Select Committee on European Scrutiny Thirty-First Report


6 Comitology Reform

(25615)

9087/04

COM(04) 324

Draft Decision amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission

Legal baseArticle 202; consultation; unanimity
DepartmentForeign and Commonwealth Office
Basis of considerationMinister's Letter of 1 June 2006
Previous Committee ReportHC 42-xxiii (2003-04), para 7 (16 June 2004)
To be discussed in CouncilNo date fixed
Committee's assessmentLegally and politically important
Committee's decisionNot cleared; further information requested

Background

6.1 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.

6.2 Comitology has come under criticism as forming part of the EU's "democratic deficit". The Commission's proposal, which slightly amends an earlier version, 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.

6.3 When the previous Committee last looked at this proposal it decided to hold it under scrutiny and ask the Minister to provide it with further information concerning the advice of the Council Legal Service regarding the adequacy of the proposed legal base for the proposal as well as information about any further developments on this matter.

The Minister's Letter

6.4 The Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has now written as follows:

    "I am writing to update you as negotiations to reform comitology procedures near their conclusions I apologise for not writing sooner.

    "The UK Presidency set up a Friends of the Presidency working group last September to discuss reform of comitology procedures. The working group took as its starting point the Commission's proposal of 2002, revised in 2004, to amend the 1999 Comitology Decision. Our main aim was to reach a reform that would give the European Parliament more of a say in implementing co-decided legislation.

    "The Austrian Presidency has taken forward negotiations, has assembled a compromise text and discussed it with MEPs. In summary, the main points of the new 'regulatory with scrutiny' procedure are as follows:
  • It shall apply when the implementing measures are amending non-essential elements of the basic instrument;
  • The scrutiny procedure differs depending on whether the Committee has approved these measures;
  • If it has, the draft measures go to the Council and the Parliament and either institution can oppose them on certain grounds within 3 months;
  • If the draft measures are not approved, the measures are sent to the Council and Parliament at the same time but the Council must first decide whether it has any objection to them within two months. If it has no objection, the Parliament has four months from receipt to oppose the measures on certain grounds;
  • There is provision for the time limits to be extended by one month or to be shortened; and
  • The Council and Parliament can make provision for implementing measures to have provisional application on grounds of urgency.

    "I believe this text meets the UK's principal objectives for comitology reform, namely:

    a)  There is no change to the management procedure. The Member States agreed early in the negotiation to a limited reform dealing with quasi-legislative measures which are to be found in the current regulatory procedure;

    b)  To prevent the Commission going ahead with a proposal over the objections of the Council or the European Parliament. Under the Presidency proposal, the Commission will need to submit an amended draft or a legislative proposal if either the Council or Parliament objects to its draft. It is possible, however, for the Council and Parliament to provide for application of an urgency procedure where the time limits for scrutiny cannot be met. This would allow the Commission to give the measure provisional application and also to maintain it in force after objection by either the Council or Parliament until replaced by a definitive instrument. The safeguards on this latter power are that the Committee must have approved the draft and keeping the measure in force has to be justified on health protection, safety or environmental grounds;

    c)  To allow the European Parliament to be able to object to measures on the grounds of their substance and not just on the grounds that proposals may be 'ultra vires'. The Presidency proposal provides that the Parliament and Council can oppose draft implementing measures on the grounds that the measures exceed the implementing powers, or are not compatible with the aim or content of the basic instrument or do not respect proportionality or subsidiarity. We understand from the Presidency that the Parliament is content with this which is our primary objective.

    "In addition, the amended Decision provides for the European Parliament to be informed by the Commission of committee proceedings on a regular basis following arrangements which ensure that the transmission system is transparent. The Presidency has also negotiated a minutes statement to be made jointly by the Council, Parliament and Commission. The current draft indicates that implementing powers will normally be conferred on the Commission without time limit and so sunset clauses should no longer be routinely included in Lamfalussy measures (which are related to EU directives on financial services). It will also list those existing measures which should be adjusted to the new procedure as a matter of urgency although the content of this list has not yet been settled.

    "There is general agreement among Member States on the text of the proposal and the details of the minutes statement are close to being finalised and agreed with Parliament and the Commission. However, one Member State has raised an issue concerning the voting requirements in the Council in that it wants a simple majority of Member States to be in favour of the implementing measures before they can be adopted. This would overturn the current practice that the Council requires a qualified majority to oppose the Commission's proposal. We are content to keep the current practice and believe such concerns are best addressed by ensuring that the most politically sensitive matters are dealt with through the normal co-decision procedure rather than through comitology.

    "I hope that this outstanding issue can be resolved shortly so that Parliament can be re-consulted on the text and agreement reached.

    "At paragraphs 7.16 and 7.17 of your Committee's 23rd Report dated 16 June 2004, you raised two points in relation to the amended Commission proposal. The first has been superseded by the new text. The second concerned the adequacy of the proposed legal base. The Presidency text has been carefully drafted with regard to the limits of what is possible under Article 202. I am therefore now satisfied that the legal base is adequate.

    "I shall update you further when the outstanding issues are resolved."

Conclusion

6.5 We thank the Minister for his comprehensive update and comments on the latest Presidency text.

6.6 We ask the Minister to deposit a copy of the Presidency text and to explain further the considerations on which the Minister considers that the proposed legal base is adequate.

6.7 We shall hold the document under scrutiny pending the Minister's reply.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 26 June 2006