Out of REACH? Parliamentary Control of EU Affairs in the Netherlands and the UK

Abstract

The role of national parliaments in European integration is a topical issue in current political and academic debates. This article aims to contribute to these debates by formulating three hypotheses on the differences in parliamentary scrutiny between member states. It is hypothesised that due to differences in the structure of political systems, the British and Dutch Upper and Lower House hold their respective governments to account in different ways. The hypotheses will be discussed in light of empirical findings on the EU regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation, and restriction of chemical substances (REACH). The empirical evidence provides a mixed picture with regard to these claims.

Keywords:

• European Union
• national parliaments
• REACH
• Netherlands
• United Kingdom

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Marieke Kanen for her research assistance.

Notes

Jaime Gama, Speaker of the Portuguese Assembleia da Republica, Fourth joint meeting on the future of Europe, European Parliament, Brussels, December 2007.

Regulation EC 2006/1907, OJ L 396, 30 December 2006.

Because of the scope and high salience of the REACH dossier, this case has only limited potential for generalisation. However, there are some indications that the REACH regulation is less atypical than it looks at first glance. In recent years far-reaching and highly controversial legislation such as the Bolkestein Directive and the Port Services Directive were adopted or, in the case of the latter, negotiated and later withdrawn. If more controversial legislation is proposed at the EU level in the future, the generalisability of the conclusions of this article may be somewhat extended.

This abbreviation stands for Strategienota Omgaan met Stoffen (Strategy on Management of Substances). This policy document is drawn up by the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and created the framework within which the Dutch government determined its position in the REACH negotiations.

VROM stands for Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. Within this article the terms VROM and Dutch Ministry of Environment will be used.

For the Dutch case 150 parliamentary documents were analysed. These were obtained via www.overheid.nl/op and parlando.sdu.nl/cgi/login/anonymous. Parliamentary documents for the British case were collected via www.parliament.uk and resulted in over 80 documents. The documents encompassed minutes of plenary debates in the Upper and Lower House, minutes of debates of parliamentary committees, letters to ministers and responses of ministers, letters of the cabinet on the state of affairs and the establishment of the Dutch and British position, and reports on Council discussions on REACH. The cross-checking of findings was especially necessary to map the events leading up to the decisions with regard to the REACH regulation on the EU level and in the UK and the Netherlands. The information obtained from the interviews was not in contradiction with the information collected from the Commission and Council documents on REACH, but was much more detailed because it consisted of first-hand information.

The indicators for measuring scrutiny are the questions asked by parliamentarians in the Upper and Lower House to the executive in order to obtain and process information and follow up on it. The use of the scrutiny rights was measured through looking at instruments such as the use of parliamentary reserves and the occurrence of public hearings. These indicators were used for both the UK and the Netherlands and also shed light on the dependent variables of the second and third hypotheses, i.e. on the involvement of the Upper and Lower House, and the discussions in plenary debates and/or committee meetings.

National parliaments with extensive scrutiny rights – like the Danish parliament – are more likely to optimise and not maximise the use of their powers. A maximising of parliamentary powers can lead to a paralysis of EU affairs.

BNC is an abbreviation for Beoordeling Nieuwe Commissie-voorstellen (Assessment of New Commission Proposals).

The term implementation refers here to delegation of powers of the legislator(s) to the Commission by way of comitology committees or by way of agencies such as ECHA.

This Agency was set up in 2007 in Helsinki to manage the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction processes for chemical substances and to ensure consistency across the European Union.