Examination of Witness (Questions 388-399)
Mr David Harley
8 MAY 2008
Q388 Chairman: Thank you very much for coming.
There will be a transcript, we will send you a copy and if there
are any points on it I am sure you will let us know. If there
are any supplementary thoughts, please let us know too. Any interests
which members have are recorded in the Lords' Register. As you
know, this is an inquiry into the initiation of legislation and
obviously that is a matter of increasing interest for the European
Parliament, or will be, as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. In view
of the time, can I ask if there are any preliminary statements
you want to make otherwise we will go to questions.
Mr Harley: Thank you, Lord Chairman, we can go straight
into questions.
Q389 Chairman: The increase in the
application of the co-decision procedure has obviously changed
the Parliament's role and increased its influence over the content
of legislation once a proposal has formally been made. Has there
been any effect on the Parliament's ability to bring about the
initiation of proposals? Has there been any effect on the context
of Commission proposals, in other words are they tailored in a
way which in your experience anticipates the views of the European
Parliament?
Mr Harley: Thank you very much indeed for this
opportunity to provide you with information about the European
Parliament's role and input into the legislative process of the
European Union. To set the context somewhat, we have seen in the
European Parliament over the last two or three years, roughly
since the last European elections in 2004, a considerable increase,
as we see it anyway, in the European Parliament's involvement
throughout the legislative process of the EU institutions. It
is not just about co-decision or the very significant extension
of areas to be covered by co-decision that comes with the Lisbon
Treaty, it is also the beginning of attempts to improve co-ordination
with the Commission and to some extent as well with the Council
on legislative programming. It is an increased use, I would say,
of initiative reports within the Parliament, often reports on
Commission White Papers or Green Papers. Indeed, there is discussion
beginning now about a possible role for the European Parliament
in transposition and enforcement, in other words at the end of
the process. Because of this increasing involvement of the Parliament
at the different stages of the process as a whole, I think the
answer to the question as to whether the content of Commission
proposals have been affected or take account of the Parliament's
wishes in the general sense has to be yes, but you will have heard
from the distinguished lady who was sitting in this seat before
me, the Secretary General of the Commission, that the Commission
consults extremely widely, not least with the governments of the
Member States and also civil society and other interested parties.
The European Parliament certainly feels that the Commission would
naturally wish to bring forward a proposal that has a chance of
being supported in the European Parliament. I do not know if you
wish me at this stage to go into greater detail about the limited
but, nevertheless, existing number of specific areas where the
Parliament has asked the Commission to initiate proposals.
Q390 Chairman: Yes. How many times
has the European Parliament used its Treaty power to request that
the Commission submit proposals?
Mr Harley: The statistics say that, in fact,
since the beginning of this legislature, as we call it, since
the European elections in 2004 and under Article 192, the Parliament
has adopted six legislative initiative reports, which is not a
great number. These reports were asking the Commission to propose
legislation on a European Private Company statute, on succession
and wills, the protection of European healthcare workers from
blood-borne infections due to needle stick injuries, for the heating
and cooling from renewable sources of energy, cross-border disputes
involving injuries and fatal accidents, and access to the institutions'
documents, quite a celebrated dossier, Regulation 1049 on public
access to documents. I could provide you in writing, if that would
be of any assistance, with the details of these six cases and
also our reading of what the Commission did to follow up our requests.[32]
Lord Burnett: I would like to see that. That
is a very kind offer, thank you.
Q391 Chairman: Does it in practice
happen that they follow-up in almost every case?
Mr Harley: The Commission would always follow-up
to some extent in every case, sometimes in a very specific way,
as on the issue of public access to documents; in some cases we
are still waiting to see. On succession and wills, the Commission
proposals are expected next year. It is not that the Commission
will jump to attention and immediately change its order of priorities,
but in every case the Commission will factor in the European Parliament's
request and do its level best to satisfy the Parliament by bringing
forward a new piece of legislation that corresponds to the Parliament's
wishes but which can also be integrated into the Commission's
own priorities.
Q392 Chairman: We have heard that
in relation to the Third Pillar at the moment the national right
of proposal does give rise to some problems because it is often
viewed from a national perspective and often not accompanied by
an impact assessment. Is a parliamentary invitation under Article
192 subject to the same problem? It may be a particular bee in
the bonnet of a particular group of parliamentarians and it may
not have been accompanied by any impact assessment and the Commission
finds itself faced with that. Is that a problem? Does that happen?
Mr Harley: I have not heard of a single case
where the Commission has complained that the Parliament has not
accompanied its request for new legislation with an impact assessment.
I would not wish to suggest that the Commission is applying double
standards in this case. The Parliament has not, as yet, to my
knowledge and memory, put forward suggestions for further fresh
legislation in the Third Pillar in the same way. If we are on
to the Third Pillar, the Parliament would have a slightly different
reading from what you have just said if what you have just said
is to some extent an interpretation of what the Secretary General
to the Commission has said. There was an initial knee-jerk reaction
from the Parliament when this new process began that this looked
like bad news and would harm the fundamental European interest
of the legislative process, but we are now in a second stage of
reaction in the Parliament where even those who had reservations
at the beginning would recognise that in certain areas in this
field the Commission, from a parliament's perspective, is not
necessarily ideally equipped to act, for example, on police co-operation.
There is understanding that Member State governments are often
perhaps better equipped to do that and we would not quarrel with
that. There should always be some mechanism for factoring in the
overall European interest, but with sufficient time and goodwill
that can be done.
Q393 Chairman: Any parliamentary
proposal, of course, carries with it a majority that has come
as a result of internal debate, but how thorough will the internal
debate have been in fact?
Mr Harley: The internal debate will follow the
usual procedures, which means that there will be a fairly extensive
discussion in parliamentary committees, sometimes in several committees
with one lead committee being designated and two or three others
being asked to provide an opinion. Then the draft report containing
the request to initiate legislation on the part of the Commission
will go through the political groups and into plenary session
and there will be a full plenary debate and vote. Can I add a
tangential point on that, with your permission, and that is I
believe in many of the discussions on the legislative procedures
in the EU institutions there is rarely reference to the role of
the political groups. I would just offer that as another aspect.
The European Parliament's standard month is divided into four
weeks, and this is a reflection, if you like, of the balance of
time that is spent at the different stages of the procedure. You
have two weeks of committee meetings, one week of political group
meetings and one week of plenary session. It very often happens
in almost every case that once a report has come out of the specialised
committee it is given a new, slightly different political slant
after consideration by the political groups and the amendments
in plenary are more likely to come from the political groups than
from the committee. It is a dual process coming from the two angles
of the specialised committees and the political groups.
Q394 Lord Jay of Ewelme: Would you
expect the European Commission to respond more readily to a request
from the European Council for a piece of legislation than to a
request from the European Parliament? "Expect" in both
senses.
Mr Harley: The natures of the two institutions
are very different and the European Council, with all due respect,
has a reputation in Brussels of asking a lot of the Commission.
I expect you may know yourself from experience that invariably
at the end of a European Council meeting and in conclusion it
is often convenient even for Heads of State and Government to
conclude their deliberations by asking the Commission to come
up with a new proposal. The Commission will certainly try, but
it is not always feasible for the Commission to give, I would
suggest, full satisfaction to the European Council's request,
whereas a European Parliament request, first of all there are
fewer of them and they are likely to be much more focused and
smaller in scale and easier for the Commission to follow up. Politically,
the European Council may well be considered to have greater weight
and authority by the Commission than the European Parliament in
this area.[33]
Q395 Lord Jay of Ewelme: Thank you
very much for that. When she was here a little while ago, Catherine
Day was explaining to us how the role of the Commission has shifted
away rather from specific legislative proposals towards the broader
strategy documents and frameworks and five, ten year programmes.
I wondered how the European Parliament slotted into that rather
longer-term approach from the Commission than we have seen sometimes
in the past. How do you ensure that the European Parliament's
influence is felt in that aspect of the Commission's work?
Mr Harley: We are aware that is the Commission's
own reading of it itself, but we do not necessary agree or have
seen the figures that bear out the idea that the Commission is
producing fewer acts of draft legislation.[34]
The European Parliament, in terms of the organisation of its plenary
sessions, would discuss and vote on almost as many of its own-initiative
reports as items coming from the Commission. In addition, on the
plenary agenda there will be other items, such as statements by
the Commission and the Council, particularly, for example, on
external relations. We have a regular slot on Wednesday afternoon
for topical affairs which are usually to do with foreign policy
or external relations. There is also the mechanism of oral questions.
At the level of the plenary session, if the Commission produces,
as it claims to, less legislation that does not have a great influence
or result. In the parliamentary committees there is still, as
we see it, as much legislation coming through and it would also
give us more time to look at the important parts. I would claim
the European Parliament, to some extent taking a leaf out of the
Commission's book, has also been trying to do too much. By comparison
with most national parliaments we go into every monthly plenary
session with the aim of taking at least 20 serious legislative
decisions[35]
and I think it would be in everybody's interests if we were to
do less, take more time and produce a better result. The quality
of legislation and Better Law Making is a very important aspect
of the increase in the European Parliament's competences and the
new areas of co-decision that it will deal with under the Lisbon
Treaty, and there we have to work as well with the Commission
and the Council.
Q396 Baroness O'Cathain: Can I just
clarify that. 20 legislative decisions per plenary session, per
month?
Mr Harley: 20 votes on legislative related matters.
Q397 Baroness O'Cathain: It does
not mean 20 separate—
Mr Harley: No. I can see that was misleading
and I quickly reined back on that.
Q398 Chairman: Should the Commission
continue to have the sole right of initiative? Have you got a
view on that?
Mr Harley: Hopefully, I will not set myself
up again on this point! One could say there is a sort of unspoken
trade-off between the Parliament and the Commission between the
Commission's exclusive right of initiative and the Parliament's
right and duty to hold the Commission to account. This has been
a balance between the institutions that we believe has worked
satisfactorily up to now. There has been, to some extent, a breach
in this system with the new provisions and procedure under the
Third Pillar, but we do not quarrel with the Commission's right
of initiative and it seems to be part of the balance between the
institutions which we consider to be very important.
Q399 Chairman: It is a bit curious,
is it not, it is going to be an historical hangover, the division
between matters which fall at present within the Third Pillar
and other matters? Is it a logical distinction as to where the
rights of initiative should be, to have this national right of
initiative in the future provided you can get a quarter of Member
States together in one area?
Mr Harley: I think it must be considered logical
from the perspective of the governments of the Member States.
32 Note by Clerk to the Sub-Committee: The
Commission's follow-up reports to Parliament's resolutions were
annexed by the witness-see end of transcript. Back
33
Supplementary comment by the witness on reading the transcript:
Nevertheless, while acknowledging the political influence of the
European Council in the EU process, it is worth noting that, according
to Article 15 of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council shall
not exercise legislative functions. Article 15 of the Treaty on
European Union states that: "The European Council shall provide
the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall
define the general political directions and priorities thereof.
It shall not exercise legislative functions." Back
34
Supplementary comment by the witness on reading the transcript:
A comparison between the number of legislative proposals adopted
during the period 2000-04 and the current legislature shows that
the number of legislative proposals adopted by the Commission
has not decreased. The Commission, however, is currently adopting
less new legislation in favour of a greater number of legislative
proposals within the Better Law-Making Agenda, with a view to
updating many existing rules through legislative techniques such
as recast, repeal, codification or revision. Back
35
Supplementary comment by the witness on reading the transcript:
A large number of those legislative decisions aim at simplifying
and modernising the stock of existing legislation, through its
recasting, repeal, codification or revision. Back
|
