Parliamentary Questions as an Example of Operational Cohesion

Abstract

Contemporary analyses of the activity of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) tend to focus on their participation in votes, work in committees and speeches made during debates. Questions as a manifestation of parliamentary activity, at the levels of both national legislatures and the European Parliament (EP), are considered a less significant form of parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, however, they not only illustrate the activity of parliamentarians, but are a manifestation of certain functions performed by MPs, both those enshrined in parliamentary rules of procedure and those performed informally (e.g. on behalf of lobbyists) (de Dios & Wiberg, 2011; Martin, 2011). In the context of the EP, the broadly outlined normative basis of questions as a category of MEPs’ activity is noteworthy. It includes questions requiring oral answers and debate (Rule 136 of the Rules of Procedure of the EP), questions asked during monthly sessions (Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the EP), as well as questions requiring the addressees to respond in writing (Rule 138 of the Rules of Procedure and Annex III). Regardless of the prominence of questions themselves compared to other tools of parliamentary scrutiny, their introduction into EP procedures, as well as their significant popularity among MEPs, clearly demonstrate the growth of the EP’s attributes as a parliamentary body (Roca et al., 2009, p. 209). A complementary element of a survey of parliamentary activity could also be an analysis of the contribution of individual MEPs to parliamentary debates in the form of speeches delivered in plenary sessions and written statements concerning debates (in accordance with Rule 204 and Rule 171(11) of the Rules of Procedure of the EP).

The text presents the results of research funded under National Science Centre grant no. 2016/23/B/HS5/03750