7 "Comitology" reform
| (a)
(24138)
15878/02
COM(02) 719
(b)
(25615)
9087/04
COM(04) 324
|
Draft Council Decision amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission
Amended draft Council Decision amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission
|
| Legal base | Article 202; consultation; unanimity
|
| Document originated | (b) 22 April 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | (b) 7 May 2004
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 8 June 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | (a) HC 63-xxxii (2002-03), para 10 (17 September 2003) and HC 63-xxxvii (2002-03), para 5 (12 November 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date fixed
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | (a) Cleared
(b) Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
7.1 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 are 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.
7.2 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 proposes that the
choice between the two remaining procedures for measures adopted
under co-decision by Council and European Parliament should be
prescribed and no longer left to the discretion of the legislating
institution.
7.3 In his earlier Explanatory Memoranda of 21 January
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, he questioned whether
the proposed legal base for the measure was adequate or whether
it 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 concern
about the proposed reduction in the number 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.
He 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.
7.4 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 has received the Council Legal Service's opinion.
When the Minister last wrote to us on this matter, he was still
awaiting the Council Legal Service's advice about the proposed
legal base for the measure.
The document
7.5 The Commission's amended proposal (document (b))
is an updated version of its original proposal (document (a))
and includes those of the nine amendments proposed by the European
Parliament with which the Commission agrees. The implications
of the Commission's amended proposal in relation to the originally
proposed text are as follows:
7.6 Recital, paragraph 2: the Commission
has added that the European Parliament must have all relevant
information at its disposal. This is essentially an issue of
information sharing between the Commission and the European Parliament
and is governed by the agreement of 10 October 2000 between those
institutions, which is referred to in this paragraph.
7.7 Recital, paragraph 6: this amendment
makes the original draft clearer and does not contain any substantive
change.
7.8 Recital, paragraph 9a: this additional
paragraph is a reference to the Lamfalussy procedures for dealing
with secondary legislation in the field of security. The Lamfalussy
procedures have recently been extended to cover banking, insurance
and conglomerates.
7.9 Article 2a, paragraph 2: the addition
of "and Article 5(3)" is a consequential amendment to
the Commission's original proposal to abolish Article 8.
7.10 Article 2a, paragraph 3a: the proposed
deletion of this phrase means that the Council of Ministers always
has to react to any European Parliament position that the Commission
proposal is ultra vires. The Council will retain the power
to reject the Parliament's view by a qualified majority.
7.11 Article 5a, paragraph 6: the amended
provision empowers the Commission to apply certain executive measures.
The amendment also extends the deadline within which the Council
and Parliament must raise objections to the measures adopted by
the Commission, by one month.
7.12 Article 7c: this amendment obliges the
Commission to make all the relevant documents available on the
internet.
7.13 All other amendments are technical in nature
and do not contain any substantive changes.
The Government's view
7.14 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 8 June 2004
the Minister emphasises that the amendments to the Commission's
original proposal do not change the UK's position on the existing
proposal for a revised comitology system, updated in a letter
to us of 4 November 2003. He welcomes the proposed amendments
except for the proposed changes to Article 5a, paragraph 6, which
the Government supports subject to the proviso that the proposed
addition of the words "and apply" would not constrict
the operation of the Lamfalussy system.
7.15 He adds:
"Although the Commission has published an updated
proposal in the light of the European Parliament's Opinion (in
accordance with provisions set out in Article 202 of the Treaties),
the Council does not envisage taking this proposal forward until
the outcome of the IGC is known. The Constitutional Treaty proposes
a significant review of the comitology provisions, and consequently
the Council believes that this should be agreed before further
reform (at a secondary level) is considered. It is worth noting
that the Dutch do not intend to push this during their Presidency
in the second half of this year, and, whilst Luxembourg has not
set out its priorities, it is possible that they will not be in
a position to concentrate on this either in the first half of
2005."
Conclusion
7.16 We thank the Minister for his comments on
the amended Commission proposal. We note the Government's reservations
about the proposed addition of the words "and apply"
in Article 5a of the proposal. We ask the Minister to send us
word as soon as the Government has reached a conclusion as to
whether or not this amendment is likely to affect the operation
of the Lamfalussy system.
7.17 We also look forward to receiving further
information concerning the advice of the Council Legal Service
regarding the adequacy of the proposed legal base for the proposal.
7.18 We clear the original, superseded proposal
(document (a)) but will continue to hold the current proposal
(document (b)) under scrutiny until we have received further information
from the Minister.
| 
