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 base | Article 202; consultation; unanimity
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's Letter of 1 June 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 42-xxiii (2003-04), para 7 (16 June 2004)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date fixed
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not 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.
|
