4 TRANSPARENCY IN THE COUNCIL
(a)
(27075)
14495/05
+ ADD1
(b)
(27197)
15834/05
|
Presidency note on transparency in the Council
Draft Council conclusions on improving openness and transparency in the Council
|
| Legal base | —
|
| Document originated | (a) 18 November 2005
(b) 15 December 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
18 January 2006 |
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 19 January 2006 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None; but see HC 38-xiv (2004-05), HC 152-xxxiii (2001-02), paras 20-21 (12 June 2002)
|
| Discussed in Council | 21 December 2005
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
4.1 Previous Committees have drawn attention on a number of occasions
to the strong criticism of the fact that the Council meets almost
entirely in private, despite much of its work being legislative.[37]
In its report of 12 June 2002 on Democracy and Accountability
and the Role of National Parliaments, it commented that for the
Council to legislate in private was not only objectionable in
principle, but also produced specific harmful effects. First,
it was impossible for national parliaments and electorates to
hold Ministers to account if it was not clear how they had acted
in the Council. Secondly, it was easy for Governments to blame
'Brussels' for decisions they might themselves have agreed to.
Thirdly, it could result in deals which no Government fully accountable
to its own Parliament would have agreed to, and finally it made
the Council (and thus a large part of the EU's activity) largely
invisible to the citizen.
4.2 The then Committee nevertheless welcomed the
fact that the Government was in favour of the Council meeting
in public when legislating, and shared the Government's view that
all the Council's legislative proceedings should be in public.
The then Committee also took the view that to confine public meetings
of the Council when legislating to areas subject to co-decision
would be "totally unacceptable".
4.3 In its report on Aspects of the EU's Constitutional
Treaty,[38] the previous
Committee noted the decision of the Seville European Council in
June 2002 that there would be more meetings of the Council in
public, but also noted that the Council still normally legislated
in private. Bearing in mind the comments made by Statewatch about
the nature of public meetings, and that these should be accessible
not only to those few who could be physically present in Brussels,
the Committee recommended that the Government should press for
public meetings of the Council to be broadcast and webcast and
for there to be an official transcript. The previous Committee
also recommended that the Government press for the Council to
start meeting in public and that it use the UK Presidency as an
opportunity to achieve this in 2005.
The UK Presidency note
4.4 The UK Presidency note (document (a)) set out
two options for increasing the accessibility of the public to
the work of the Council (or "increasing the level of transparency"
as it is described in the note). The first option would have widened
the scope of public sessions of the Council to cover all stages
of deliberation where the Council acts in a legislative capacity.
This would have required an amendment to the Council's Rules of
Procedure, and would have made it the normal practice for the
Council to meet in public when acting in a legislative capacity.
However, it would have been open to the Council, or COREPER, to
decide that a particular debate was not to be held in public.
4.5 In what is described as a "less ambitious"
alternative, all stages of Council deliberations would be opened
up, but only where the Council was acting under the co-decision
procedure.
4.6 The second option in the note would have involved
a political declaration by the Council committing itself to greater
transparency within the existing Rules of Procedure. Under this
option, the Council would interpret the term "final Council
deliberations" as including all deliberations under the co-decision
procedure (and not merely those on which a vote might be called),
so that these would be held in public. It is also suggested that
the Council could agree to hold more public debates on important
new legislative proposals other than those covered by the co-decision
procedure.
4.7 The note suggests that either of the options
could, or should, be combined with practical and innovative measures
designed to facilitate access to the Council's proceedings, such
as better advertising and access to the press room. The note recalls
that steps have already been taken to broadcast the proceedings
of public Council debates through video-streaming via the internet
from the summer of 2006.
The Council conclusions
4.8 The draft Council conclusions (document (b))
were agreed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 21 December
2005. It is apparent from these that the Council adopted only
a limited form of the second option. It agreed that where the
Commission gives an oral presentation to the Council of a legislative
proposal under the co-decision procedure, such presentation and
the resulting debate are to be open to the public.[39]
It also agreed that all final Council deliberations on legislative
proposals under the co-decision procedure will be open to the
public. "Final" in this context denotes debates which
take place in the Council once the other institutions or bodies
have submitted their opinions.
4.9 The conclusions also indicate that when drawing
up the agenda for each Council, COREPER "may consider"
making other deliberations on co-decision items also open to the
public.
4.10 The conclusions also state that the vote on
all legislative acts adopted under the co-decision procedure is
to be taken in public, and that the "outcome of the vote"[40]
is to be displayed visibly on the television screen relaying the
vote to the public. The conclusions announce that the Council
will in future hold more debates in public on important new legislative
proposals on items other than those falling under the co-decision
procedure, and that the Presidency may propose that the Council
should decide that deliberations on non-legislative items may
be held in public "if they involve important issues affecting
the interests of the Union and its citizens".
4.11 Annexed to the conclusions is a declaration
by the Netherlands and Sweden. These two Member States welcome,
as a first step, the practical measures outlined in the conclusions
to improve the openness and transparency of the Council's formal
sessions. However, the Netherlands and Sweden also underline the
need "to go beyond these practical measures to fully meet
the demands for increased transparency from both EU and national
institutions and from citizens". The Netherlands and Sweden
state that such demands could be met by making all stages of Council
deliberations on legislative acts open to the public as a general
rule.
The Government's view
4.12 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19 January
2006 the Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Mr Douglas Alexander) explains that the UK put forward two options
in its paper. The first option, which the UK supported, proposed
opening up the Council for all legislative business, unless the
Council decided otherwise. The second, less ambitious, option
proposed a political commitment to better implementation of the
current rules.
4.13 The Minister reports that, following negotiations
in Brussels, it proved possible to reach agreement only on the
second option during the UK Presidency. The Minister describes
the conclusions as reinforcing the political commitment to transparency,
making some incremental improvements and important practical changes
and requiring the Council to review the arrangements in 2006.
The Minister informs us that the Austrian Presidency has acknowledged
that the initial proposals for public debate may have to be revised
in the light of these conclusions.
4.14 The Minister explains that the main immediate
effect of the conclusions is that all co-decision items on which
the Council can take a decision "will be open to the public
from now on", and that the current arrangements have operated
more narrowly in that normally only the final vote and preceding
remarks are open to the public. The Minister notes that the conclusions
also require the grouping of Council agendas to facilitate public
debate and the broadcasting of all public debates by streaming
on the internet by June. The Minister considers that "this
latter point in particular could revolutionise awareness of Council
proceedings".
Conclusion
4.15 It is evident that some progress has been
made during the UK Presidency, and we welcome, in particular,
the decision to webcast public debates of the Council.
4.16 However, the overall outcome is disappointing.
There seems to us to be no reason of principle why the opening
to the public of legislative proceedings of the Council should
be limited to cases where the co-decision procedure is being followed.
This would effectively exclude public access in relation to
legislative deliberations in the field of justice and home affairs
as well as common foreign and security policy. We recall, in this
connection, the view of the previous Committee that to confine
public meetings of the Council to the co-decision procedure would
be "totally unacceptable".
4.17 We therefore ask the Minister to explain
the reasons for limiting public access to the Council's legislative
deliberations to cases where the co-decision procedure is applied.
4.18 We note the declaration made by the Netherlands
and Sweden and we agree with those views. Given the Government's
preference for the first of the options in its paper, we ask the
Minister why the UK did not join the Netherlands and Sweden in
their declaration.
4.19 We also ask the Minister to confirm that
the references to meeting in public in this context mean only
the broadcasting of the proceedings to a room to which the public
has access, and that the visible display of the "outcome
of a vote" will be such as to identify the votes of individual
Member States.
4.20 We shall hold the documents under scrutiny
pending the Minister's reply.
37 The then Committee noted that this appeared to be
a characteristic shared only with the Supreme People's Assembly
of North Korea. Back
38
HC 38-xiv (2004-05). Back
39
We understand that in this context "open to the public"
means broadcast to the Council's press room. Back
40
We understand that the expression "outcome of the vote"
will list the 25 Member States, with its voting weight and the
way each has voted. Back
| 
