IS THE MONOPOLY A GOOD THING?
144. Lord Brittan of Spennithorne favoured continuing
the present position. Looking at the historical position: "The
whole thing is a great bargain of some genius". The founders
of the EU did not want to create a federation (or at least recognised
that would not get support) but wanted continuity and momentum.
The "ingenious idea was to create a body which was not a
government … which would have continuity and give that body
the unique right of proposal … but leaving it to the Member
States to decide whether or not to accept the proposals".
He did not think anything had happened that suggested that balance
was wrong, and to move away from the current position would mean
either inertia or a move in a federal direction. (Q 95)
145. Lord Kinnock agreed. He considered the monopoly
gave substance to the Commission's roles as guardian of the treaties
and enforcer of the law. It is the body which has to follow through
the policies adopted by the Union, and thus contributes to the
coherence of policy. (Q 117) Ideas may come from other sources
but they have to be costed; account must be taken of the economic
and environmental implications, and the effects on the Single
Market; consultation has be undertaken; and an assessment must
be made of the balance of opinion among the Member States. That
is the role of the Commission. "That is not a jealous protection
of the right of initiative; this is a pragmatic view of what is
and is not likely to work". (Q 119)
146. Catherine Day thought there were many reasons
why the right of initiative makes sense today. The Commission
works full-time in the European interest. It helps to make sure
that proposals reflect a balance of interests across the EU, not
those of the more powerful states or particular groups of states.
In a union of 27 states, the legislating institutions would have
great difficulty sifting through proposals if they could come
forward from any of the states and, perhaps, also from the Parliament
or its members. She added that the way in which the right of initiative
is exercised has evolved over the years with the development of
the roles of the other institutions and the culture of consultation.
(Q 334)
147. If support for the continued monopoly from
the Secretary General of the Commission and two former Commissioners
is perhaps unremarkable, more telling might be the view of the
European Parliament. David Harley told us that the Parliament
does "not quarrel with the Commission's right of initiative",
describing it as part of the balance between the institutions
which the Parliament considers important and to have worked satisfactorily.
He noted an "unspoken trade-off between … the Commission's
exclusive right of initiative and the Parliament's right and duty
to hold the Commission to account". This had worked well
up to now and was an important part of the EU system. (Q 398)
As to accountability, Professor Rasmussen drew our attention
to the requirement which would be introduced under the Treaty
of Lisbon for the Commission to give reasons where it decides
not to bring forward a legislative proposal in response to a request
from the European Parliament or the Council (Articles 225 and
241 TFEU). (Q 34)
148. The Minister for Europe told us that the
Government are generally content that the Commission has the right
of initiative. (Q 440) The retention by the Commission of
a core set of powers was of "fundamental importance to effective
governance of the European Union". (Q 450) Like a number
of other witnesses, he thought some proposals arising from the
Member States' right of initiative in the third pillar did not
deserve the support of the Council because they showed a lack
of preparation or forethought as to their impact on other states.
The change proposed in the Treaty of Lisbon, to require Member
State initiatives to secure the support of seven states reflected
the fact that proposals without at least a degree of support were
unlikely to progress. (Q 441)
