5 "Comitology" reform
| (24138)
15878/02
COM(02) 719
| Draft Council Decision amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.
|
| Legal base | Articles 202 and 211 EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 4 November 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xii (2002-03), paragraph 4 (12 February 2003) and HC 63-xxxii (2002-03), paragraph 10 (17 September 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date fixed
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
5.1 Comitology is the system of committees which oversees the
exercise by the European Commission of legislative powers delegated
to it by the Council and the European Parliament. "Comitology"
committees are made up of representatives of the Member States
and chaired by the Commission. Under Council Decision 1999/468/EC,
which currently governs the comitology process, there are three
types of procedure (advisory, management and regulatory),
an important difference between which is the degree of involvement
and power of Member States' representatives.
5.2 Comitology has come under criticism as forming
part of the EU's "democratic deficit". The Commission's
proposal addresses many of the criticisms made of comitology,
and seeks to reform the existing comitology process in several
ways. First the proposal seeks to strengthen the role of the
European Parliament in the comitology decision-making process
by granting the Parliament co-decision status with the Council
during the supervisory phase of the comitology process. Secondly,
the Commission proposes to reduce the number of Committee procedures
from three to two and to abolish the management procedure currently
available under the 1999 Decision. Thirdly, it envisages that
the choice between the two remaining procedures in relation to
measures adopted under co-decision by Council and European Parliament
should be prescribed and no longer left to the discretion of the
legislating institution.
5.3 In his earlier Explanatory Memoranda of 21 January
2003 and 4 September 2003 the Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane)
indicated that the Government agreed there was a need to reform
the present system of comitology but had a number of reservations
about the Commission's proposal. First the Minister questioned
whether the proposed legal bases for the measure were adequate
or whether their adoption went beyond the scope of the existing
treaties by giving additional powers to the European Parliament
in comitology. He informed us that the Government was seeking
advice from the Council Legal Service on this point. Secondly,
the Minister expressed some concern about the proposed reduction
of committee procedures on the grounds that the lighter advisory
procedure, which would assume greater importance under the proposal,
did not accord Member States the same degree of influence as other
existing procedures. The Minister added, however, that the Government
was nevertheless examining whether there were some measures currently
adopted under the management procedure which could be moved to
the lighter advisory procedure. At the same time, he said, the
Government was clear that the adoption of time-sensitive, health
and safety and safeguard-type measures in the veterinary and phyto-sanitary
field, as well as implementing measures in areas not subject to
co-decision, should continue to be subject to the existing regulatory
procedures.
5.4 In our previous Reports, we endorsed the Minister's
concerns about the proposals. In particular, we shared his reservations
about the adequacy of the proposed legal base for the measure,
and we asked him for further information on this point once the
Government had received the Council Legal Service's opinion.
We also asked the Minister whether the list of time-sensitive
and health-related measures as well as implementing measures in
areas not subject to co-decision was meant to be exhaustive, so
that the Government would be happy to see any other measure adopted
under the advisory procedure.
The Minister's letter
5.5 In his letter of 4 November 2003, the Minister
writes as follows:
"I stated in my letter of 4 September that the
Government was awaiting advice from the Council Legal Service
on whether the Commission proposal went beyond the scope of the
existing Treaties. The Council Legal Service has not yet produced
that advice. I shall write to you again on this point, once I
know the views of the Council Legal Service.
"My letter also stated the Government's view
that the flexibility of the three existing comitology procedures
(i.e. regulatory, management and advisory) has worked well hitherto.
Therefore we see benefits in continuing to use the management
procedure for implementing measures under co-decided legislation,
although we are examining whether some measures currently adopted
under the management procedure could be moved to the advisory
procedure. We would therefore not be in favour of all measures
adopted under the regulatory procedure automatically falling to
the advisory procedure. Rather, we would want some of these measures
to continue to be adopted under the management procedure.
"My letter contained a list of measures that
the Government would wish to see adopted under the regulatory
procedure. Although that list is indicative, it does cover the
majority of the areas that we would wish to be covered by the
regulatory procedure.
"There have not been any meetings of the Friends
of the Presidency Group on comitology since I last wrote to you.
The Group last met on 2 May 2003.
Conclusion
5.6 We thank the Minister for keeping us informed
about the Government's thinking about the proposed measure. We
note that the Government continues to have reservations about
the proposed reduction to only two comitology procedures and favours
the retention of the existing management procedure under the proposed
co-decision comitology regime.
5.7 We ask the Minister whether the proposed comitology
reforms are intended to continue to operate under the new system
of non-legislative acts and delegated regulations proposed under
the draft Constitutional Treaty. If so, we ask the Minister for
his views on the likely combined effect of reforming the comitology
system and a new regime for delegated legislation. In particular
we ask the Minister for assurance that that combined effect will
not be a further erosion of Member States' control over delegated
legislation. If the proposed measure is not intended to continue
operating under the Constitutional Treaty, we ask the Minister
for further information about any comitology committee system
envisaged under that draft Treaty. We also look forward to receiving
further information concerning the advice of the Council Legal
Service once the Minister has received it.
5.8 We shall continue to hold the proposal under
scrutiny until we have received further information from the Minister.
| 
