21 Transparency in the Council
| (a)
(27075)
14495/05
(b)
(27197)
15834/05
+ ADD 1
|
Presidency note on transparency in the Council
Draft Council conclusions on improving openness and transparency in the Council
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 13 March 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 34-xvii (2005-06), para 4 (1 February 2006) and see HC 38-xiv (2004-05), HC 152-xxxiii (2001-02) paras 20-21
|
| Discussed in Council | 21 December 2006
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
21.1 Previous Committees have criticised the private nature of
meetings of the Council. In its report of 12 June 2002 on Democracy
and Accountability and the Role of National Parliaments, the previous
Committee 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.
21.2 The then Committee welcomed the view of the
Government that all the Council's legislative proceedings should
be in public. In its report on Aspects of the EU's Constitutional
Treaty,[82] the previous
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.
21.3 On 1 February 2006 we considered a UK Presidency
note (document (a)) set out two options for increasing the accessibility
of the public to the work of the Council. 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. The second "less ambitious" option would have
been to open up all stages of Council deliberations, but only
where the Council was acting under the co-decision procedure.
21.4 We noted from the draft Council conclusions
(document (b)) that only a limited form of the second option had
been adopted. The conclusions 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" is to be
displayed visibly on the television screen relaying the vote to
the public. We noted that the Netherlands and Sweden had made
a declaration welcoming the practical measures outlined in the
conclusions as a first step to improve the openness and transparency
of the Council's formal sessions, but underlining 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" and stating that such demands could be
met by making all stages of Council deliberations on legislative
acts open to the public as a general rule.
21.5 We noted the explanation from the Minister that
the UK supported the option of opening up the Council for all
legislative business, unless the Council decided otherwise, but
that it proved possible to reach agreement only on the second
option during the UK Presidency.
21.6 We welcomed the decision to broadcast all public
debates by streaming on the internet, but considered the overall
outcome to be disappointing. We saw 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 was
being followed. We noted that 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 asked the Minister to explain the reasons why public
access to the Council's legislative deliberations was being limited
in this way and why, given the Government's preference for the
first of the options in its paper, the UK did not join the Netherlands
and Sweden in their declaration.
21.7 We also asked the Minister to confirm that the
references to meeting in public in this context meant only the
broadcasting of the proceedings to a room to which the public
had access, and that the visible display of the "outcome
of a vote" would identify the votes of individual Member
States.
The Minister's reply
21.8 In his letter of 13 March 2006 the Minister
for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Douglas
Alexander) replies to our concerns. The Minister notes our disappointment
with the overall outcome, but seeks to reassure us that the UK
objective "remains to push for all of the Council's legislative
business to be opened up to the public". The Minister adds
that the more ambitious option favoured by the UK would have required
a change to the Council's rules of procedure and that "in
the end other Member States' positions meant that we were simply
not able to reach agreement to change the Rules of Procedure during
our Presidency".
21.9 The Minister states that he agrees with us that
there is more to done on transparency, and notes that the conclusions
mean that the Council must return to the issue this year. The
Minister informs us that Austria intends to take forward discussions
on transparency during its Presidency and that "given reticence
within the Council initially, this is a positive outcome".
The Minister concludes that "we achieved as much as was negotiable
in the short term, and have kept on the table the long-term objective
of opening up Councils across the board".
21.10 In reply to our question why the UK did not
join the Netherlands and Sweden in their declaration calling for
all stages of the Council deliberations on legislative acts to
be open to the public as a general rule, the Minister states that
the Government fully supported those views, but that "as
Presidency we did not deem it appropriate for the UK to join their
declaration".
21.11 The Minister confirms that references to the
Council meeting in public mean that the proceedings will be broadcast
to a room to which the public has access, and that the new provisions
will make it possible to identify votes of individual Member States.
Conclusion
21.12 We thank the Minister for his reply, and
welcome his statement that it remains the Government's objective
to open up all of the Council's legislative business to the public.
As we have commented before, we do not consider that there is
any principled reason for confining public access to cases where
the co-decision procedure applies.
21.13 We note the Minister's view that the UK,
as the Presidency, did not deem it "appropriate" to
join the Netherlands and Sweden in their declaration, even though
it appears that the Government shared those views. We find this
reply feeble and we regret the lack of leadership which was shown
on this issue.
21.14 We welcome the fact that the broadcasting
of proceedings will identify the votes of individual Member States
and we look forward to further accounts by the Minister of any
progress in opening up all legislative Councils to public scrutiny.
We now clear the documents.
82 HC 38-xiv (2004-05) Back
| 
