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

When the Committee published the Scrutiny Reform Report 18 months ago asked the Government to ensure that it responded to the Report within the customary two-month deadline. This did not happen, the Government response was received on the day the House rose for the summer recess, 22 July 2014, eight months after the Report's publication. Moreover, the tone of the Government's response to the key recommendations was overwhelmingly negative and did not sufficiently address our proposals, including those relating to the introduction of a form of national veto and the disapplication of EU law. In this Report the Committee first consider in more detail the background to, possible causes of and the implications of the Government's failure to schedule EU document debates, before turning to some of the other outstanding issues covered in the Scrutiny Reform Report, in particular papers deposit, limitâ documents, and the coverage of EU scrutiny and wider EU issues by the BBC. The Committee also sets out some outstanding scrutiny issues which the successor Committee may wish to consider, in particular scrutiny of the proposed EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

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