House of Lords - The Role of the National Parliaments in the European Union

The Role of the National Parliaments in the European Union - European Union Committee Contents

CHAPTER 3: Dialogue with the European Commission

Engagement between national parliaments and the Commission

36. The European Commission has acknowledged for some time that it needs to engage with national parliaments. In 2006, towards the start of José Manuel Barroso's first term as its President, the Commission announced that "national parliaments must be more closely involved with the development and execution of European policy", arguing that "the increased involvement of national parliaments can help make European policies more attuned to diverse circumstances and more effectively implemented". The Commission launched what soon became known as the Barroso initiative, under which it transmitted all new proposals and consultation papers directly to national parliaments, and invited them to respond to them, "so as to improve the process of policy formulation".[25]

37. The Committee welcomes the Commission's commitment to engaging with national parliaments. Vice-President Maroš Šefcovic, the Commissioner for inter-institutional relations and administration, has been a strong advocate of working with national parliaments, and in January 2014 Members of the Committee held a useful meeting with him on the subject in Brussels.[26] The attendance of Commissioners at COSAC and other inter-parliamentary meetings has also been very welcome, demonstrating a commitment to direct engagement with parliamentarians.

38. The aspiration for national parliaments to engage effectively with the Commission is well described in the Contribution agreed by the June 2013 COSAC Conference in Dublin:

but also as active contributors to that process

39. There is clear evidence of the desire of national parliaments to engage in political dialogue with the Commission. From the start of 2010 until the end of 2013 national parliaments submitted around 2000 written contributions under the Barroso initiative.[28]Appendix 6 provides further detail about the numbers of written contributions by national chambers and parliaments over this period, together with information about the numbers of reasoned opinions issued.

40. In this chapter we make suggestions for possible improvements, which national parliaments may wish to take up in discussion with national governments and with the Commission. In summary these possible improvements, which are considered in greater detail below, are:

· the increased early involvement of national parliaments in the development of EU legislative proposals and other policies in advance of the Commission making formal communications and proposals for legislation;

· that the Commission should make clear when and how national parliaments have influenced the development of policies, by:

o identifying national parliament contributions in summary reports on consultation exercises and in subsequent communications on the policy, including how the policy has been shaped or modified in response,

o responding promptly to national parliament contributions under the general political dialogue, usually within three months,

o using its annual report on relations with national parliaments to identify the impacts of national parliament engagement;

· that the new Commission should make a commitment that Commissioners and senior officials will meet committees of national parliaments as a core part of their duties;

· that a procedure should be developed to allow a group of national parliaments to make constructive policy or legislative suggestions (a 'Green Card').

Early engagement with policy proposals

41. Several of our witnesses argued that national parliaments should be more active in considering EU policies at an early stage: this is sometimes described as 'upstream' engagement and sometimes as 'pre-legislative scrutiny'.[29] The April 2012 COSAC Conference in Copenhagen concluded that "the opportunity (under the political dialogue) for national parliaments to feed views into the pre-legislative phase of the EU proposals is particularly important".[30]

42. Vice-President Šefcovic stated that "the Commission strongly supports this dialogue and in particular encourages the early involvement of national Parliaments by their submission of contributions to public consultations on possible new or modified legislation".[31] Mr Šefcovic accepted that "the national parliaments are not very aware of this", and that as part of the Commission's increased flow of information direct to national parliaments, "we have added … alerts for when and what kind of public consultations will take place".[32]

43. The Committee supports effective early engagement by national parliaments in the development of EU legislative proposals and other policies. In this way, drawing on their diverse experience and expertise, national parliaments can make a distinctive contribution to the development of policy at an early stage, before considerable time and political capital has been invested in a particular idea, and before firm proposals have been drawn up which the Commission may then feel obliged to defend.

44. The House of Lords has a good track record of early engagement. To take one example, in late 2012 and early 2013 the Committee conducted an inquiry into the early operation of the European External Action Service, and published a report which contributed to the review of the EEAS by the EU institutions.[33]

45. During our inquiry we came across some examples of the effect of national parliament engagement on developing EU policies. For example, Vice-President Šefcovic noted that a number of national parliaments had helped to improve the European Citizens' Initiative;[34] Dominic Hannigan TD told us that the Irish Oireachtas was examining how social indicators could be integrated into the European Semester;[35] and Andrzej Gala¿ewski said that national parliament and European Parliament engagement with the Commission on data protection legislation may lead to a decrease in the number of provisions left to delegated acts.[36] Firm evidence of the impact of national parliaments on policy and legislation is often lacking, however, and there is a clear view amongst Members of national parliaments that the Commission is sometimes going through the motions. Eero Heinäluoma, Speaker, and Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Chair of the Grand Committee, Finnish Eduskunta, said that "we see no evidence that the inputs of national parliaments have actually affected outcomes at the EU level".[37] Averof Neofytou, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign and European Affairs, House of Representatives of Cyprus, argued that "the Commission has to change its culture … to consider the opinions of national parliaments as an opportunity for further political debate on issues, rather than creating an atmosphere in which they do not like to see, and reject, different views on issues".[38]

46. Mr Šefcovic told us that the Commission had invested in a new IT system to improve their management of national parliament contributions and replies to them, and that "I now believe that we are in a position" to achieve "no more than three months for a response".[39]

47. The Commission's report for 2012 on relations between the Commission and national parliaments identifies hundreds of interactions in the form of written opinions, visits, and conferences, but provides no information about the impact of this activity on any of the Commission's policies or proposals. Without evidence of impact or influence, the incentives for national parliaments to devote appropriate resources to engaging at this early stage will remain weak, and the EU will continue to be deprived of the improvements to legislation and policies that will accrue from the application of the distinctive experience and expertise of Members of national parliaments.

48. The Commission must engage fully with the views put forward by national parliaments early on in the policymaking process, and must be seen to engage fully with them by making clear when and how national parliaments have had a significant influence on the early development of policies. We note that if the Commission does not engage constructively and deal with concerns raised by national parliaments under the informal political dialogue, it becomes more likely that national parliaments will be forced to use the reasoned opinion procedure to ensure that their views are addressed in a more formal way. Put another way, the more that the Commission engages positively with the concerns of national parliaments as expressed in the political dialogue, the less likely it is that parliaments will feel compelled to issue reasoned opinions.

49. When national parliaments engage upstream, and make contributions to consultations, their views should be identified and specifically addressed in a discrete section of the Commission's summary report on the consultation, including where appropriate how the proposal has been modified in response. National parliament contributions and the responses to them should also be identified in subsequent documentation relating to the proposal including impact assessments and communications accompanying legislative proposals. This will show that the views of national parliaments have been given appropriate consideration; and help national parliaments to continue to pursue key points.

50. When national parliaments make contributions to the general political dialogue (not in response to specific consultation exercises), these contributions should receive a response within three months, clearly addressing the points made and, where appropriate, explaining how their views have been taken into account.

51. The Commission should use its annual reports on relations with national parliaments to identify policy impacts of engagement by national parliaments, as well as simply outlining the number of interactions with the Commission.

Direct contact with Commissioners and officials

52. A proper dialogue is of course about much more than national parliaments making contributions to the early development of policies. It must involve a mutual exchange of information and views. One good way to achieve this is for Commissioners and senior Commission officials to meet Members of national parliaments. Sometimes, when major political issues are at stake, it will be most appropriate for Members of national parliaments to meet a Commissioner. On other occasions, when the technical details of a policy are to be discussed, a senior official may be more appropriate. Sonia Piedrafita, Centre for European Policy Studies, argued that "it would be very helpful if each member of the College of Commissioners presented the work programme and participated in a question-and-answer session in a national parliament on an annual basis".[40]

53. By mixing videoconferences with face-to-face meetings; combining such meetings with Commissioners' other commitments in Member States; and holding some meetings in Brussels, the burden on Commissioners and senior staff can be managed.

54. At present there are many examples of good engagement by Commissioners and their officials, but in our experience certain Commissioners seem to feel at liberty to 'pick and choose' the subjects on which they will engage, and with whom. The Commission which will be appointed in 2014 should make a commitment that its Commissioners and senior officials will be willing to meet committees of national parliaments as a core part of their duties, subject of course to practical limitations and without imposing an impossible burden. This must be a clear and firm commitment which binds the whole College: it is too important to be left to the whim of individual Commissioners.

Making proposals: a Green Card?

55. The next chapter examines in detail the reasoned opinion procedure. This is a negative procedure which gives national parliaments a right, under certain strict conditions, to indicate their view that a legislative proposal should not be proceeded with.

56. Several of our witnesses suggested that there should also be scope for a group of national parliaments working together to make a constructive suggestion for an initiative. For example Simon Sutour, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the French Sénat, and Danielle Auroi, Chair of the EU Affairs Committee of the French Assemblée Nationale, supported the idea in general terms.[41] René Leegte, Rapporteur on democratic legitimacy for the European Affairs Committee of the Dutch Tweede Kamer, proposed "to allow a certain number of national parliaments to advise the European Commission to table legislative proposals they believe to be necessary".[42] The Danish Folketing suggested that this might encompass the right for national parliaments to suggest the review of existing legislation.[43]Dr Richard Corbett, Cabinet Member of the President of the European Council with responsibility for relations with national parliaments, said that he thought that it "would carry a certain weight if a proposal for legislation, or indeed a proposal to repeal legislation, came from a national parliament".[44]

57. There were mixed views about this proposal, with colleagues in the European Parliament raising concerns in particular about intruding on the Commission's 'right of initiative'.[45] Ashley Fox MEP was "very sceptical" about giving national parliaments an explicit role in putting forward suggestions for initiatives, arguing that in his view there was already too much European legislation.[46]

58. In principle, we agree that there should be a way for a group of like-minded national parliaments to make constructive suggestions for EU policy initiatives, which may include reviewing existing legislation, complementing the existing 'Yellow Card' with a 'Green Card'. We note the concerns raised about intruding on the Commission's formal right of initiative, and we would envisage a 'Green Card' as recognising a right for a number of national parliaments working together to make constructive policy or legislative suggestions, including for the review or repeal of existing legislation, not creating a (legally more problematic) formal right for national parliaments to initiate legislation.

59. A 'Green Card' agreement would need to include an undertaking by the Commission that it would consider such suggestions carefully, and either bring forward appropriate legislative or other proposals (or consult on them), or explain why it had decided not to take the requested action.

25 COM(2006) 211: A Citizen's Agenda: Delivering Results for Europe, page 9. Back

26 QQ 89-99. Back

27 Contribution of the XLIX COSAC, Dublin, 23-25 June 2013. Back

28 Annual Reports from the Commission on Relations between the Commission and National Parliaments for 2010 (COM(2011) 345 final); 2011 (COM(2012) 375 final); and 2012 (COM(2013) 565 final); and, for 2013, information provided by the European Commission Registry. Chapter 4 will detail that the number of reasoned opinions submitted in the same period was around 260. See paragraphs 48-51. Back

29 For example, Czech Senát; Italian Camera dei Deputati; Dr Adam Cygan, Q 18; Dr Richard Corbett, Q 85; Andrew Duff MEP, Q 107; Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez MEP, Q 127. Back

30 Contribution of the XLVII COSAC, Copenhagen, 22-24 April 2012. Back

31 Vice-President Maroš Šefcovic. Back

32 Q 94. Back

33 House of Lords European Union Committee, The European External Action Service (11th Report, Session 2012-13, HL Paper 147). Back

34 Q 91. Back

35 Q 73. Back

36 Q 53. Back