No European directive should be enacted or enforced by secondary legislation in a stricter way than is the practice in any other European country deemed compliant for that directive by the European Commission.

It is estimated that over two thirds of new laws and regulations are linked to European Union directives. British people and businesses are fairly long suffering and will accept most regulations as part of the burden of living in a democratic society.  However the area that most arouses their fury is when they perceive that under the cloak of European requirements the British Government legislates in a way that is significantly more onerous than is the case in other member states. This is encapsulated in the phrase 'the level playing field'.  Whether it is a much publicised prosecution of a cheese producer, the selling of apples by pounds or the regulations on road transport, it is the inequity of the British approach which generates the headlines.  

EU directives typically set out a minimum level of standards on the particular issue in a directive of a few pages.  However the responsibility for citizen and consumer protection is that of individual Governments and therefore European directives have to be translated into national legislation.  A particular UK concern is that of 'gold-plating' which is where the UK goes beyond the minimum required by a European directive in promulgating a UK regulation whose basis is that directive.  In the UK the authority for making such regulations derives from Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.  This Section authorises regulations to be made for the purpose of

• 'implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom', or
• 'dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation'.

This very broad power can be used to over-ride or amend existing Acts of Parliament and this machinery to amend the law is very attractive to officials since the Statutory Instrument procedure is subject to much less Parliamentary scrutiny than a Bill.  Therefore the use of regulations under Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act has ballooned enormously over the years and many important or controversial changes to the law are made by this route.  

These regulations and other EU matters are meant to be reviewed in the Commons by a special Select Committee called the European Scrutiny Committee.  However the Committee does not have the power to take any substantive votes.  The Committee itself described its role as solely 'sifting EU documents on behalf of the House'.  It deliberates in secret, except when interviewing ministers and other non-members, which makes it harder for other MPs and the general public to know what is happening.  Even if a proposed document is referred to one of the three European Standing Committees then this is likely to have little EU expertise and usually a low attendance.   

In a 2004 Review, the then Leader of the House Peter Hain admitted:

'The European Standing Committees have not worked out as it was hoped. It is hard to persuade Members to serve on them. Few other Members think them worth attending. Their proceedings have a ritualistic quality, and are largely devoid of much political interest; yet they consume a lot of time and effort. There is a very strong case for reform.'  

However there has been no significant reform.

The inadequate nature of Parliamentary scrutiny of EU documents is shown in the following table where it can be seen that in 2008-9 there were 941 EU documents received at Westminster of which 443 were deemed to be important but only 32 were debated in a European Standing Committee and only 5 on the floor of the House:

It is therefore proposed that the European Scrutiny Committee be reformed.  In addition each departmental Select Committee will be given the power to review each Statutory Instrument to ensure that it is not being used for any purpose not required by the original EU directive.

The Jury Team Latest

• State School Head Teachers concur with Jury Team’s policy
  A number of Head Teachers and Governors from state schools have signed a letter ... [more]
• Gordon Brown … you might just hang yourself, let alone Parliament
  Perhaps the best result the Tories could have is this: Conservatives – ... [more]
• Hung Parliament …. “What happened next?”
  Get ready! It seems like a Hung Parliament is a’coming. So, swot up ahead ... [more]

Follow The Jury Team