The Government must explain who will take over from Brussels
officials in ensuring British ministers and legislators meet
their agreed obligations to the EU after Brexit, demands a new
report.
In Supervision after Brexit, published today, the
Institute for Government (IfG) argues that there is a hole in the
Government’s Brexit proposals: the Government has made proposals
on the resolution of legal disputes and the role of the European
Court, but ministers have not explained who will take over the
‘supervisory’ role of the European Commission and EU agencies.
The IfG’s research shows that disagreements between the UK and
the EU tend to be resolved through a “supervision” process – the
exchange of letters and information between the European
Commission, regulators and the Government. Most cases never reach
court.
The paper says that this supervision process will be particularly
important if the UK is to retain the unprecedented market access
the Government has said it wants. That access would be based on
close alignment with and adherence to many EU rules and will
depend on the EU having confidence in the UK meeting its agreed
obligations.
The report sets out various options. The UK could ask the
European Commission to keep doing these jobs even after Brexit.
Alternatively, the “joint committee” of UK and EU officials that
oversee the agreement could be beefed up with a secretariat doing
supervision work.
If the UK wanted to “take back control” of supervision, it could
create a new dedicated supervisory authority to keep the rest of
government in-check or distribute supervisory functions to
various existing departments and regulators.
There are difficult design issues for Government to grapple with,
the authors say. If the UK does want to build a homegrown
supervisory body, the Government must find a way to guarantee
that it is sufficiently independent of ministers.
If such a body were to face the threat of abolition when it
caused political problems for the Government, it would not be
able to hold ministers to account. The solution could be to make
supervisory bodies accountable directly to Parliament rather than
to government departments, the report suggests.
Raphael Hogarth, IfG Associate and report author, said:
“If the Government wants a long-term relationship with the EU
that is built on cooperation, it needs to answer this fundamental
question: who will keep a watchful eye on ministers, regulators
and legislators to make sure that they are respecting the
treaties? And who will send a strongly worded letter when they
are sailing too close to the wind?”
Jill Rutter, IfG Programme Director, added:
“A well thought-through system for supervision will provide more
certainty to citizens and business that the rights the UK has
committed to observe will be upheld – something Parliament has
expressed concern about during the passage of the Withdrawal Act.
A new supervisory body should also be able to act as a broker if
any future conflicts arise between the UK and the devolved
governments in relation to the future UK-EU relationship.”
ENDS
