MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE XLIII COSAC

Madrid, 31 May - 1 June 2010

AGENDA:

1. Opening session

by Mr Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE, Chair of theCortes GeneralesJointCommittee for the European Union:Adoption of the agenda of the XLIII COSAC Meeting;Welcome address by Mr José BONO MARTÍNEZ, Speaker of the SpanishCongreso de los Diputados;Address by Mr José Luis RODRÍGUEZ ZAPATERO, Prime Minister of Spain;Debate with Mr Diego LÓPEZ GARRIDO, Secretary of State for EU Affairs ofSpain.

2. The future role of COSAC after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, in view of

the 13th Bi-annual Report

Speakers:Mr Jean BIZET, Senator forla Manche(Lower Normandy) and Chair of the EuropeanAffairs Committee of the FrenchSénat;Mr Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ, Deputy for Navarre and SocialistParty Group Spokesperson before the SpanishCortes Generales’Joint Committee for theEuropean Union.

3. Conclusions of the Conference of Speakers of the Parliaments of the European Union

Speaker: Mr Per WESTERBERG, Speaker of the SwedishRiksdag

4. The political priorities of the new European Commission

Speaker: Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President of the European Commission

5. The new model for relations between the national Parliaments and the European

Parliament after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon

Speakers:Mr Elmar BROK, Member of the European Parliament,Mr José María GIL-ROBLES Y GIL-DELGADO, former Member of the EuropeanParliament and former President of the European Parliament,Mr Vitalino CANAS, Chairman of the European Affairs Committee of the PortugueseAssembleia da República,Ms Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL, Deputy Chairperson of the Standing Committee forEuropean Co-operation Organisations of the DutchEerste Kamer

6. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIII COSAC

PROCEEDINGS:

1. Opening session of the XLIII COSAC

Mr Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE, Chair of theCortes Generales´Joint Committee for theEuropean Union, welcomed all the participants in the meeting and expressed his condolenceson the death of the Polish President and his delegation in the air accident at Smolensk in April2010.

The Chairman then proposed the modification of the draft agenda of the XLIII COSAC, dueto the absence of Mr GONZÁLEZ MÁRQUEZ. With the announced changes included, theagenda was approved.Mr José BONO MARTÍNEZ, Speaker of the SpanishCongreso de los Diputados,welcomedthe Members of COSAC and stressed the need to simplify decision-making procedures in theEU and to increase the efficiency of its bureaucracy. In this context, COSAC may serve as auseful link between the EU and the European citizens.Mr José Luis RODRÍGUEZ ZAPATERO, Prime Minister of Spain, defined the role of theSpanish Presidency of the EU, in line with the pro-European spirit which had defined theSpanish position towards the EU since 1986. The main objectives of this Spanish Presidencyhad been the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon and the strengthening of the joint actionstowards European economic governance, in the current context of economic crisis. The PrimeMinister concluded his presentation by underlining the role of national Parliaments indefining a single European path with a national perspective.Mr ARIAS CAÑETE congratulated the new Chairs of the Committees on European Affairs:Mr BIZET (the FrenchSénat);Mr HÖRCSIK (the HungarianOrszággyűlés);Mr DIMECH(the MalteseKamra tad-Deputati).He also thanked the departing colleagues: Mr HAENEL(the FrenchSénat),Mr FRENDO (the MalteseKamra tad-Deputati)and Mr WAALKENS(the DutchTweede Kamer).In the ensuing debate different topics were raised, such as the economic crisis and themeasures being taken by the Council, especially in the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy;the institutional scheme of the EU; the European citizens' initiative; the energy policies in theEU and the problems which FRONTEX entails.

Debate with Mr Diego LÓPEZ GARRIDO, Secretary of State for EU Affairs

Mr LÓPEZ GARRIDO addressed the measures being taken within the EU to tackle theeconomic crisis, which are intended to solve the present situation and at the same time toreinforce European economic policies in the future. The EU is indeed a Monetary Union, butthe EMU (Economic and Monetary Union) agreed upon in Maastricht has not developed intoan Economic Union, whose achievement has been the main objective of the SpanishPresidency. Mr LÓPEZ GARRIDO considered the need to foster European debates onrelevant issues, in order to increase citizens' interest in EU affairs. As to the topic of energypolicies, the Secretary of State underlined the lack of physical infrastructure, needed toimplement a common energy policy in the EU. The Spanish Presidency had also focused onimmigration issues, where FRONTEX and the maritime security in European areas had beenreinforced.In the following set of questions, the Israeli military operation against the flotilla that morningwas mentioned and a full and impartial inquiry was demanded into those events. Other issuesraised were the need to update the Growth and Stability Pact and the oversight of the Europe2020 Strategy, the Euro-Asian relationship and the EU’s tax capacity.Mr LÓPEZ GARRIDO asserted that, while the Lisbon Strategy contained mererecommendations, the Europe 2020 Strategy refers to five specific objectives, which will belooked into by the "task force" presided by Mr VAN ROMPUY, the President of the2

European Council. The key to European economic governance lies in the ambition of theseobjectives.In the last set of questions addressed to the Secretary of State, the following topics werementioned: the situation in Greece and the measures taken by the ECOFIN; the debate on theseat of the European Parliament; the need for an EU solution to the economic crisis, given theinsufficiency of national approaches; the need for a policy of incentives, rather than one ofsanctions; the possibility of submitting draft national budgets to the European Commission;common goals in climate change; the discrimination of Roma people in the EU; the situationin Ukraine and the EU-Eastern Partnership.The Secretary of State condemned the Israeli military operation against the flotilla and, at thesame time, demanded an inquiry into those events. As to the economic crisis, the main aim ofthe Spanish Presidency had been the stability of the Eurozone and the need to sustain thesocial model in the EU. All economic measures should, however, respect the budgetarysovereignty of Member States. Regarding the discrimination of the Roma people, he recalledthe importance of the Directive against discrimination and the Summit held in Córdoba,Spain, in April 2010 on this specific issue.

2. The future role of COSAC after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, in view of

the Thirteenth Bi-annual Report

Speakers:Mr Jean BIZET, Senator forla Manche(Lower Normandy) and Chairman of the EuropeanAffairs Committee of the FrenchSénat;Mr Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ, Deputy for Navarre and Socialist PartyGroup Spokesperson before theCortes Generales’Joint Committee for the European Union1. IntroductionsFirstly, reflecting on the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on COSAC, Mr BIZET identified twosubstantial changes. On the one hand, COSAC’s scope of activities has been widened asArticle 10 of Protocol 1 on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union does notspecify the tasks of COSAC, thus giving formal recognition to its generalist approach. On theother hand, COSAC is considered by the abovementioned article as a catalyst which is toenhance coordination amongst national Parliaments by means of e.g. organising “inter-parliamentary conferences on specific topics” such as,inter alia,the common foreign andsecurity policy (henceforth "CFSP") and the common security and defence policy (henceforth"CSDP").Secondly, the speaker ran through the outlines of the Thirteenth Bi-annual Report. In doingso, he was particularly struck by the overall satisfaction regarding the Conference’s work,which allows its Members to exchange their best practices on a regular basis. Moreover, heshared the respondents’ wish to avoid debates that are too general to allow for constructivediscussions. However, he also learnt that the replies on the utility of a debate on the EuropeanCommission’s Annual Policy Strategy were not conclusive due to incompatibilities betweenthe publishing date of this document and the date at which the conference is organised.As far as inter-parliamentary cooperation after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon isconcerned, Mr BIZET was of the opinion that Protocol 1 on the role of national Parliaments inthe European Union put the promotion of interparliamentary cooperation into COSAC’s3

hands. The speaker stressed that it should not be COSAC’s but rather the nationalParliaments’ job to evaluate Eurojust and to monitor Europol, but COSAC must ensure thatany texts are adopted as soon as possible, and after consultation with national Parliaments.Similarly, according to Mr BIZET, it is not part of COSAC’ role to carry out anyinterparliamentary monitoring of the CSDP, but COSAC has to ensure that appropriatemonitoring takes place. Indeed, after the Treaty of Lisbon COSAC must preserve andstrengthen its traditional role of (1) holding a political dialogue with the executive institutionsof the European Union, (2) adopting Contributions as results of its debates and (3) sharinginformation and best practices amongst the national Parliaments. Of course, this will not bepossible if the adequate instruments are not provided for.Mr Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ, Deputy for Navarre and Socialist PartyGroup Spokesperson before theCortes Generales’Joint Committee for the European UnionMr Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ was of the opinion that COSAC is at acrossroads. Indeed, on the one hand, the expertise the conference has acquired in the field ofthe subsidiarity checks has been successfully transferred to the national Parliaments. On theother hand, however, COSAC must be prevented from becoming a merely technical forum. Inthis context, the current format is adequate. Hence, Mr MOSCOSO put forward the followingspecific suggestions: (1) the President of the European Commission should be invited toCOSAC on a regular basis in order to comment on his institution’s initiatives, (2) in theCOSAC Rules of Procedure, not only should the references to the presidential troika besubstituted by the notion “presidential trio”, but it should also be made clear that COSAC isan inter-parliamentary conference, (3) in the future, COSAC reports should only be written atthe Presidency’s request, (4) speaking time in COSAC meetings should be limited to threeminutes although the Presidency should remain responsible for the practical organisation ofdebates and (5) the European institutions should be invited to respond to COSAC’sContribution. Finally, debates should only be organised on genuinely pan-European topics.2. DebateDuring the debate some Members expressed their support for Mr Bizet's main proposals(holding a political dialogue with the executive institutions of the European Union, adoptingContributions as results of its debates and sharing information and best practices amongst thenational Parliaments).Several Members considered that COSAC should no longer undertake subsidiarity checks ona regular basis, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The task of COSACconcerning subsidiarity checks had been transferred to national Parliaments as part of theirdaily work, according to some statements, even if checks could be done on a case-by-casebasis within COSAC. A few Members expressed the view, however, that subsidiarity checksshould continue, stating that the checks are important for their parliaments, and that theCOSAC Secretariat should compile reports on them. Others stressed the importance of usingthe national representatives in Brussels in order to find a (formal) way of exchanginginformation. The important role of IPEX was also mentioned in this regard.Some Members pointed out that COSAC is not only a platform for political discussionsamongst EU Parliaments, but also a platform for discussions between national Parliamentsand the EU Institutions. A few Members expressed support for a political dialogue betweenEU institutions and national Parliaments on a limited number of priority issues, as mentioned4

by Mr BIZET. At the same time, some underlined the importance of avoiding duplication ofwork, especially with national Parliaments. In this context, the importance that COSACshould concentrate on specific EU draft acts was mentioned. A small number of Memberswarned, however, that debates and contributions on specific EU draft acts might lead towardscreating a new institution, some sort of a "third chamber".A number of Members considered it important for COSAC to discuss EU initiatives at a muchearlier stage than it currently does, expressing views that COSAC could debate any EUinitiative such as the Europe 2020 Strategy or EU monitoring of national budgets. Severalparticipants thought that a debate concerning the annual Work Programme of the EuropeanCommission is indispensable.With regard to national Parliaments’ specialised committees, many were of the opinion thatthey should debate EU matters more often, or in a better way. Concerning cooperationbetween specialised committees, a few Members supported the idea that they could berepresented at COSAC meetings, while others would rather support increased cooperationbetween the specialised committees by organising interparliamentary meetings. Concerningthe area of freedom, security and justice, in general, as well as Europol and Eurojust inparticular, a few Members thought that the specialised committees of national Parliamentsshould be involved in the function of COSAC, without overlapping with existing institutions.Some Members expressed their support for Mr BIZET's opinion. Some Members underlinedthat the political monitoring of Europol, the evaluation of Eurojust's activities and the controlof the CFSP and CSDP were obligations for national Parliaments and their respectivespecialised committees rather than COSAC.Mr Povilas Vytenis ANDRIUKAITIS (the LithuanianSeimas),stated that after the entry intoforce of the Treaty of Lisbon, national Parliaments should pay more attention to EU mattersand therefore he suggested that a European week should be organised in eachChamber/Parliament. This proposal was supported by other Members during the debate.

3. Conclusions of the Conference of Speakers of the Parliaments of the European Union

Speaker: Mr Per WESTERBERG, Speaker of the SwedishRiksdagMr Per WESTERBERG, Speaker of the SwedishRiksdagand the then President of theConference of Speakers of the Parliaments of the European Union, presented the conclusionsof the annual Speakers’ Conference which was held in theRiksdagon 14 - 15 May 2010.Mr WESTERBERG informed COSAC that the main focus of this Speakers' Conference wasthe consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon for the EU Parliaments. In addition, the Conferencerevised its Guidelines, adopted their new version (the Stockholm Guidelines) and debated theissue of "new technologies and communication - challenges for parliamentary work".The Speaker of the SwedishRiksdagfocused his attention on the topic of the Speakers'Conference related to the Treaty of Lisbon and interparliamentary cooperation. He underlinedthe responsibility of the Speakers' Conference to oversee the coordination of EUinterparliamentary activities. He noted that the Speakers considered it essential that nationalParliaments were in a position to make full use of the possibilities granted by the Treaty ofLisbon, whilst respecting their constitutional rules and parliamentary traditions. MrWESTERBERG informed COSAC that the debate on the consequences for parliamentarycooperation was held mainly on the basis of the following three topics:5

As to the first topic, which was introduced by Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice President of theEuropean Commission, the Speakers stressed the Commission’s efforts to engage nationalParliaments in political dialogue as well as recently increased contacts between theCommission and national Parliaments. Both were considered vital for the generalparliamentary scrutiny of EU matters.As to the topic on fora for interparliamentary cooperation, Mr WESTERBERG reported thatthe Speakers underlined the need for efficiency and for identifying the most appropriate forafor debating a particular issue or task, avoiding duplication of efforts and waste of time. Inthis context, the Speakers stressed the importance of developing established structures.As regards national Parliaments’ new evaluation and monitoring tasks in the area of freedom,security and justice, the Speakers supported COSAC’s request that the EU institutions shouldenter into dialogue with national Parliaments when drafting and negotiating regulationsdealing with parliamentary oversight of Eurojust and Europol. The Speakers also stressed theneed to give national Parliaments’ specialised committees a possibility to express their views,as effective scrutiny often requires expert competence.As to the role of COSAC, the Speakers noted that Protocol 1 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbonopens up the possibility for a discussion concerning the future role and membership of theConference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs. The Speakers agreed that thenew provisions imply a more general approach to interparliamentary cooperation than before.According to Mr WESTERBERG, a valuable contribution and role for COSAC could involvefocusing on EU and government scrutiny and general trends in parliamentary work regardingEU matters, as well as the exchange of information and best practices. However, he was of theopinion that political debates on specific issues were best held at meetings or other contactsinvolving relevant specialised committees.In a short debate following the presentation, Mr Miguel Ángel MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ,Vice-President of the European Parliament, welcomed the results of the Speakers' Conferenceas very useful to COSAC, especially in shaping its future role. Ms Anna KINBERG BATRA,Chairperson of the Committee on EU Affairs of the SwedishRiksdag,noted that EU affairsshould be a domestic policy, thus also involving specialised committees. She called for realdebates at COSAC, including on its future role which had not been clearly outlined as yet.Therefore, Ms KINBERG BATRA called on the incoming Belgian Presidency,inter alia,tohold a debate on extending cooperation between parliamentary specialised committees.

4. The political priorities of the new European Commission

Speaker: Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President of the European CommissionMr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ, Vice-President of the European Commission in charge of the inter-institutional relations and administration, started his speech by mentioning the economic crisisand the fiscal problems, which had forced the European Union to take measures in order toavoid a repetition of the Great Depression. According to the Vice-President, the previousweek the Eurozone had faced a new threat which could have severe consequences.6

The Vice-President continued by explaining that one of the main challenges now was to usethe full potential of the Treaty of Lisbon. The Commission’s political priorities had beendrafted accordingly with this challenge in mind. These included a number of innovations with,amongst others, 34 strategic initiatives that would be published by December 2010.Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ continued by presenting the following priorities:1) development of a sustainable vision for 2020, amongst others in the fields of energy andtransport;2) reform of the internal market, in view of the report by Professor MONTI;3) creation of a platform on poverty, emphasising inclusion through employment;4) an action plan for the implementation of the Stockholm Programme;5) a debate on the sustainability of the pensions;6) creation of the European External Action Service;7) EU budget review.In the longer term:8) the optimisation of the European industry and the reduction of emissions;9) the development of the citizens’ initiative;10) the introduction of new reinforced co-operation.Concerning this last point the Vice-President stated that presently the Commission isconfronted with three obstacles, namely the problems associated with not always reliablefigures from the Eurostat, the lack of anti-speculation instruments and of respect for theStability and Growth Pact.Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČ concluded his presentation with some remarks concerning theframework agreement between the European Commission and the European Parliament,which will be concluded in full conformity with the Treaties.During the debate a number of statements focused on the economic and financial crisis. Theneed for a sense of responsibility on the part of Member States concerning compliance withthe Stability and Growth Pact was emphasised, but also possibilities for control and sanctionswere mentioned. The Members stressed the need to develop early-warning mechanisms forthe future. In addition, the role of the European Central Bank, the International MonetaryFund and rating agencies in the current economic and financial crisis was discussed.Many Members mentioned the Europe 2020 Strategy as a potentially very useful instrument,but which would need a more direct link to the citizens. The role of national Parliaments andtheir increased involvement, through national plans, were also emphasised by some Members.The very strict timetable established for this strategy could also create a problem in thisregard. Another element that was emphasised was the need for quantifiable objectives, inorder to have a thorough evaluation.Another aspect that was mentioned several times by the Members was the importance of therecognition and further development of the EU regional strategies, namely the Baltic SeaStrategy, the Danube Strategy and the Strategy for the Mediterranean.Several statements concerned the implementation of the Stockholm Programme, expressingconcerns that the Programme’s security aspects would overshadow its freedom aspects.7

Hence, the need for close collaboration between the two Commissioners in charge wasemphasised.

5. The new model for relations between the national Parliaments and the European

Parliament after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon

Speakers:Mr Elmar BROK, Member of the European Parliament;Mr José María GIL-ROBLES Y GIL-DELGADO, former Member of the EuropeanParliament and former President of the European Parliament;Mr Vitalino CANAS, Chairman of the European Affairs Committee of the PortugueseAssembleia da República;Ms Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL, Deputy Chairperson of the Standing Committee forEuropean Co-operation Organisations of the DutchEerste Kamer.1. IntroductionsMr José María GIL-ROBLES Y GIL-DELGADO, former Member of the EuropeanParliament and former President of the European Parliament, after recalling the three mainroles of COSAC established in Article 10 of Protocol 1, stated,inter alia,that COSAC shouldpromote the exchange of best practise between national Parliaments. Moreover, COSACshould promote the exchange of information, including in the pre-legislative stage (e.g. onconsultation documents). Finally Mr GIL-ROBLES Y GIL-DELGADO underlined thatCOSAC should play the main role in the exchange of information between nationalParliaments and the European Parliament for scrutinising the Council’s intergovernmentalcooperation activities, especially in the areas which had not yet been subject to parliamentaryscrutiny.Mr Vitalino CANAS, Chair of the European Affairs Committee of the PortugueseAssembleiada República,stated that COSAC meetings should be made a central forum of Europeaninterparliamentary cooperation and supported the reinforcement of coordination mechanismsunder COSAC regarding the subsidiarity control. This would allow Parliaments a certaindegree of planning and anticipation, internalising these tests in their scrutiny methodologies,and gauging in practice what added value is to be obtained from the exchange of informationand good practice, with the Treaty of Lisbon in force.Mr CANAS was of the opinion that the relationships between national Parliaments and theEuropean Parliament must be streamlined, seeking a balance between these two dimensions:qualitative and quantitative. Moreover, future interparliamentary meetings should focus onspecific draft legislative acts of mutual interest rather than on generic topics, whoseusefulness and relevance to the scrutiny activities are difficult to envisage. Additionally,permanent networks of national counterpart committees could be developed, so as to establishcommunication channels enabling information on certain government bills that are deemedrelevant to be exchanged between national Parliaments and the European Parliament at theearliest possible stage of the European decision-making process. A political dialogue could bethus established between national Parliaments and the European Parliament, particularly withregard to subsidiarity.Ms Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL, Deputy Chair of the Standing Committee for European Co-operation Organisations of the DutchEerste Kamer,stressed that regarding the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament in8

COSAC, the discussions on legislation with a focus on the principles of subsidiarity andproportionality should start at an early stage in a pre-legislative debate on selected proposalsfrom the annual Work Programme of the Commission and be finalized in a post-legislativedebate. Ms BROEKERS-KNOL was of the opinion that scrutiny of Europol and evaluation ofEurojust should take place in COSAC on a regular basis, preferably in the presence ofMembers of specialised committees of all Parliaments. However, COSAC should not holddiscussions or organize extra conferences on CFSP, including CSDP, as there are specializedconferences for these policy areas, namely COFACC and CODAC. Starting up newconferences and consultations should be avoided as this would in all probability not contributeto the essential process of strengthening relations between national Parliaments and theEuropean Parliament. IPEX and other forms of electronic communication are the answer. MsBROEKERS-KNOL stated that we must never forget the reason for inter-parliamentarycooperation between national Parliaments and the European Parliament, namely to reconnectthe citizens of Europe with the European project.Mr Elmar BROK, Member of the European Parliament, stated that the Treaty of Lisbon is theTreaty of Parliaments as it brings more democracy, more efficiency and much lessbureaucracy. The division of competencies between national Parliaments and the EuropeanParliament is now clear. While the European Parliament is an EU co-legislator, the nationalParliaments have the right to intervene into the EU legislative process, to participate in therevision process of the Treaties and to bring actions before the EU Court of Justice on thegrounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity by a legislative act.Mr BROK stressed that checking subsidiarity is a technical issue and not a political one. TheMember also pointed out that there was a grey zone in the Treaty of Lisbon concerning theEU’s external policy, where 85 per cent of the external policy is outside the control of theEuropean Parliament. Mr BROK stressed that at this point national Parliaments could play animportant role by scrutinizing their governments' actions in this area. The question regardingthe parliamentary scrutiny of CFSP, including CSDP would be defined jointly in the comingautumn. He suggested organising two interparliamentary meetings a year to oversee theactions and decisions of the Council in these areas.Furthermore, Mr BROK confirmed that such exchange of information on political scrutiny isessential for national Parliaments. COSAC could examine how it works, including how EUlegislation is implemented at the national level. The speaker underlined that as regards the"Early Warning Mechanism", national Parliaments were in need of a new pre-legislative and anew post-legislative method of cooperation that would take place at the parliamentarycommittee level. The key point for this was the creation of an automatic mechanism.This mechanism should work on three levels:the committee level;the political group level;the interparliamentary level (including the Members of the European Parliament in theactivities of national Parliaments, e.g. following the practice of the GermanBundestagandthe DutchStaten-Generaal).In this context, Mr BROK suggested that COSAC take into account good practice andreminded that the inter-institutional agreement cannot modify the provisions of the Treaty ofLisbon, since the Treaties are the primary EU law.9

2. DebateDuring the debate many Members expressed the view that European and national Parliamentsand the activities of Members of the European Parliament and Members of nationalParliaments needed to be more and more complementary for a better scrutiny at European andnational levels and for the best implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon with a view to creatingan Interparliamentary Europe. An increasing role of the EU Political Family and Groupmeetings was also requested. For this COSAC should also play a complementary role for thenational Parliaments in addition to IPEX as a tool for the exchange of information.In particular, joint work of parliamentary committees on budgets at both national and EUlevels was mentioned. It was suggested,inter alia,that the next Belgian Presidency ofCOSAC include the mid-term review of the EU budget as a point on the next COSAC agenda.In the same context, Mr Harm Evert WAALKENS, Chairperson of the Committee onEuropean Affairs of the DutchTweede Kamer,requested COSAC hold a debate on nationalaccountability of EU funds.COSAC welcomed the proposal by Mr Paulo RANGEL, Member of the European Parliament,on the so called "Agenda 27" aimed at creating an "annual parliamentary week", whensimultaneously in all national Parliaments, Members of national Parliaments and Members ofthe European Parliament would debate the State of the European Union as well as somespecific political issues, crucial for the EU citizens, such as the creation of a space of freedom,security and justice. In this context it was also underlined that, considering the presentfinancial and economic situation, no more interparliamentary meetings were needed, but theexisting ones had to be well prepared in advance and as efficient and productive as possible.Some Members suggested using video conferences if possible.Other issues included the need to create a specialised parliamentary committees' network andthe role of COSAC in national Parliaments' efforts to evaluate the compliance of EU draftlegislative acts with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality.Furthermore, as regards the CFSP and CSDP, a large majority wasdiscussing the right venue for such parliamentary debates, includingThus, the discussion which had started based on the findings of theReport would be continued at the next ordinary meeting of COSACBelgian Presidency.in favour of furtherthe role of COSAC.Thirteenth Bi-annualduring the incoming

Incoming COSAC Belgian Presidency and Proposals for subjects to be dealt with in

2010

Mr Herman DE CROO, Chairperson of the BelgianChambre des représentants,presented theincoming Belgian Presidency of COSAC.The meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC will take place on 4-5 July 2010 and the XLIVCOSAC meeting will take place on 24-26 October 2010 in Brussels, with the participation ofthe President of the European Council Mr Herman VAN ROMPUY and the President of theEuropean Commission Mr José Manuel BARROSO.Mr DE CROO informed COSAC that parliamentary scrutiny of the CFSP and CSDP as wellas the debate on the future role of COSAC would be on the agenda of the XLIV COSAC.

6. Adoption of the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIII COSAC

After a debate on additional proposals for amendments from national Parliaments and theEuropean Parliament, the Conference adopted the Contribution and Conclusions of the XLIIICOSAC.