2

The European Scrutiny Select Committee scrutinises draft European Union legislation.

The Committee assesses the legal and/or political importance of draft EU legislation deposited in Parliament by the Government. This amounts to around 1,100 documents a session. The Committee receives an Explanatory Memorandum on each document from the relevant Minister. It then looks at the significance of the proposal and decides whether to clear the document from scrutiny or withhold clearance and ask questions of the Government. All documents deemed politically or legally important are reported on in the Committee's weekly Reports.

But at what point in the legislative process is this draft legislation deposited in Parliament?

For example is it after the trilogue or after Parliament and Council votes?

3

Your question seems a bit confused. In your second question:

For example is it after the trilogue or after Parliament and Council votes?

You appear to be assuming that is has some kind of formal say or role in the EU decision making. It does not, except in an advisory capacity to Ministers, who have statutory authority as they take part in EU decision making.

The European Scrutiny Select Committee is part of the House of Commons. Its Wikipedia entry, while lacking details, offers the helpful summary that follows, to which I've taken the liberty to add [some comments in brackets]:

The remit of the Committee is to assess the legal and political importance of each EU document, and decide which EU documents are debated [in the Committee]. The committee also monitors the activities of UK Ministers in the Council [there are Minister related Councils in addition to the better known European Council], and keeps legal, procedural and institutional developments in the EU under review [that is, they're a watchdog group and can bring up problems when they think something's up].

Steve added this helpful link that is a bit more specific on its advisory role:

Debates recommended by the Committee take place either in a European Committee or (more rarely) on the Floor of the House. Under the scrutiny reserve resolution passed by the House, Ministers should not vote in the Council of Ministers on proposals which the Committee has not cleared or which are awaiting debate. Where a proposal has been debated in European Committee, the motion must then be put to the House, the following day where it is agreed to without debate. A proposal is cleared when the motion is agreed to by the House.

  • 1
    "You appear to be assuming that is has some kind of formal say or role in the EU decision making. It does not.": the committee's website seems to suggest otherwise: "Ministers should not vote in the Council of Ministers on proposals which the Committee has not cleared or which are awaiting debate." – Steve Melnikoff May 30 '19 at 13:28
  • 1
    @SteveMelnikoff: To me that should in there (rather than shall) reads like a pompous way to say it has an advisory role and that it's in the Ministers' best interests to follow the advice that the Committee gives them. The Committee itself doesn't have a statutory authority in the Council of Ministers -- the Minister does. – Denis de Bernardy May 30 '19 at 13:34
  • 1
    @SteveMelnikoff: this is made clearer in the next few sentences in the link you've provided: "Where a proposal has been debated in European Committee, the motion must then be put to the House, the following day where it is agreed to without debate. A proposal is cleared when the motion is agreed to by the House." So in other words, the Committee makes a recommendation to the House, and it is the actual House that puts its weight behind what the Minister should do. – Denis de Bernardy May 30 '19 at 13:39
  • 1
    @Ben: Yes and no. My understanding is that, basically. the committee looks at EU bills that are getting pushed around in Brussels and Strasburg. When it finds something of interest, it debates it internally, then tells the House its opinion, the House agrees (or not), and the relevant Ministers can then go to their EU meetings knowing what the House wants. The caveat in this is that it is the Ministers that have statutory authority in EU meetings. You can think about it a bit like College Electors during US Presidential elections: expected to vote in a way, but not (in some States) obliged to. – Denis de Bernardy May 30 '19 at 14:39
  • 1
    OK. So its purpose is to inform the minister of the likely opinion of the House before voting on it in the Council of Ministers. And the minister is not legally bound to respect their opinion. And they are not legally empowered to veto the legislation. But there is an expected sequence of behaviour. – Ben May 30 '19 at 14:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .