Below is the full text of Caroline's speech to Parliament:
Transparency and Accountability (European Union) Bill, 3 May 2016
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish an independent commission of inquiry to examine ways of improving parliamentary and other public scrutiny of ministerial mandates and outcomes in relation to European Union institutions, policies and legislation; and for connected purposes.
Mr Speaker, in 50 days, this country will go to the polls to take the most important single decision of a generation - whether to remain in the EU, or whether to leave.
I am strongly in favour of staying in. I will continue to make the case that we are stronger in, greener in, and fairer in. In today’s globalised world, we can achieve so much more by working together with our closest neighbours, than by going it alone.
The Context of Peace – an institution worth reforming and saving
But I make this speech today, Mr Speaker, not as a lover of everything about the EU. Indeed I understand it when some constituents ask ‘why stay part of an institution with many faults?’, ‘why spend time on reforming the EU when we could leave instead?’
Many concerns about how the EU operates are valid – as indeed there are concerns about how Westminster operates - but they’re not a reason to walk away.
Moreover, such concerns are often exploited by populist political opportunists with toxic xenophobic messages. Outright fearmongering about ‘foreigners’ is again rearing its ugly head across the continent.
What worries me most about the rise of this divisive politics is that it erases from history the series of events that led to the formation of the EU, and is also remarkably complacent about the future.
The EU is not an abstract project born of idle philosophising in continental thinktanks. The imperative to share sovereignty in Europe, and ensure economic competition does not again spill over into conflict, was built on the blood and bones of Europeans killed in the terrible first half of the 20th century.
The EU is a pragmatic response to our failure to manage the forces of nationalism and industrialisation. And I would argue that it has done much to reduce the aggressive ambitions of European elites who have disputed control of the continent for centuries.
So for me, one of the foremost reasons for staying in the EU is because it makes peace more likely.
But we cannot wish away the EU’s problems, nor can we simply urge people to love the EU because of its history of peace-making.
Instead we must be bold in reforming how the EU works, and making sure our constituents have more of a say over what happens at EU level.
Data suggests British people are among the least knowledgeable about the EU. That’s not their fault.
But it does highlight the urgent need to ensure the public are able to be more engaged with EU level policy and legislation.
The fundamental point is that there are dozens of things that can be done – unilaterally, here in the UK – to radically improve accountability and engagement around EU decision making.
And that’s what my Bill is about.
Reforms within the gift of the UK Government
After 10 years working as an MEP in the European parliament, I’m in no doubt that the EU is in need of far-reaching reform.
And one major set of reforms could happen tomorrow – because they are entirely within the gift of the UK government to implement.
No agreement or even discussion is required with other EU countries to make them happen.
These reforms are the subject of the Bill I am presenting today.
The Bill builds on proposals from the Electoral Reform Society, the Hansard Society, the House of Lords EU Committee and the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, who have already done a lot of crucial work in this area.
1. Scrutiny before EC meetings as well as after
One of these proposals is that the UK Parliament as a whole should engage with the Government's negotiating position before European Council meetings as well as after – a practice that is routine in many other Member States. Why are there so few debates on European Council decisions before summits?
We need a more effective model of scrutiny to allow Parliaments to hold the government fully to account regarding its dealings with other European states.
The Hansard Society has pointed to the fact that our system is largely one of document-based scrutiny that takes place only once policy is decided.
We could easily improve the scrutiny of ministers at monthly departmental oral questions – including topical questions - by setting aside specific time for coverage of European issues related to their policy areas.
2. Expansion of Select Committee system
Our Select Committee system should also provide a high-profile powerhouse for scrutinising EU policies.
To make this happen, the UK’s European Scrutiny committee should not just be reactive – it should be given the capacity to proactively choose what to follow up, like a Departmental Select Committee.
Then, we need to raise the profile of this House’s own three European Committees A, B and C, which cover particular government departments. And I have much sympathy with the suggestion that membership of these committees be made permanent, so that experience and expertise can be built up.
The Electoral Reform Society report points out that, in the UK, the House of Lords is considered to provide exemplary scrutiny of the EU, with six sub-committees covering various aspects of EU policy, as well as the stand alone EU Select Committee.
But it is an irony that the part of the British Parliament that provides the greatest scrutiny of the EU is the part that is both unelected and unaccountable. It’s time for this House to step up.
Credit should be given to the European Scrutiny Committee, which has for some time be reviewing the links they have with Departmental Select Committees, for example, examining the role of an informal network of EU contact points on each Select Committee team, as they do in the Scottish Parliament.
The European Scrutiny Committee can require our Departmental Select Committees to provide an opinion on a particular document. However Commons Select Committees do not have to look at legislation, nor do they currently have the capacity to do so. This means coverage of European Union matters can be patchy and inconsistent.
The Commission of Inquiry provided for in this Bill would look at the very strong case for expanding the Commons Select Committee system so it can proactively scrutinise EU proposals and legislation.
However, given the considerable existing workload of our Select Committees and the likely need for some form of sub-committee system on European matters, this would need to be properly resourced – but I believe it could make a real difference to levels of scrutiny and accountability.
1. Devolved administrations rights
We also need better mechanisms to give devolved parliaments and assemblies the ability to hold UK ministers to account at EU negotiations, and devolved ministers should have the right to participate in European Council meetings.
Lords Report and the Green Card
These are just some examples of changes the UK can unilaterally make to improve accountability and scrutiny of EU decision making – indeed a House of Lords EU Committee report in 2015 identified no fewer than 35 measures.
But under this Bill, we should also consider reforms that UK Ministers should champion at an EU level.
The same House of Lords Committee repeated their previous call for a formally recognised ‘green card’ system. At present, this is an informal mechanism intended to enable the parliaments of EU Member States to join forces to make proposals to the European Commission, to initiate EU policy and legislation.
The first ‘green card’, on food waste, was proposed by the House of Lords, and submitted to the Commission in July 2015.
It was ultimately supported by 18 out of the 41 chambers of national parliaments of the EU. This idea for a positive, proactive role for national parliaments to make proposals - and not just react to them - is an important way to revitalise our democratic participation in Europe.
That also means strengthening the role and work of the National Parliament Office in Brussels, so that we can enhance parliamentary co-operation over a wider range of issues across the different member states.
Holding the European Commission to account
The European Commission is one of the less democratic parts of the EU, and we urgently need better ways to hold our European Commissioners to account.
The 28 European Commissioners appointed by Governments act almost like a cabinet, with each Commissioner holding a certain brief. The Commission is too powerful. It proposes EU legislation, manages and implements EU budgets and policies and enforces EU decisions. Yet the channels of representation are byzantine – and there’s a serious lack of transparency about the way we select our Commissioners.
There is a significant gap between the European Commission and the people, a gap that seriously obscures channels of accountability.
To conclude my remarks, Mr Speaker: we need new mechanisms to ensure Parliamentarians undertake a more proactive role.
It is unacceptably and unnecessarily difficult to follow what our Ministers are doing on our behalf in the EU – let alone for parliamentarians and the public to have meaningful input to shape it.
That is a big part of the perceived democratic deficit associated with EU level decision making. There is so much that we could and should be doing – unilaterally, here in the UK - to make that better, as well as actions at EU level.
Of course, there are much bigger reforms that are needed too, for example in terms of the relative powers between the European Parliament and the European Commission. But the purpose of this Bill is to identify the measures we can take her in the UK, right now, if there is sufficient political will. We already have the powers to make the EU more democratic and accountable, if we choose to take them, and there are clear steps we can make towards this aim in this House.
I hope that on 24 June that the UK will not only have voted to remain part of the EU – but that it also grasps the opportunity to reform our continued participation. And with that, we, in this House, can create a positive gateway to a new and revived strand of vital political transparency, participation and accountability.
The reforms I’ve outlined today won’t, in themselves, save the EU from the crisis of accountability it’s facing. But they would help. They will rebalance power – and assist in rebuilding trust in both the UK parliament and in the EU.
And, because of that, I believe these reforms will – in some small way – also protect peace on this continent.
As parliamentarians, we need to insist on genuine and effective reforms in this House that would speak truth to power and let us really participate, as citizens, in the EU - and to that end, I commend this Bill to the House.
Join The Discussion