supremacy of Parliament is not currently under threat from EU law. However, the Committee believes recent UK court decisions have called into question the legal basis of Parliamentary sovereignty and the legislative supremacy of Parliament. It concludes that Clause 18 is a reaffirmation of the role of a sovereign Parliament in a dualist state, nothing more, nothing less. It does not address the competing primacies of EU and national law and much evidence suggests the clause is not needed. The Bill's proposal that approval to certain changes in EU law will require first to be approved by an Act of Parliament and that the change should be approved by a referendum is also considered. This "referendum lock" is viewed as an attempt to bind future Parliaments, but the Committee concludes there is no clear evidence that one Parliament has authority to act in this way.

work of committees In 2008-09 : Second report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and Appendices

The report EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures: The UK's 2014 Op-out Option (HL 159) examines the consequences to the UK should the Government choose to opt-out of approximately 130 EU police and criminal justice measures, that were adopted before the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is the single most important pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measure and, if the Government decides to exercise the opt-out, the Committee recommends that it should opt back in to the EAW immediately, to avoid any gap in its application. The Committee also expresses particular concern about the potential impact that the opt-out, including the loss of the EAW, could have on efforts by the UK and Ireland to effectively tackle cross-border crime, and does not believe that possible alternatives to the EAW would be adequate. The Committee concludes that the Government has not made a convincing case to opt-out and that to do so would h

Parliament and the legislative Process : 14th report of session 2003-04, Vol. 2: Evidence

European Commission's annual policy Strategy 2008 : Thirty-second report of session 2006-07, Vol. 2: Oral and written Evidence

Each year the Government deposits 1200 European policy documents for scrutiny, some of which are cleared straight away, whilst others are reserved for further scrutiny. These are normally considered by one of seven policy-based sub-committees and this report summarises the work undertaken by the Committee through its sub-committees. also reports on UK's Presidency of the EU and looks ahead to likely developments in 2006.

The Committee has previously considered this EU proposal, which concerns the transfer of prisoners from one EU state to another. At the time it had reservations about the need for the proposal (as there is an existing Council of Europe Treaty), whether it is right to transfer a prisoner without their consent, and whether one State should uphold the sentence of another state. It therefore referred the matter for debate. However before that debate could take place the Government had "pushed hard" in Council for the text to be adopted. This raised questions about the meaning of parliamentary scrutiny, which this report discusses.

In this report the Committee describes and explains the full range of its work over the course of the 2001-2005 Parliament. The Committee distils from its experience a number of suggestions for consideration by its successor committee and recommendations addressed to the Government, in order to enhance the integration of human rights considerations into the overall policy and legislative process. Chapter 2 explains the background to the Committee's establishment. Chapter 3 covers the legislative scrutiny performed by the Committee. The monitoring of the implementation of the Human Rights Act is the subject of chapter 4, while chapter 5 covers work in relation to institutional support for human rights within the UK. The inquiries into the international treaties to which the UK is a party are dealt with in chapter 6, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The final chapter describes the work undertaken on monitoring action taken by the Government in response to incompatibilities with Convention rights, arising from Strasbourg judgments and declarations of incompatibility by UK courts.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights concludes that the current statutory framework does not provide effective protection for human rights. The rights most often relevant to extradition are: prohibition of torture; fair trial; liberty and security; private and family life; and prohibition of discrimination. The Committee calls on the Government to spell out detailed safeguards in the statutory framework. Parliament should be asked to commence the "most appropriate forum" safeguard in the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2006 and that a requirement for the requesting country to show a prima facie case or similarly robust evidential threshold should be introduced in extradition cases. The most appropriate forum safeguard would require the judge to consider whether it is in the interests of justice for the individual to be tried in the requesting country - and to refuse the extradition request if it is not. The committee also calls for negotiated changes to the European Arrest Warrant, a review of the provision of legal representation. The committee also concludes that the power of the Secretary of State to refuse extradition to non-EU countries should not be extended. The powers of the judge in an extradition case should instead ensure adequate protection of rights.

The FCO departmental report and resource accounts 2008-09 published as HC 460-I,II (ISBN 9780102961614)

This report examines the arrangements in place for communication between the UK Government and Scottish Executive, particularly when the UK Government formulates international policy which will specifically affect Scottish interests and devolved matters. Generally there are effective channels of communication at both ministerial and official level between the two governments. Whitehall tends to overlook the Scottish angle of policy and legislation more often in those departments which are unfamiliar with devolved matters. We recommend that the Government ensures that each department has a devolution champion to ensure that there is a good level of awareness of devolution issues. The revival of the Joint Ministerial Committee should provide an important forum for discussion between Ministers of the UK Government and devolved administrations. However, there is little opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the outcomes and effectiveness of the Committee's meetings. The report welcomes the publication of the new Protocol for Avoidance and Resolution of Disputes as the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding did not provide adequate guidance on how disputes between the UK and Scotland should be resolved. This was demonstrated during the communications between the governments on the UK's negotiations with Libya on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement. Both Governments should display the necessary political will to ensure that both understand each other's point of view and demonstrate the mutual respect which should characterise all their dealings.

This report intends to draw the possibility of the House challenging EU legislation on the grounds that it is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity to the attention of the Procedure Committee, Departmental Select Committees, and Members of the House. In the event that the House agrees to bring such an action on the basis of a report which is not by the European Scrutiny Committee, it is hoped that the originating Committee or Member(s) would follow the processes set out in the first Memorandum of Understanding about the management of such litigation, adapted as appropriate

Fourth report of Session 2009-10 : Documents considered by the Committee on 15 December 2009, including the following recommendations for debate, European Development Fund (EDF) expenditure; financial management; European Defence Agency activity in 2009 a

Book's by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: European Scrutiny Committee

Username

Password

Password again

Birthday

Email