Table of ContentsBACKGROUND........................................................................................................................ 4PRESIDENCY INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 5ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... 6PART 1: EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY ..................................................................................... 101.1. Parliamentary input into the National Reform Programme and the Stability andConvergence Programme...................................................................................................... 111.1.1. National Reform Programme................................................................................... 111.1.2. Stability and Convergence Programme.................................................................... 121.2. Measures for meeting the five EU headline targets by 2020 ........................................... 131.2.1. Measures at the national level ................................................................................. 131.2.2. Measures at the EU level......................................................................................... 141.2.3. Coordination and cooperation between the national and the EU levels .................... 151.3. Parliamentary input into national indicators for measuring the condition of economies .. 15PART 2: EUROPEAN SEMESTER AND THE ANNUAL GROWTH SURVEY.................... 172.1. Parliamentary debates on the findings of the Annual Growth Survey ............................. 182.1.1. Procedure................................................................................................................ 182.1.2. Findings .................................................................................................................. 212.2. Opinions on the indicators of the Annual Growth Survey............................................... 222.3. Changes in subsequent Annual Growth Surveys............................................................. 232.4. Parliamentary input into governmental activities on the European Semester................... 232.5. Special parliamentary procedures for implementing the European Semester .................. 262.6. Possible weaknesses of the European Semester.............................................................. 272.7. Parliamentary involvement in the European Semester .................................................... 272.7.1. Involvement of national Parliaments and the European Parliament.......................... 282.7.2. Format .................................................................................................................... 28PART 3: ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL REGULATION IN GENERAL . 313.1. Parliamentary debates on financial supervision package and economic governancepackage ................................................................................................................................ 313.1.1. Results .................................................................................................................... 313.1.2. Need for a parliamentary debate.............................................................................. 323.2. Legal justification for the three-fold control under the economic governance package ... 333.3. Recommendations for gradual application of sanctions and incentives ........................... 333.4. Ways for Parliaments to follow political developments in the area of economic and fiscalcoordination ......................................................................................................................... 34PART 4: EUROPEAN COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME 2012..................................... 364.1. Parliamentary input into the Commission Work Programme 2012 ................................. 364.1.1.Ex antedebate......................................................................................................... 364.1.2.Ex postdebate......................................................................................................... 374.2. Coordinatedex antedebate in COSAC .......................................................................... 384.2.1. Subjects .................................................................................................................. 384.2.2. Procedure................................................................................................................ 39

The four parts of this Bi-annual Report are based on information provided by the nationalParliaments of the European Union Member States and the European Parliament. The deadlinefor submitting replies to the questionnaire for the 15th Bi-annual Report was 11 April 2011.Parts I, II and IV begin with relevant parts of the outline adopted by the meeting of theChairpersons of COSAC, held on 11 February 2011 in Budapest, with some factual informationadded.As a general rule, the Report does not specify all Parliaments or Chambers whose case isrelevant for each point. Instead, illustrative examples introduced in the text as "e.g." are used.The COSAC Secretariat is grateful to the contributing Parliaments/Chambers for theircooperation.Note on NumbersOf the 27 Member States of the European Union, 14 have a unicameralParliament and 13 have a bicameral Parliament. Due to this combination ofunicameral and bicameral systems, there are 40 national parliamentary Chambersin the 27 Member States of the European Union.Although they have bicameral systems, the national Parliaments of Austria,Belgium and Spain each submitted a single set of replies to the questionnairecirculated by the COSAC Secretariat.The COSAC Secretariat received replies from 38 national Parliaments/Chambersof 26 Member States1and the European Parliament. These replies are published ina separate Annex to this Bi-annual Report which is also available on the COSACwebsite at:http://www.cosac.eu/en/documents/biannual/.

PRESIDENCY INTRODUCTIONThe initiative of the European Semester, the economic governance package, the Europe 2020Strategy all aim to create a reliable and stable economic area in the EU. National Parliaments andthe European Parliament are seeking to support and complement the efforts made by the nationalGovernments and the EU institutions to create sustainable growth in Europe. Theaforementioned initiatives serve as an incentive for Parliaments to find their own ways ofscrutinising and influencing the process.Generally, it is the national Parliaments that decide on the adoption of national budgets. Theimplementation of the European Semester will complement this with recommendations issued atthe EU level. This new situation raises questions on how parliamentary scrutiny can be bestensured throughout the process and on establishing best working practices.Since the presentation of the new initiatives, interparliamentary debates on the aforementionedissues have taken place, for instance:Meeting of the Chairpersons of the Committees on Budget and Finance2organised by the Hungarian National Assembly, theOrszággyűlés,in the frameworkof its Presidency of the Council, on 24-25 February 2011 in Budapest;Interparliamentary Committee meetings: "Investing in the real economy: A toolkit for growth, innovation and cohesion" and "The European Semester foreconomic policy coordination"3,organised by the European Parliament on 14 and15 March 2011 in the European Parliament in Brussels;Conference of Speakers of European Union Parliaments4, organised by theBelgian Federal Parliament on 4-5 April 2011 in Brussels;Interparliamentary Committee meeting "The European Semester 2011: How tocoordinate EU and national budgets?"5,organised by the European Parliament on13 April 2011 in the European Parliament in Brussels.

ABSTRACTPART 1: EUROPE 2020 STRATEGYA majority of Parliaments/Chambers have provided or will give input into their NationalReform Programmes and Stability and Convergence Programmes.These documents aresubmitted by Governments to Parliaments/Chambers and subsequently referred mostly toCommittees on European Affairs and/or Committees on Budget. Occasionally, joint committeemeetings and hearings are held, and other specialised committees are involved. Governmentofficials are often invited to present the aforementioned Programmes and to exchange views onthem. Due to the sensitive nature of the issue, the debate on Stability and ConvergenceProgramme sparked a constitutional reform in one case, and triggered the resignation of a PrimeMinister in another one.With a view to securing the success of the Europe 2020 Strategy Parliaments/Chambersunderscore the need to meet the five headline goals of the Strategy.According toParliaments/Chambers, the main stumbling block on the way to success is the lack of sufficientfinancing of the five headline goals from the debt-ridden public finances of Member States. Thisis why Parliaments/Chambers call for structural reforms of the public sector. At the EU level,Parliaments/Chambersemphasise the need to secure sufficient funding to meet the fiveheadline goalsin the next Multiannual Financial Framework starting in 2014. They alsounderline the necessity to meet and comply with the requirements of the 20-20-20 targets of theClimate Package with some Parliaments/Chambers advocating further cuts in greenhouse gasemission targets. Relaunching the Single Market is also perceived as a step in the right direction.In the majority of cases, national indicators of the Europe 2020 Strategy have not beenscrutinised by Parliaments/Chambers.PART 2: EUROPEAN SEMESTER AND ANNUAL GROWTH SURVEYThe first European Semester brought about a new situationfor both Parliaments andGovernments. As a result, as of the time of the drafting of this Report, out of 39Parliaments/Chambers which submitted replies to the questionnaire for this Report, almost halfhaveheld debateson the findings of the Annual Growth Survey. Some Parliaments/Chambersintend to holdsuch debates later in spring 2011 or next year. On the other hand, a dozenParliaments/Chambershave not heldsuch debates, although a few have looked at it, have takennote of it or have been informed by their respective Governments about the Annual GrowthSurvey while deliberating other subjects. Consequently, only a limited number ofParliaments/Chambers have offered comments or suggestions on thespecific findingsof theAnnual Growth Survey.In the majority of cases, parliamentary debates on the findings of the Annual Growth Surveyhave been heldat the committee level,primarily in the Committees on European Affairs, butalso in a few cases in competent specialised committees. In some instances,Parliaments/Chambers have opted for holding joint committee meetings. Only one Chamberinformed about aplenarydebate on the Annual Growth Survey.

Due to the fact that a number of Parliaments/Chambers have not yet held a debate on the AnnualGrowth Survey, the replies to the question on theindicators of the Surveyare relativelyfewand brief.Seven Parliaments/Chambers have found the indicators to berelevant, coherentandin line with the national ones. Three Parliaments/Chambers consider thatadditional indicatorscould be added in order to better reflect the specific situation in each Member State, whereas twoother Chambers have found it difficult to align the suggested indicators with the national ones.The majority of Parliaments/Chambersdo not substantially reflect on the necessity to changefuture Annual Growth Surveysor consider ittoo early to predictwhether any changes wouldbe necessary. Other Parliaments/Chambers are satisfied with the content of the Annual GrowthSurvey as it is now, witha possible adaptation in the framework of the foreseen 2014 mid-term review.As for the critical voices, some Parliaments/Chambers would expect amore soundeconomic justification,basing the Survey on the actual National Reform Programmes andtaking into account such aspects as demographic trends and sustainable growth.As to theparliamentary input into government activitiesin the context of the EuropeanSemester, half of the Parliaments/Chambers haveopted for an active participationin this newinitiative, to a large extent choosing thetraditional meansof parliamentary involvement.Among those, the most prevalent is the regular parliamentary scrutiny of EU documents andgovernment activities, including the pre-Council mandating. In a few cases,Parliaments/Chambers have organised wider debates on the subject. On the other hand, 11Parliaments/Chambers reportnot having given any inputinto their governments' activities inthe context of the European Semester. The underlying reasons include the lack of specific rulesand procedures as well as the possibility to be involved at a later stage.Parliaments/Chambers mostly use theexisting working methodsfor giving their input into therelevant national aspects of the European Semester, withno special procedureslaid down.However, some Parliaments/Chambers mention thatnational budgetary procedures mightneed to be adaptedin view of the implementation of the European Semester. Someconsideramending their internal rulesand/or changing arrangements as to timing of budgetaryprocedure.As regards possibleweaknessesof the European Semester initiative,about a dozenParliaments/Chambers state that theyhave not identifiedany weaknesses, whereas18donotidentify weaknessesat this stage,for reasons that are mainly related to timing (not yet debated,too early to assess, etc.) In some cases an official position is lacking. While someParliaments/Chambers voice general concerns over the European Semester, others pinpointspecific weaknessessuch as insufficient accountability, the excessive length of the Semester andscarce parliamentary involvement.A largemajorityof Parliaments/Chambersunderscore the need to involve nationalParliaments and the European Parliamentin the running of the European Semester, mostlyproviding details on how this involvement should materialise. While someParliaments/Chambers call for the highest possible degree of commitment, others point out thatthe intensity of involvement depends,inter alia,on national constitutional arrangements and theEU Treaties, on good will of national governments and the EU institutions and on involvement atan early/earlier stage.A significant numberof Parliaments/Chambers hold the view that anannual(inter)parliamentary conference on budgetwould be themost suitable formatfor them to be

involved in the European Semester. They highlight the need toinvolve the Committees onBudgetof national Parliaments and the appropriate committee(s) of the European Parliament.Preferences of Parliaments/Chambers onwhere and how to organisesuch a conference differ.The European Parliament and the Parliament of the country holding the rotating EU Presidencyare explicitly mentioned as possible venues, and some Parliaments/Chambers suggest exploringthe use of existing fora like COSAC. A number of Parliaments/Chambers that support the idea ofan (inter)parliamentary conference provide some detail on theexact timing,with suggestionsranging from March to June. Finally,a fewParliaments/Chambers are rathersceptical aboutnew formatsor their added value.PART 3: ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL REGULATION INGENERALAmajority of Parliaments/Chambersconsider thefinancial supervision packageand thepackage aimed to strengtheneconomic governance adequate and sufficientto help theEuropean economy recover, although most of them emphasise certain specific aspects. A fewParliaments/Chambersagree on the financial supervisionpackage butnot on the fulleconomic governancepackage, while others expressreservations about boththe financialsupervision and the economic governance package. On the other hand, an important number ofParliaments/Chambershave not yet expressed a final opinion.Theneed for a parliamentary debateon these issues isgenerally acknowledged.MostParliaments/Chambers have held or intend to hold a debate at thenational parliamentary level.A number of them suggest holding such a debate at theinterparliamentary level,either in theEuropean Parliament, or in COSAC or in a special Budget Conference.As to the legal justification for the three-fold control under the economic governance package, animportant numberof Parliaments/Chambershave not yet expressed a final opinion.On theother hand, most Parliaments/Chambers which have done so, consider thelegal justificationforthe three-fold control under the economic governance package to besufficient.Asmall numberof Parliaments/Chambers believe that thejustification is to be complemented,mostly bysuggesting additional meetings.When asked aboutrecommendations regarding the gradual application of the sanctions andincentives of the enforcement mechanisms,most Parliaments/Chambers have eithernotexpressed a final opinionon this issue or do not formulate any recommendations.Parliaments/Chambers which put forward suggestions focus primarily on possible sanctions,criteria for sanctions and voting procedures.As for the optimal way for national Parliaments and the European Parliament to follow currentpolitical developments in the area ofeconomic and fiscal coordinationand the availability ofthe right tools, an important number of Parliaments/Chambers either havenot yet come to afinal decisionordo not provide any recommendations.The other ones focus on differentissues such as better and timelyinformation,internalreorganisation,enhancedinterparliamentary cooperation,capacity building of stakeholders and administrations andextended use of IPEX.

PART 4: EUROPEAN COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME 2012As a rule, Parliaments/Chambersdo not debatethe European Commission Work Programme(hereinafter referred to as "CWP") before its publication. Only a few Parliaments formulateexantepositions on the CWP 2012.A vast majorityof Parliaments/Chambersdiscuss the CWPon a regular basisafter itspublication.Seven Parliaments/Chambers indicate the common practice of defining prioritiesfor scrutiny (in the Committees on EU Affairs and/or specialised committees) during thefollowing year based on the published CWP.Some Parliaments/Chambers support theprevious practice whereby the EuropeanCommission published its Annual Policy Strategy.They underline the importance of having abackground document as a basis for anex antedebate.Several Parliaments/Chambers suggest holding a coordinatedex antedebate on the CWP in theframework of COSAC. Such a debate could take placeduring the meeting of the Chairpersonsof COSAC in the first semester of the year.Almost all Parliaments/Chambers comment on themodalities of suchex antedebates in COSAC, in particular as regards the selection of subjects.

PART 1: EUROPE 2020 STRATEGYNational Parliaments acquired further competences to influence EU decision-making followingthe entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. However, what is just as significant, an exchange ofviews with the EU institutions is getting to be more and more frequent and the number ofcommunication channels is growing as well. In addition, both national Parliaments and theEuropean Parliament are working together to develop an effective and regular interparliamentarycooperation.Based on the Contribution and Conclusions of both the XLIII and XLIV COSAC meetings, it isincreasingly important for Parliaments to discuss politically significant issues in the frameworkof COSAC, which gives them a possibility to seize the aforementioned opportunity.Analysing the parliamentary views on the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy is notonly important for the Commission (as expressed by Mr José Manuel BARROSO, President ofthe Commission in his speech at the XLIV COSAC meeting), but also for COSAC itself. It givesan opportunity to all participants of COSAC to share their views which can have anex anteinfluence on the economic issues listed below.The Europe 2020 Strategy, economic governance in the EU and the European Semester are coreinitiatives to be formulated and implemented properly in order to overcome the present difficultsituation in Europe and turn it into a prosperous and sustainable continent of cooperation. Therequisite measures were prepared or decided upon throughout the year 2010. The HungarianPresidency of the Council of the European Union in the first semester of 2011 placed theimplementation of those decisions high on its agenda.The Europe 2020 Strategy6has been created by the European Commission (hereinafter referredto as "the Commission") as a response to the challenges that have arisen in the wake of thefinancial crisis of 2008 that shook the foundations of many European economies and jeopardizedthe growth prospects of the EU. The Strategy encompasses the followingthree priorities:smart growth;sustainable growth;inclusive growth;

1.1.1. National Reform ProgrammeAs regards the National Reform Programme,a slight majorityof Parliaments/Chambers (i.e. 22out of 39) have so far providedan input,while another five expect a debate on it (i.e. the CzechPoslanecká sněmovna,the FrenchSénat,the GreekVouli ton Ellinon,and the two Chambers ofthe SpanishCortes Generales7).Most Parliaments/Chambers receive from their respective Governments draft National ReformProgrammes, which are subsequently referred to the parliamentary committees. Predominantly,National Reform Programmes are dealt with by theCommittees on European Affairs, and/orthe Committees on Budget.In the case of the SlovakianNárodná rada,the Committee onEuropean Affairs is the main body responsible for the Europe 2020 Strategy coordinating thecooperation with the following specialised committees: the Committee on Finance and NationalBudget, the Committee on Education, Youth, Science and Sport, the Committee on SocialAffairs, and the Committee on Economy, Construction and Transport.Occasionally, however, the National Reform Programme is discussed atjoint committeemeetings or hearings.This was the case in the EstonianRiigikogu,where the National ReformProgramme has been discussed at a joint meeting of the Committee on European Union Affairs,Committee on Finance, Committee on Economic Affairs, Committee on Cultural Affairs, andCommittee on Social Affairs, whereas in the LithuanianSeimasa joint hearing of the Committeeon European Affairs and the Committee on Economics was held.In the case of the AustrianNationalratandBundesrat8, the BelgianChambre des représentantsandSénatand the LuxembourgChambre des Députésother specialised committeeshave beeninvolved. In the GreekVouli ton Ellinon,the National Reform Program was referred to theCommittee on Economy. In the GermanBundestagit has also been dealt with by the Committeeon Labour and Social Affairs and in the DutchTweede Kamerby the standing Committee onEconomic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation.

It is worth noting that the SlovakNárodná radahas createda special Commission for Europe2020 Strategy9responsible for the implementation of the Strategy at the national level.A few Parliaments/Chambers have indicated that theydiscussed the National ReformProgramme with the representatives of their Governments.For instance, the HungarianOrszággyűléshas invited several ministers and state secretaries, presiding over various Councilformations, to present their views on the main issues related to the National Reform Programme.Moreover, the Programme was put on the agenda of anin cameraConsultation Meeting10duringwhich the Hungarian Prime Minister summarized the position to be presented by the HungarianPresidency at the European Council of 24-25 March 2011. Several committees of the PolishSenat(i.e. Committee on European Union Affairs, Committee on National Economy andCommittee on Budget and Public Finance) have also closely collaborated with the Governmentin the course of regular andad hocconsultations.Members of Parliament during such debates often drew attention to specific aspects of theNational Reform Programme; e.g. Members of the LithuanianSeimasemphasised theemployment policy, financial instruments and more specific measures to stimulate small andmedium enterprises.It should also be noted that the PortugueseAssembleia da República,which has not directlycontributed to the National Reform Programme due to the dissolution of the Parliament andcalling of general elections, has organised an openseminaron "Europe 2020 – Strategy for anintelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth and the National Reform Programme". Similarly,the Romanian Parliament held twoconferences:"Romania and Europe 2020: vision, challengesand strategic priorities" in 2010 as well as "Europe 2020 Strategy: objectives and national reformpriorities" organised jointly by the Romanian Parliament and the Government in 2011.Finally, a noticeable group of 12 Parliaments/Chambers have not given any input into theNational Reform Programme.1.1.2. Stability and Convergence ProgrammeWith reference to the Stability and Convergence Programme, a total of 37 Parliaments/Chambershave replied to the question on parliamentary debates of the Stability and ConvergenceProgramme.More than half(i.e. 21) haveprovided an inputso far, with three additionalParliaments/Chambers expecting to hold a debate on the Programme in the future.Whereas most Parliaments/Chambers do not specify their input, four havedebatedthe Stabilityand Convergence Programmes. The CzechPoslanecká sněmovnahas debated it in its Committeefor European Affairs, while the FrenchSénatdiscussed the Programme within the framework ofa debate concerning the public finances for the period 2011-2014. The ItalianSenato della9

Repubblicahas done so in the Committee on Budget, and the LuxembourgChambre des Députésduring aplenary sessionon 8 March 2011. The PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicadebatedand approved the Stability and Growth Programme for 2010-2013 at itsplenary sittingof 25March 2010, but on 21 March 2011 it rejected the revised version of the Programme for 2011-2014, which led to the resignation of the Prime Minister and calling of elections.It is noteworthy that the LithuanianSeimasand the UKHouse of Lordsdebate their Stability andConvergence Programmeson an annual basis.Significantly, the Committee on Constitutional Acts, Legislation and General Administration ofthe FrenchAssemblée nationaleamended on 13 April 2011 a draft law on the balance of publicfinances (amending the Constitution) to the effect thata plenary debateshould be held beforesending the Stability and Convergence Programmes to the EU institutions11.1.2. Measures for meeting the five EU headline targets by 2020Out of 39 Parliaments/Chambers that have replied to the question on measures considerednecessary to meet the five EU headline targets by 2020, a large majority of 27Parliaments/Chambers have considered the issue, while 12 Parliaments/Chambers have notdebated the measures.1.2.1. Measures at the national levelA number of Parliaments/Chambersfear that the Europe 2020 Strategy may fall through,andconsequently mirror the failures of the Lisbon Strategy, unless the five headline targets areearnestly embraced by the Member States and fully embedded in their policies (e.g. the CzechSenát,the BulgarianNarodno sabranie).The European Parliament believes that the Europe 2020Strategy is vague and calls for concrete commitments from Member States to be submittedthrough their respective National Reform Programmes and for concrete and consistent legislativeproposals12.National Parliaments have, therefore, a crucial role to play in the implementation and monitoringof the Strategy, as many measures will be translated into legislative acts.A group of six Parliaments/Chambers underline thatmeeting the five EU headline targets by2020 depends on the level of public financing,which, in turn, is contingent on the state ofpublic finances. Thus, five Parliaments/Chambers consider itimportant to reduce publicdeficitsby carrying out structural reforms,inter alia,of pension systems and by streamliningpublic administration, as only sustainable budget policies may contribute to the success of theStrategy (e.g. the PolishSejm,the ItalianCamera dei Deputati,the AustrianNationalratandBundesrat).The GreekVouli ton Ellinonasserts that unless similar actions are taken, the direstate of public finances of some Member States afflicted by the economic crisis is likely to makeit difficult to meet the five EU headline targets, especially the unemployment target.

A few Parliaments/Chambers stress the need tofocus on research and developmentas a way ofboosting growth. For instance, the ItalianCamera dei Deputatistates that research "is the realengine of growth and a fundamental requisite for competitiveness", while the LithuanianSeimassees a need to implement joint research programs and research that benefits all EU MemberStates in order to reach 3% of EU's GDP to be invested in research and development.The BulgarianNarodno sabranieis convinced that each Member State should elaborate anAction plan for the implementation of the Strategy.Two Chambers have expressed concerns on certain aspects of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Thus,the PolishSenatwarns against replacing old targets by the new criteria and methods promoted bythe European Commission that could jeopardise the solidarity principle of the European Union.The GermanBundesrattakes a critical stance in respect of quantitative national goals for the keyobjectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, and is opposed to establishing national goals in thesphere of education as they are incompatible with provisions of the EU Treaties on theattribution of competences.1.2.2. Measures at the EU levelThere is a strong conviction among Parliaments/Chambers that some objectives are betteraddressed at the EU level due to their complexity and possible synergies.Five Parliaments/Chambers13emphasise the importance of the transition to the low carboneconomy and of meeting the Europe 2020 climate targets, with the BelgianChambre desreprésentantsandSénatand the SwedishRiksdag14advocating stepping up the target of curbingcarbon dioxide emissions by 30% by 2020. Moreover, the Committee on Public Health andEnvironment of the BelgianChambre des représentantssuggests that, after an in-depth analysis,the Government contribute to creating a European fiscal "carbon inclusion mechanism" aimed atthird countries that do not contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.Four Parliaments/Chambers stress theneed of allocating appropriate financial resources tothe five headline goals in the Multiannual Financial Framework starting in 2014(e.g. theHungarianOrszággyűlés,the European Parliament). The ItalianCamera dei DeputatiandSenatodella Repubblicabelieve that growth may be stimulated by issuing Eurobonds, whereas theGreekVouli ton Ellinonconsiders this a possible solution. Furthermore, the latter believes thatcloser coordination could solve problems deriving from a sovereign debt crunch.Three Parliaments/Chambers believe that the five headline goals could be best met bystrengthening the Single Market.Thus, the CzechSenátunderlines the importance of theSingle Market by ensuring that the measures contained in the Commission’s Communication"Towards a Single Market Act"15are implemented. In this context, the ItalianCamera deiDeputaticalls for harmonisation of tax regulations, while the European Parliament believes thatrelaunching the Single Market and Small Business Act may reduce unemployment.

The UKHouse of Commonsstresses the positive consequences of the Digital Agenda forEurope. Moreover, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to speed up the adoption ofparticular digital single market measures such as e-commerce, intellectual property, online trustand security, roaming and e-authentication.Finally, the ItalianCamera dei Deputati,the LithuanianSeimasand the European Parliamentalso draw special attention to the need of reducing poverty and social exclusion. The lattersuggests doing so under the aegis of one of the flagship initiatives, i.e. European platform againstPoverty.1.2.3. Coordination and cooperation between the national and the EU levelsSome Parliaments/Chambers believe thatmore cooperation between Member States and theEU is neededto make the Europe 2020 Strategy feasible. The FrenchAssemblée nationalebelieves that national and EU budgets ought to become more integrated, and consequentlystrengthened by internal synergies, in order to be able to pursue actions involving at least a groupof Member States. An example of such cooperation could be the incipient French-Germancooperation in energy, transport and digital networks.The BulgarianNarodno sabranieconsiders it essential to have an interparliamentary forum forcoordination and striking balance between national interests in the context of the EU 2020Strategy. It believes that COSAC is a possible venue for discussing such issues.1.3. Parliamentary input into national indicators for measuring the condition of economiesA slight majority of Parliaments/Chambers (i.e. 21 out of 39) report havingconsidered thenational indicatorsfor measuring the condition of economies. The most elaborate set ofindicators has been endorsed by the LithuanianSeimaswhile implementing the Europe 2020Strategy. Those eight indicators are aimed at:increasing the level of investment in research and development to 1.9% of GDP;limiting the share of population with basic education in the 18-24 age group to 9%;increasing the share of population aged 30-34 with higher education to 40%;increasing the use of renewables to 23%;reducing final energy consumption by 17% compared to 2009 levels;curbing greenhouse gas emissions by 15% compared to 2005 levels;increasing employment of those aged 20-64 to 72.8%;reducing the number of people under risk of poverty, financial difficulties,unemployment or very low employment to 825,000.

PART 2: EUROPEAN SEMESTER AND THE ANNUAL GROWTHSURVEYThe Commission published its first Annual Growth Survey on 12 January 201116. Thepublication marked the launch of the first European Semester ofex antepolicy coordination andinitiated a new cycle of economic governance in the EU. The European Semester changes theway governments shape their economic and fiscal policies. Once agreed by the EuropeanCouncil, Member States will reflect these recommendations in both their policies and nationalbudgets.The Annual Growth Survey is drawn up by the Commission each year following a thoroughanalysis and assessment of the main economic challenges facing the EU. The Survey charts thedirection where Europe should be heading in the next year withten priority actions(hereinafterreferred to as "indicators") focusing on the followingthree main areas:The need for rigorous fiscal consolidation for enhancing macro-economic stability;Labour market reforms for higher employment;Growth-enhancing measures.

Decision-making bodies of the EU at all levels, including Parliaments, now have the firstopportunity to assess whether the measures taken are pointing in the right direction and whetherthose measures have the right emphasis. As a matter of fact, in accordance with the principle ofsubsidiarity, the European level policy-making and actions – like those of Member States – canand must have real influence in helping citizens anticipate and react to rapidly changing socialand economic circumstances.This Bi-annual Report collects and analyses the first opinions of national Parliaments and theEuropean Parliament on the objectives of these measures and their implementation in order toprovide input by the Parliaments into their further development. The objective is also to verifywhether the proposals for the European Semester and the economic governance package providesufficient room for national level democratic scrutiny and for a strong parliamentaryinvolvement.2.1. Parliamentary debates on the findings of the Annual Growth SurveyOut of 39 Parliaments/Chambers which provide answers to the question on parliamentarydebates on the findings of the Annual Growth Survey, 16 have alreadyheld such debates.SomeParliaments/Chambersintend to holddebates primarily in spring 2011 or next year. On theother hand, a dozen Parliaments/Chambershave not heldspecial debates on the Annual GrowthSurvey. Among the latter group, there are those Parliaments/Chambers which have looked at,have taken note of or have been informed (by their Governments) about the Survey whiledeliberating other subjects. Only a few Parliaments/Chambers provide their comments orsuggestions on thefindingsof the Annual Growth Survey.2.1.1. ProcedureIn the majority of cases, parliamentary debates on the findings of the Annual Growth Surveyhave been heldat the committee level,notably in the Committees on European Affairs. Thus, atthe beginning of the Presidency the Committee on European Affairs of the HungarianOrszággyűlésinvited ministers and state secretaries presiding over the ECOFIN andCompetitiveness Councils for an oral briefing on the main issues related to the Annual GrowthSurvey. Likewise, the European Affairs Committee of the DanishFolketingdiscussed theAnnual Growth Survey on several occasions prior to debates in various Council formations. TheEuropean Semester was the subject of the meeting of the European Union Affairs Committee ofthe PolishSejmon 3 February 2011. The Committee discussed the operating rules of the newmechanism of coordinating budgetary policies within the EU, including the new system definedby the Commission in its Communication on the Annual Growth Survey. The UKHouse ofCommons,too, held a debate on the Survey on 29 March 2011 in European Committee B withthe participation of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury17. The UKHouse of Lords’InternalMarket Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee has considered the Annual GrowthSurvey as part of its routine scrutiny of EU documents.In some cases, Parliaments/Chambers have opted for holdingjoint committee meetingstodebate the Annual Growth Survey. For instance, the BulgarianNarodno sabranieheld a jointmeeting of the Committee on European Affairs and Oversight of European Funds and the17

Committee on Budget and Finance on 30 March 2011. Also, the PolishSenatheld two jointmeetings (in mid-2010 and at the beginning of 2011) of its Committee on European UnionAffairs, the Committee on National Economy and the Committee on Budget and Public Finance.The debate in the French Parliament, held on 30 March 2011, encompassed the Committees onEuropean Affairs of theAssemblée nationaleand theSénatas well as the French Members of theEuropean Parliament. The PortugueseAssembleia da República,for its part, first scrutinised theSurvey in its competent specialised committees: the Committee on Budget and Finance, theCommittee on Economic Affairs, Innovation and Energy and the Committee on Labour, SocialSecurity and Public Administration and then finalised the debate in the European AffairsCommittee which discussed the contributions of the three committees and produced a finalwritten opinion. The Committee on European Affairs concluded that the procedure regarding theEuropean Semester should be followed in strict tandem with the competent parliamentarycommittees and that theAssembleiashould perform a continuous oversight of the Government.The GermanBundesratseems to be the only Chamber which has held a debate on the AnnualGrowth Survey at theplenarylevel. The plenary debate took place on 18 March 2011. As aresult, theBundesratadopted a Resolution based on the recommendations of the Committee onEuropean Union Questions, the lead committee, which, in turn, took into consideration theopinions of the following five specialised committees: the Committee on Labour and SocialPolicy, the Committee on Women and Youth, the Committee on Finance, the Committee onCulture and the Committee on Economic Affairs. Also, the CzechSenát,after a debate in theCommittee on National Economy, Agriculture and Transport and subsequently in the Committeeon European Union Affairs, might hold a plenary discussion.In the case of the ItalianCamera dei Deputati,the Annual Growth Survey has been debatedsolely by itsspecialised committees.Thus, the Committee on Budget scrutinised the AnnualGrowth Survey having the benefit of the opinions of other specialised committees. In theframework of a fact-finding inquiry, the Committee also organised some hearings ofstakeholders, i.e. the Minister of Economy and representatives of economic and social partners.On 7 April 2011, the Committee on Budget approved a final document including guidelinesaddressed to the Italian Government for setting the National Reform Programme. Likewise, inthe BelgianChambre des représentantsandSénat,the Annual Growth Survey has beendiscussed by a number of specialised committees and the Federal Advisory Committee onEuropean Affairs in the context of debates on the National Reform Programme and the Stabilityand Convergence Programme.Furthermore, at the time of the drafting of this Report, some Parliaments/Chambers haveindicated that theyintend to holdsuch debates primarily in April or May 2011, but also nextyear. Thus, the CzechSenátplans a debate on 19 April 2011 in the Committee on NationalEconomy, Agriculture and Transport and subsequently in the Committee on European UnionAffairs. Also, the DutchEerste Kamer,discussed the subject at the annual 'State of the Union'debate at 19 April 2011. The European Union Affairs Committee of the PolishSejm,for its part,plans to scrutinise the Commission Communication on the Annual Growth Survey in April 2011based on the procedure stipulated in the Act of 8 October 2010 on the cooperation of the Councilof Ministers with theSejmand theSenatin matters relating to the Republic of Poland'smembership of the European Union. The MalteseKamra tad-Deputatiwill consider thedocument following the ordinary scrutiny procedure once the Government's position thereon isreceived by the Parliament. Also, the RomanianCamera Deputaţiloris to hold a thorough debateon the Annual Growth Survey in April or May when new procedures regarding the scrutinysystem in the Chamber will enter into force. By the same token, in the SlovakNárodná radaand

the UKHouse of Lords,the Annual Growth Survey will form part of a debate on the NationalReform Programme and the Convergence Programme during the European Semester.As todeferring the debate until next year,two Parliaments/Chambers provide information.The FrenchSénatwill probably hold such a debate in 2012. The European Parliament recalls thatthe only role foreseen for it by the Council conclusions of 7 September 2010 establishing theEuropean Semester is to hold a debate and give orientations for the Annual Growth Surveyprovided by the Commission in January of each year. The European Parliament is of the opinionthat the first European Semester in 2011 is very much a 'pilot' exercise and calls on theCommission "to present a Communication bringing together the broad guidelines of theeconomic policies (Article 121(2) TFEU) as well as the guidelines on employment policies(Article 148(2) TFEU) for consideration in the debate on the ‘European Semester’ to reducemeaningless and endless discussions"18. Moreover, it considers that "it will take a few yearsbefore the process is fully in place, since the first year of the European Semester (i.e. 2011) canonly be evaluated in 2012, when recommendations would be given for 2013". Consequently, thereaction of the European Parliament to the Annual Growth Survey can be expected only insubsequent years "within a more structured framework, which will be decided during 2011".By the same token, a dozen of national Parliaments/Chambershave not held any debateson theAnnual Growth Survey (e.g. the AustrianNationalratandBundesrat,the CypriotVouli tonAntiprosopon,the FrenchSénat,the SlovenianDržavni svet,the SpanishCortes Generales).Among the latter group, several Parliaments/Chambers have looked at, have taken note of19orhave been informed about the Annual Growth Survey as part of deliberations on other, albeitrelated subjects, such as the Europe 2020 Strategy (the GermanBundestag),within theframework of discussions on economic governance (the LatvianSaeima),in preparation for theparticipation in the meetings of the Competitiveness or the General Affairs Councils (theSlovenianDržavni zbor)or as a part of information provided by the Minister for Finance to theCommittee on Finance (the SwedishRiksdag).Finally, the Committee on Budget of the ItalianSenato della Repubblicahas decided not to placethe document on its agenda until the National Reform Programme and the Stability Programmeupdates are tabled by the Government. In this context, it is worth noting that on 7 April 2010, theItalian Parliament amended the Law on Accounting and Public Finance20which, following thenew rules adopted by the EU on coordination of economic policies by Member States,established wide-ranging obligations for the Italian Government to inform the Parliament. TheLaw,inter alia,has a new article on the coordination of the national financial policy with theEuropean Semester and includes the following instruments of economic planning: the Economyand Finance Document (hereinafter referred to as "DEF") to be submitted to the Parliament by 10April each year, the DEF update (by 20 September), the stability bill (15 October), the Budget(by 15 October), adjustment measures (30 June) and sectoral budget measures (Art. 7).

2.1.2. FindingsOnly a few Parliaments/Chamberscomment or put forward suggestionson the findings of theAnnual Growth Survey. Thus, in the UKHouse of Lords,the Chairman of the European UnionCommittee in his letter to the responsible UK Minister has expressed the Committee’s view thatit "was disappointing that the targets appear unlikely to be met". The Committee on EuropeanAffairs of the PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicain its opinion has reiterated the need for theGovernment to work alongside the Parliament, so that the best solutions for some of thestructural difficulties could be found and the outlined objectives could be met. The BulgarianNarodno sabraniefinds that the National Reform Programme has incorporated the 10 priorityactions of the Annual Growth Survey and, given the opportunity to assess whether the measurestaken are pointing in the right direction and whether those measures have the right emphasis,intends to monitor the process of their implementation.The two Chambers which have formulated more detailedopinions on the findingsof the AnnualGrowth Survey are the GermanBundesratand the ItalianCamera dei Deputati.Thus, in its 18March 2011 Resolution, theBundesratemphasises that "the Annual Growth Survey must beused as the point of departure for a new culture of stability in Europe, which must also be givenpractical expression". In the view of theBundesratthe report "sets the right priorities byfocussing on consistent budgetary consolidation, promoting employment and fostering growth"and "agrees with the Commission’s appraisal that budgetary consolidation is a central politicalpriority for the Member States". However, theBundesratalso "draws attention to the fact thatdecisions on the volume of state expenditure impinge on the core realm of the budgetaryautonomy of Parliaments in Member States" and notes that the Survey also contains "demandsthat extend beyond the scope of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Where this is the case, theBundesratrejects the inclusion of specific requirements for the Member States in the Annual GrowthSurvey and is opposed to the proposal that two percent of GDP should be invested in highereducation".In the ItalianCamera dei Deputati,the final document of 7 April 2011 of its Committee onBudget sets guidelines for the Italian Government on the National Reform Programme, stating,inter alia,that "the Annual Growth Survey has confirmed the main weakness of the neweconomic governance: a strong imbalance between the strict rules of the Stability and GrowthPact and the weak mechanism for the coordination of the policies for growth and employment aswell as of the social policies". Such an imbalance affects both the goals of the Europe 2020Strategy and the sustainability of public finance. According to the Committee, only a highgrowth rate will allow a timely reduction of public debt. In view of the Italian National ReformProgramme, the Committee sets out the following priorities:to reduce macroeconomic imbalances and relaunch growth in Italy which requiresstructural reforms, in particular by further liberalizing the services markets, simplifyingpublic administration and regulations and improving civil justice system;to significantly increase investments in the fields of innovation and education, notably insuch strategic areas for Italy, as digital agenda, innovation and energy;to ensure security of energy supply, to reduce energy dependency and to cut the cost ofenergy for businesses. To this end, renewable resources should be increased and carbon-free technologies should be further developed.

2.2. Opinions on the indicators of the Annual Growth SurveyAs a number of Parliaments/Chambers have not yet held a debate on the Annual Growth Survey,therepliesto the question on the indicators of the Annual Growth Survey are relativelyfew andbrief.Seven Parliaments/Chambers have found the indicators to be in line with the national ones.A further six Parliaments/Chambers consider that additional indicators could be added in order tobetter reflect the specific situation in each Member State, whereas two Chambers have found itdifficult to align the suggested indicators with the national ones.Thus, seven Parliaments/Chambers (e.g. the BulgarianNarodno sabranie,the FinnishEduskunta,the HungarianOrszággyűlés,the LatvianSaeima)havefound the indicators to berelevant, coherent and in line with the national ones.Among these Parliaments/Chambers, thePolishSenatagrees that in principle the indicators are in line with the national ones. However, itis concerned about the timing proposed by the Commission "as it should be adequate to theexternal circumstances and capabilities of each Member State".Six Parliaments/Chambers (i.e. the AustrianNationalratandBundesrat,the BelgianChambredes représentantsandSénat,the PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicaand the RomanianCameraDeputaţilor)consider thatadditional indicatorscould be added to the suggested ones in order tobetter reflect the specific situation of each Member State. The PortugueseAssembleia daRepúblicais of the opinion that although this first Annual Growth Survey has been conceived tobe applicable in the EU as a whole, it should be adapted to the specific situation of each MemberState. Although the indicators used are not much different from those used internally, theyshould take into consideration other suitable multidisciplinary indicators, which reflect thenational reality (apart from the usual macroeconomic indicators), such as indicators in the areasof education, higher education, health, the labour market, innovation, as well as indicators withregard to the evolution of rates of saving. In addition, during the debates in the BelgianChambredes représentantsandSénat,some Members have called for taking into account other indicators,in particular social and environmental ones.By the same token, the RomanianCamera Deputaţilorconsiders the issue of indicators to bequite controversial, in particular "those for microeconomic imbalances (e.g. the real effectiveexchange rate) and financial markets (e.g. the lack of indicators as the bank exposure on eurodenomination credits for non-euro zone Member States)". TheCamera Deputaţilor,therefore,suggests adding new indicators and tailoring their weights to individual Member States in orderto reflect specific situations and to reliably anticipate the future.On the other hand, two Chambers (i.e. the ItalianCamera dei Deputatiand the UKHouse ofLords)express doubtsas to the indicators of the Annual Growth Survey. For instance, the UKHouse of Lordsdraws attention to the fact that the UK Government has adopted a differentapproach in the production of the National Reform Programme. The Government has not setnational targets, but has provided a list of key indicators against which the UK's progress can bemonitored. In the opinion of theHouse of Lords"it would appear to be difficult to compare theseto the EU-wide targets".Furthermore, the GermanBundesratin its Resolutions concerning the Communication on theEurope 2020 Strategy has questioned the choice of indicators and related parameters, forinstance, asking whether the number of higher education diplomas obtained is a meaningfulindicator, both in terms of the pace of growth and in terms of very different educational systems.Moreover, theBundesrattakes the view that a benchmark relating to a tertiary education diploma22

would not serve as a meaningful indicator for quality of the educational system, especially inGermany which has a highly differentiated system of vocational education.2.3. Changes in subsequent Annual Growth SurveysAs reflected in the aforementioned paragraphs, more than half of Parliaments/Chambers have notyet held a debate on the Annual Growth Survey. As a consequence, 24 of themdo not reflectsubstantially on the necessity of changes in future Annual Growth Surveys.ThreeParliaments/Chambers (i.e. the PolishSenat,the PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicaand theBulgarianNarodno sabranie)consider that given the fact that the practice of issuing the AnnualGrowth Survey has just started, it would be too early at this stage to predict whether or notchanges are required. The European Parliament considers that the Annual Growth Survey shouldbecome a review tool of past European Semesters in future European Semesters and underlinesthat it will take a few years before the process is fully in place.Nevertheless, two Parliaments (i.e. the LatvianSaeimaand the SlovakNárodná rada)agreewith the present format and content of the Annual Growth Survey.In this context, the HungarianOrszággyűléspoints out thataccording to the Synthesis Reportregarding the Implementation of the European Semester21,a mid-term review should be madein 2014.The HungarianOrszággyűlésconsiders that this gives enough opportunity to determinewhether any adaptations are necessary and underlines that it would be beneficial to have athorough evaluation of the National Reform Programmes and progress reports on theimplementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy.The RomanianCamera Deputaţilormentions that even though the European Semester broughtabout a long neededex antecoordination of budgetary affairs amore sound economicjustification might be needed.The UKHouse of Lordsunderscores that in future AnnualGrowth Surveys will be based more on actual National Reform Programmes and not on interimones.A few Parliaments/Chambershighlight specific aspects that should be better taken intoconsiderationin subsequent Annual Growth Surveys. Further to the aforementioned remarks ofthe GermanBundesrat,the LatvianSaeimais of the opinion that more weight should to be givento the negative demographic trends, while the SlovenianDržavni zborcalls for attaching moreimportance to innovation, research and sustainable growth.2.4. Parliamentary input into governmental activities on the European Semester19 Parliaments/Chambers indicate that theyhave provided input into their governments'activitiesin the context of the European Semester. Most of them have either held committeemeetings (in some cases, joint committee meetings) with the participation of members ofgovernment or organised wider debates dedicated to the subject. Furthermore, a number ofParliaments/Chambers22plan to providetheir input into the National Reform Programmes andStability and Convergence Programmes in the future. On the other hand, 1121

Parliaments/Chambers23indicate that they have givenno inputinto government activities in theabsence of specific rules or procedures for such parliamentary involvement.As a general rule, the Parliaments/Chambers which have opted for an active participation in theEuropean Semester initiative chose to a large extenttraditional means of parliamentaryinvolvement.Among those, the most prevalent is the regular parliamentary scrutiny of EUdocuments and government activities, including pre-Council mandating. Thus, the EuropeanAffairs Committee of the DanishFolketingalready mandated the Government to sign up to theEuropean Semester at its meeting of 9 July 2010. The Committee has discussed the EuropeanSemester at a number of subsequent meetings, underlining that the European Semester shouldnot undermine theFolketing'sright to adopt the annual national budget. Similarly, the CypriotVouli ton Antiprosopon,the DutchTweede Kamer,the FinnishEduskunta,the LatvianSaeima,the PolishSejmand others have used the meetings of their Committees on European Affairs todebate and present the Parliament’s opinion to their respective Government.A few Parliaments/Chambers have opted for debates on the European Semester in theirspecialised committees.Thus, in the LuxembourgChambre des Députés,it was the Committeeon Finance and Budget that held such a debate at its meeting on 17 February 2011 in which theMinister of Finance informed about the implications of the European Semester.In the context of the European Semester, the PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicarecalls aprovision of the Communication of the Commission on Reinforcing economic policycoordination24, i.e. thatMember States are encouraged in total respect for national rules andprocedures to involve their national Parliaments in this process prior to presenting theirStability and Growth Programmes and National Reform Programmes for multilateralsurveillance at the EU level.This proposal was subsequently seconded in the orientationsissued by the European Council of June 2010 to the Member States, in particular on thepresentation to the Commission, in the spring, of the Programme of Stability and Convergencefor the coming years, taking into account the national budget procedures. In addition, theAssembleia da Repúblicaunderlines that within the scope of the Portuguese legal andconstitutional framework, the Parliament always has the last word with respect to solutions setout in the State Budget.In the UKHouse of Commons,the European Scrutiny Committee25held a discussion oneconomic policy coordination, including the economic governance package on 27 October 2010and recommended a debate on the Floor of the House. Theplenary debate,with theparticipation of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, took place on 10 November 201026.It is noteworthy that the FrenchAssemblée nationalehas been fully involved in the debates onthe European Semester and has initiated a proposal to hold a regular debate on related issues.The proposal sets out the following timeframe:23

The BulgarianNarodno sabraniehas given its input into the EU-wide debate on the coordinationof national economic and fiscal policies by conducting a number ofdebates,making reports andstatements on topical issues, including the European Semester. Thus, on 29 March 2011, thethird Council for Public Consultations to the Committee on European Affairs and Oversight ofthe European Funds held a debate with all stakeholders on the topic: "From European Semesterto the Single Market Act – financial stability and sustainable development of the EU". Thisdiscussion on the Bulgarian priorities in the context of the European Semester resulted in anational position on the new economic governance and the Single Market Act which reflects,inter alia,the interests of civil society and business. The joint meeting on 30 March 2011 of theCommittee on European Affairs and the Committee on Budget and Finance has come as a logicalcontinuation of parliamentary action on the European Semester.The MalteseKamra tad-Deputatiindicates that this is the first European Semester cycle, whichbrings about a new situation for both the Government and the Parliament, and as such both havestill been at the beginning of a learning curve. With regard to the involvement of the MalteseKamra tad-Deputatiin the European Semester, the Maltese Minister of Finance, the Economyand Investment has proposed to hold a debate in the Standing Committee on Foreign andEuropean Affairs on both the Stability Programme and the National Reform Programme.As to the input of theEuropean Parliament,in its Resolution of 17 February 2011 on Europe202027, it supports the Annual Growth Survey and the European Semester as tools for enhancedcoordination of economic policies. However, the European Parliament is of the opinion that theexisting tools of Member States' broad economic policy guidelines and employment guidelines(which are based on the Treaty) should not be replaced nor should their importance bediminished. On these tools, the European Parliament is strongly involved and consulted. It fearsthat the Europe 2020 Strategy will not be able to meet its targets due to its weak governancestructure. Therefore, it asks the Council to strengthen the Community method and to integrate thegoals of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the European Semester into the legislative package of theeconomic governance framework.On the other hand, 11 Parliaments/Chambers28have not given any inputinto theirGovernments' activities concerning the European Semester. The underlying reasons include thelack of specific rules and procedures as well as the possibility to be involved at a later stage.Regardless of the lack of their input so far, an additional two Chambers, i.e. the CzechPoslanecká sněmovnaand the SlovenianDržavni zbor,inform that they keep examining theactivities of their Governments concerning the European Semester with care, ensuring the steadyflow of related information to their Chambers.27

2.5. Special parliamentary procedures for implementing the European SemesterA majority of Parliaments/Chambers (i.e. 26 out of 39) use their existing working methods togive their input into relevant national aspects of the European Semester, having no specialprocedures laid down. In some cases (e.g. the FrenchSénat),due to the fact that theimplementation of the European Semester is still in its initial phase, no decision has been takenyet.However, many Parliaments/Chambers mention that thenational budgetary procedures mightneed to be adaptedin future for better coherence with the implementation of the EuropeanSemester. In various cases some changes have already been decided and adopted. In theLuxembourgChambre des Députés,for instance, certain steps in the budgetary procedure in theParliament now have to be taken earlier than usual. In the PortugueseAssembleia da República,the Budgetary Framework Law is currently under revision. Its initial draft contains a new chapterdedicated to the budgetary procedure. It is important to note that the discussion on the Stabilityand Growth Programme in plenary is mandatory. Similarly, in Italy, according to the reflectionof the ItalianCamera dei Deputati,changes in the Law on Accounting and Public Financecomprehensively reform the national economic and financial planning cycle, bringing it in linewith the rules adopted by the EU on the coordination of economic policies of the Member States.In some Parliaments/Chambers,internal rules will be amended(e.g. the ItalianSenato dellaRepubblica)or parliamentary decisions will be adopted with regard to the implementation of theEuropean Semester (e.g. the LithuanianSeimas).Furthermore, the GreekVouli ton Ellinonhasestablished the so called Budget Office in order to give independent advice on fiscal scrutiny. Inthe SwedishRiksdag,the Committee on Finance held a hearing on 26 April 2011 regarding theNational Reform Programme and the Convergence Programme. TheRiksdaginsists on being thefirst to whom the draft national budget is presented in future as it is responsible for the actualdecision on the budget. The FrenchAssemblée nationalehas set up a timetable for theparliamentary dimension of the European Semester which includes a yearly interparliamentarybudgetary conference, an idea29that has been presented to the Conference of the Speakers of theParliaments of the EU30at the beginning of April 2011 in Brussels.Meanwhile, the European Parliament, being an EU institution, underlines that relevant provisionson the European Semester have been incorporated in the economic governance package. It callsfor an interinstitutional procedural agreement on the European Semester that is to be reviewedevery three years, aiming to provide a legal base for cooperation. In parallel, the EuropeanParliament is working on an own initiative report which deals not only with its role in theEuropean Semester, but also includes proposals on how to ensure the most effectivecollaboration between the European Parliament and national Parliaments.

2.6. Possible weaknesses of the European SemesterAbout a dozen Parliaments/Chambersstate that they havenot identified any weaknessesinthe European Semester initiative.18 more do not identify weaknesses at this stage,indicatingthat no debate allowing to do so has taken place (i.e. the DutchEerste KamerandTweedeKamer,the RomanianSenatul),that no debate has yet taken place (i.e. the MalteseKamra tad-Deputatiand the LuxembourgChambre des Députés),that a debate allowing to identify possibleweaknesses is planned (i.e. the ItalianSenato della Repubblica),that more detailed comments onthis require the completion of the scrutiny of this year's Annual Growth Survey (i.e. the CzechSenát),that the matter has not been dealt with in a way that would make it possible to answer thequestion (i.e. the SwedishRiksdag),that the debate is ongoing (i.e. the FrenchSénat),that it istoo early to assess (i.e. the BulgarianNarodno sabranie,the FrenchAssemblée nationale,theGreekVouli ton Ellinonand the PolishSejm)or that no official position has been expressed (i.e.the BelgianChambre des représentantsandSénat,the DanishFolketing,the GermanBundesratand the UKHouse of Commons).The AustrianNationalratandBundesrat,whilst not identifying any particular weaknesses, warnagainst "procedures which envisage a high level of automatism" and point to the major task ofaligning national budgetary processes with the deadlines of the European Semester. The LatvianSaeima,for its part, insists that all EU Member States should assume equal responsibility for theeconomic and financial conduct of the EU. The PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicavoices itsconcern about "a dominant attention on the public finances of the Member States, withsubordinate concerns centered on economic growth, trade balance or territorial cohesion".Specific weaknessesare identified in a jointly approved opinion of the Committee on Budgetand the Committee on EU Policies of the ItalianCamera dei Deputati.It explicitly mentions "thelack of binding mechanisms for the coordination of the policies for growth and employment aswell as of the social policies" and regrets "the lack of an obligation for the EU institutions todesignate specific European financial resources to pursue the common objectives set out in theSemester". Moreover, in its final document on the Annual Growth Survey the Committee onBudget also holds the view that the European Semester 2011 is not sufficiently focused ongrowth. According to the PolishSenatthe European Semester is stretching over too long a periodof time, from which it concludes that in case of any turmoil there is no guarantee that thenecessary adjustment of action plans would be possible.The European Parliament regrets that the Commission and Council have granted the EuropeanParliament only a very marginal role in the European Semester, adding that it would be morebeneficial, if it were to have a more solid legislative basis rather than that of anintergovernmental agreement. It states that it will come up with relevant proposals.2.7. Parliamentary involvement in the European SemesterA large majorityof Parliaments/Chambersunderscore the need to involve nationalParliaments and the European Parliamentin the running of the European Semester, mostlyproviding details on how this involvement should materialise.No Parliament/Chamberhas answered the question in anegativeway. The SwedishRiksdaginforms that it has not dealt with the issue in a way that would make it possible to answer thequestion. The UKHouse of Lords,for its part, states that it has not taken a view on the issue.27

While the DanishFolketinghighlights that it has not discussed a possible involvement of theEuropean Parliament in the European Semester, the GermanBundesratindicates that is has notcommented on this question. On the other hand, the EstonianRiigikoguhas not yet discussed theissue in its new composition. The same goes for the RomanianSenatul.2.7.1. Involvement of national Parliaments and the European ParliamentAmongst theParliaments/Chambers that favour the involvementof national Parliaments andthe European Parliament in the European Semester, the FrenchAssemblée nationaledetails itsfull involvementin the European Semester, indicating e.g. that a debate and vote on the Frenchdraft Stability and Convergence Programme has already taken place. It should be followed earlyJune by a resolution on the Commission's feedback. The ItalianSenato della Repubblicaholdsthe view that it will be necessary to involve national Parliaments in the highest possible degree.In the same vein, the PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicaconsiders it to be fundamental thatnational Parliaments are involved in the European Semester.The European Union Affairs Committee of the PolishSejmtakes the view that all nationalParliaments should commit themselves to the functioning of the European Semester. The PolishSenatsees "room for participation of the national Parliaments" adding that "the effectiveness (...)depends on good will of national governments and the European institutions, including theEuropean Parliament". According to the CzechSenátall Parliaments should be involved in theEuropean Semester in accordance with their constitutional duties of overseeing the Government'sactivities. Similarly, the FinnishEduskuntapoints out that "theintensity of involvement(...)depends first and foremost on various national constitutional arrangements and the competencesgiven in the EU Treaties". The GreekVouli ton Ellinonis of the opinion that "the intensity ofcooperation is constrained by the uneven distribution of budgetary competences among theParliaments of the Member States and the consequent divergence of initial positions in terms ofinterparliamentary institutional capabilities".According to the SlovakNárodná rada"the contribution of national Parliaments must leadonwards to an extensivedialoguewith the European Parliament". The European Parliament, forits part, insists that national Parliaments are crucial to the success of the European Semester, asthey should act as the watchdogs of the EU level commitments of their governments. It goes onto say that it is important to find the appropriate level of engagement for cooperation betweennational Parliaments and the European Parliament.The MalteseKamra tad-Deputatipleads for increased effectiveness by involving nationalParliamentsat an earlier stage.This view is shared by the AustrianNationalratandBundesratwhich argues that "the transparency and effectiveness of the Commission's recommendationscould benefit from an early involvement of the national Parliaments in the run-up to theserecommendations".

As regards the possible format of parliamentary involvement in the European Semester,asignificant numberof Parliaments/Chambersapprove of an annual (inter)parliamentaryconference on budget,highlighting the need to involve the Committees on Budget of nationalParliaments and the appropriate committee(s) of the European Parliament.Specific preferences of Parliaments/Chambers include:meetings in the European Parliament.The FrenchAssemblée nationalehighlights thatits President had proposed the very idea of organising a "Budget Conference"31. TheGermanBundestagstates that its Committee on EU Affairs has on several occasionsgiven support to the proposal of the FrenchAssemblée nationaleto organiseannual/regular meetings of the Committees on Budget of the European Parliament andnational Parliaments on the European Semester. Similarly, the ItalianCamera deiDeputatimentions a jointly approved opinion of its Committee on Budget and itsCommittee on EU Policies supporting "the initiative, suggested by the EuropeanParliament and the FrenchAssemblée nationale,to organise an annual interparliamentaryconference within the framework of the European Semester". The RomanianCameraDeputaţilor,for its part, supports,inter alia,the format of "the current meetingsorganised by the specialised committees in the European Parliament".meetings in the country that holds the rotating EU Presidency.According to theHungarianOrszággyűlés,"the Conference of Chairpersons of Committees on Budget andFinance to be organised by the national Parliament holding the EU Presidency during thefirst semester would be an excellent framework". The RomanianCamera Deputaţilor,inaddition to its support for meetings in the European Parliament, subscribes to the idea ofmeetings organised by the specialised committees of the national Parliaments whosecountries hold the EU Presidency. The GreekVouli ton Ellinon,too, indicates thatdelegations from competent committees could meet in the Parliament of the MemberState holding the rotating EU Presidency. The DanishFolketingmentions the meeting ofthe Chairmen of Committees on Budget as one possible format.meetings without specification of the venue.The European Parliament, whilst referringto recent meetings on its premises (in March and April 2011), does not state where futuremeetings could take place. The LatvianSaeima"supports the initiative to arrange annualmeetings for the budget committees of the national Parliaments and the EuropeanParliament" and the LuxembourgChambre des Députésthinks it is a good idea toorganise an annual meeting between representatives of Committees on Budget.the possible use of existing bodies such as COSAC.The DanishFolketingdoes notonly make reference to meetings of the Chairmen of Committees on Budget, but alsostates that it should be explored how to use other existing bodies such as COSAC. TheSlovenianDržavni zbor,too, raises the possibility to discuss the topic in COSAC.According to the GreekVouli ton Ellinon"the model of COSAC could perhaps provide auseful guide". The DutchEerste Kamerdoes not explicitly mention COSAC, but it

The BelgianChambre des représentantsandSénat,the EstonianRiigikogu,the FrenchAssemblée nationale,the HungarianOrszággyűlésand the ItalianCamera dei Deputatiexplicitlyrefer to the Presidency Conclusions ofthe Conference of the Speakers of the Parliaments ofthe EUon 4-5 April 201132regarding an annual interparliamentary "Budget Conference".The ItalianCamera dei Deputati,for its part, also strongly supports the idea in par. 19 of theaforementioned Conclusions to add a section to theIPEXdatabase for the exchange ofinformation on the European Semester and economic governance.Some Parliaments/Chambers are scepticalabout new formats and/or their added value. Thus,the CzechSenátdoes not see any substantial added value in holding an annual parliamentaryconference on budget. The DutchEerste Kamer,too, is reluctant about the creation of newinterparliamentary conferences, without prior discussion as to how existing fora could beutilised. The RomanianCamera Deputaţilortakes the view that "a new parliamentary structure isnot likely to enhance the efficiency of the debate". The DanishFolketingstates that "generallytheFolketingis against establishing new interparliamentary bodies". According to theLuxembourgChambre des Députés,annual meetings may be useful, but no new body orinterparliamentary institution should be set up.2.7.2.2. Periodicity / timingA clear majority of Parliaments/Chambers that support the idea of an (inter)parliamentaryconference seem to preferannual meetings.Some provide further detail on the timing. TheFrenchAssemblée nationaleholds the view that the best timing would bein May or June.Thisis echoed by the FrenchSénat,where there is broad support for a conference in May. The GreekVouli ton Ellinon,too, considers May the most probable timing, insisting that theinterparliamentary meeting should in any case take place before the presentation of theCommission's country specific proposals in June.As mentioned before, the HungarianOrszággyűlésbases its approach on thefirst semester.According to the ItalianCamera dei Deputatian annual conference should take placebefore thespring European Council.The PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicaholds the view that suchconferences should be organised at a relevant date, for instance after the presentation of theAnnual Growth Survey "andcertainly before April".The European Parliament suggests thatnational Parliaments are asked "for their ideas asregards the best timingfor interparliamentary meetings in future years". It holds the view thatmeetings should be based on a commonly agreed and strategic timing.

PART 3: ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL REGULATIONIN GENERAL3.1. Parliamentary debates on financial supervision package and economic governancepackage3.1.1. ResultsA total of 39 Parliaments/Chambers have replied to the question on the adequacy and sufficiencyof the financial supervision package and the package of proposals to strengthen the tools ofeconomic governance, presented by the Commission on 29 September 201033to allow for ahealthy recovery of the European economy. Nine of them report not having reached a finalopinion on the aforementioned packages yet34.Among the remaining respondents,22 consider these packages adequate and sufficientto helpthe European economy recover, although most of them add a specific emphasis: for instance, themajority in the AustrianNationalratandBundesratas well as the RomanianCamera Deputaţilorwant financial supervision to be taken further. The BulgarianNarodno sabraniewarns against a"two-speed Europe". Both the CypriotVouli ton Antiprosoponand the UKHouse of Lordsstressthe need for an effective implementation of the envisaged measures. The FrenchAssembléenationaleregrets the lack of integration of the Europe 2020 Strategy and emphasises the need toinform the citizens, whereas the CzechPoslanecká snemovnaforesees problems regardingtransmission of data from regions and municipalities.Three other Parliaments/Chambers agree on the financial supervision package but not on the fulleconomic governance package:The DanishFolketingexplains that "two of the proposals were not applicable to Denmarkbecause of the Euro opt-out";the PolishSejmexplicitly states that it has given a negative opinion on the proposal for aCouncil Regulation on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessivedeficit procedure35;The European Parliament, while considering the financial supervision package to be anadequate tool, also mentions that "any shortcomings of the current package will beexamined in a review procedure". As for the economic governance package, this will beimproved by the co-legislators, i.e. the European Parliament and the Council. The latterhas already adopted a general position, whereas the European Parliament planned to haveits Committee position adopted in mid-April 2011.

Three more Chambers, the CzechSenát,the GermanBundesratand the LuxembourgChambredes Députés,express reservationsabout both the financial supervision package and theeconomic governance package:regarding the financial supervision package, the CzechSenát"takes a reserved stand oncomparing the pace of expenditure growth with the so called prudent medium-term rateof growth of GDP". It "believes that requirements for national fiscal frameworks shouldbe set, rather than by a directive, in the form of a recommendation or a codex ofstandards" and "disagrees strongly with the application of symmetric approach to certainindicators" regarding the financial supervision package. Regarding the economicgovernance package, it expresses "its reserved stand on creating new supervisory bodiesin its political dialogue with the Commission";the GermanBundesrat"has requested the Federal Government to address certain aspectsin negotiations at the EU level" regarding the financial supervision package. Indeed, inthis context it fears that the "scope envisaged for the Commission and the aforementionedsupervisory authorities to take individual decisions directly vis-à-vis financial institutionswould amount to excessive encroachment on the powers and responsibilities of nationalsupervisory authorities". As far as the economic governance package is concerned, theBundesrat"expressed its opposition to various points, such as appraisal of MemberStates’ budgetary policy based on expenditure trends for each Member State or the notionof penalties linked to a stringently rule-based evaluation of increases in expenditure byindividual Member States";the LuxembourgChambre des Députésin its opinion unanimously approved on 30November 2010, although agreeing on the global approach, expressed a number ofreservations mainly relating to the need to clarify and adjust the concerned proposals andto strike a just and effective balance between the different partners within the budgetaryprocedure, fully taking into account their respective prerogatives.

Five Chambers, i.e. the CzechSenát,the FrenchAssemblée nationale,the ItalianCamera deiDeputatiandSenato della Repubblicaand the LuxembourgChambre des Députés,refer to aparliamentary document at the end of their parliamentary proceedings37.Four Chambers suggest holding thedebate at the interparliamentary level.Among these, thePolishSenatconsiders that the European Parliament should play a key part in organising aninterparliamentary debate on the financial supervision package and the proposals to strengthenthe tools of economic governance, the CzechPoslanecká sněmovnasuggests this debate to bepart of the agenda of a COSAC meeting and the RomanianSenatulcalls for a Budget Conferenceon which the European Parliament and the national Parliaments are represented.Finally, the GreekVouli ton Ellinonstates that parliamentary debates on these topics "could beuseful, but only in a sense of reviewing the implementation of the foreseen procedures".3.2. Legal justification for the three-fold control under the economic governance package37 Parliaments/Chambers have reacted to the question on the adequacy of the legal justificationfor the three-fold control under the economic governance package. 17 of them report not havingreached a final opinion on this yet38. 13 Parliaments/Chambers are of the opinion that theaforementioned legal justification needs no further complement39.The seven remaining Parliaments/Chambers believe that thejustification is to becomplementedby:"the national response to the new economic reality in the EU" (the BulgarianNarodnosabranie);meetings of the Committees on Budget of the European Parliament and the nationalParliaments (the GermanBundestag);an annual meeting of Members of the national Parliaments and the European Parliament(the FrenchAssemblée nationale);the European Parliament (the PolishSenat);a Budgetary Conference (the RomanianSenatul);respect of national competences by the EU institutions (the BelgianChambre desreprésentantsandSénat).3.3. Recommendations for gradual application of sanctions and incentives39 Parliaments/Chambers have answered the question on whether they have anyrecommendations on the gradual application of the sanctions and incentives of the enforcement37

mechanisms, designed to ensure the functioning of the economic surveillance framework. 12 ofthem report not having reached a final opinion on the issue yet40. 14 Parliaments/Chambers makeno recommendations41.The remaining 13 Parliaments/Chamberssuggest the following:a "two-speed Europe" should be avoided (the BulgarianNarodno sabranie);a permanent crisis management mechanism should be established (the FrenchAssembléenationale);sanctions as proposed by the European Council should "at least be quasi-automatic" (theGermanBundestag)or automatic by applying a specific procedure, fixed in advance (theLuxembourgChambre des Députés);not only quantitative criteria should be taken into account (the GreekVouli ton Ellinon);"funds from Member States that transgress against budgetary discipline" should bewithheld although this is not likely to happen in practice (the FinnishEduskunta);the voting procedure should be replaced with the ordinary qualified majority procedure(the ItalianCamera dei Deputati);sanctions or financial incentives for the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategyshould be introduced (the ItalianCamera dei Deputati);"sanctions should be applied with respect for the principles of transparency, inevitabilityand non-discretion" (the PolishSenat);possible structural problems preventing the fulfilment of the objectives should bedetected (the PortugueseAssembleia da República);a Budgetary Conference should be established (the RomanianSenatul);the concept of "excessive imbalance" should be clearly defined (UKHouse of Lords);voting rights in the Council should not be withdrawn (UKHouse of Lords);no incentives should be foreseen (the UKHouse of Lords);more incentives than sanctions should be foreseen (the BelgianChambre desreprésentantsandSénat);the proposed measures should also focus on income and not only on expenses (theBelgianChambre des représentantsandSénat).

them, the SwedishRiksdagand the MalteseKamra tad-Deputati,have not come to a finaldecision yet. 13 other Parliaments/Chambers do not make any specific comment on the matter42.On the other hand, 23 Parliaments/Chambersmake the following recommendations:information:Parliaments should be better (the majority in the AustrianNationalratandBundesrat)or timely (the CypriotVouli ton Antiprosoponand the European Parliament)informed;internal reorganisation(the GreekVouli ton Ellinon);enhanced interparliamentary cooperation:suggested forms includeoa Budgetary Conference (the FrenchSénat,the ItalianCamera dei Deputati,theRomanianSenatul);oan annual meeting of Members of national Parliaments and the EuropeanParliament (the FrenchAssemblée nationale);ointerparliamentary meetings of the national Parliaments’ Committees on Budget(the GermanBundestagand the HungarianOrszággyűlés)or other specialisedcommittees (the CzechSenát,the SlovakNárodná rada);oa permanent point on the COSAC agenda (the GermanBundestag);capacity buildingof stakeholders and administrations (the BulgarianNarodno sabranie);enhancing the informal connections between Members and officials of nationalParliaments (the RomanianCamera Deputaţilor);stepping up theEuropean Parliament’srole in general (the CypriotVouli tonAntiprosopon)or more specifically by:oan annual interparliamentary conference in the European Parliament (the ItalianSenato della Repubblica);oenhancingcooperation between the European Parliament and nationalParliaments (the PolishSenatsuggests that such consultations should always endwith the adoption of joint declarations);enhancing thenational Parliaments’role in contributing to the preparation of the budget(the LatvianSaeima);intensifying the use ofIPEX(the GermanBundestagand the ItalianCamera deiDeputati);following thedecision-making methods/proceduresas established in theTreaties(theFinnishEduskuntaand the PortugueseAssembleia da República);use of analysis and evaluation instruments fromexternal national institutions,such asthe National Bank, the Central Council for the Economy and the Federal Planning Bureau(the BelgianChambre des représentantsandSénat);explanations and timely informationof further developments given by thenationalministersin charge of economical and fiscal policies (the LuxembourgChambre desDéputés).

PART 4: EUROPEAN COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME 2012The Report also focuses on the Commission Work Programme for 2012 in order to provideparliamentary input into its preparation as early as possible. This would enable the Commissionto form its further initiatives in accordance with the early opinions of Parliaments. Thiscooperation would contribute to a more coherent and executable decision-making in the EU.The conclusions of the 15thBi-annual Report could serve as a basis for the Commission andother EU institutions to assess whether their actions are supported at the parliamentary level. Byinvolving Parliaments, the voice of citizens will be better heard in the EU decision-makingprocess.4.1. Parliamentary input into the Commission Work Programme 2012Out of 39 Parliaments/Chambers, 38 have answered the question on parliamentary debates aimedto give input into the CWP for 2012 before its publication.4.1.1.

Ex ante

debateAs a rule, Parliaments/Chambers do not debate the CWP before its publication.Only threeParliaments (i.e. the FinnishEduskunta,the SlovakNárodná radaand the European Parliament)formulateex antepositions on CWP 2012. Three other Parliaments/Chambers consider apossibility of holding such a debate. The BulgarianNarodno sabranieand the PolishSejmintendto start giving their input into CWP 2012 this year, the PortugueseAssembleia da Repúblicaforesees such a debate in the future. In addition, the CypriotVouli ton Antiprosoponnotes thatthis issue is under consideration. The ItalianCamera dei Deputaticonsiders a possibility offormulating its opinion on future EU policy priorities in the framework of the scrutiny of theCWP 2011 and the Council Trio Presidency Programme43.In the FinnishEduskunta,the SlovakNárodná radaand the European Parliament the

ex ante

debate on the CWP is organisedas follows:othe FinnishEduskuntaapplies a general rule to the CWP and scrutinises the nationalexanteposition on the CWP the same way as any other government activity, i.e. as soon asthe Government informs theEduskuntaabout its position on the CWP;othe SlovakNárodná radaorganised on 24 and 29 March 2011 a debate on the CWP onthe occasion of the visit of the Vice-President of the Commission Mr Maroš ŠEFČOVIČto the Parliament and also in the joint meeting of its Committee on European Affairs andthe Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Committee on European Affairs selectedlegislative acts that could be sensitive and strategic (in view of political priorities of theSlovak Republic and of the principle of subsidiarity) and then adopted a resolution;

othe European Parliament gives input into the CWP 2012 according to the proceduredefined in Annex IV to the Framework Agreement on relations between the EuropeanParliament and the Commission44. The dialogue between the committees of the EuropeanParliament and corresponding Members of the Commission takes place in the firstsemester of the year. The committees then report to the Conference of Committee Chairs,which compiles the priorities in a so called "Summary Report" in June, on the basis ofwhich political groups can prepare a resolution for the July plenary session. In earlySeptember, the European Parliament organises a "State of the Union" debate in which thePresident of the Commission looks ahead to the priorities for the following year. Fromthe beginning of September, the parliamentary committees and the Members of theCommission may meet for a more detailed exchange of views on future priorities. Inearly October, the Conference of Committee Chairs meets with the College ofCommissioners before the Commission adopts its CWP for the next year. TheConference of Presidents of political groups, too, can meet with the President of theCommission. After the adoption of the CWP the European Parliament may hold a debatein December.

4.1.2.

Ex post

debateA vast majority of Parliaments/Chambersdiscuss the CWP on a regular basis after itspublication.Seven Parliaments/Chambers follow the common practice of defining priorities forscrutiny (in the Committees on EU Affairs or specialised committees) during the following yearbased on the published CWP.Some Parliaments/Chambers underline thecooperationin this field with the respectiveGovernments.These practices vary, e.g. the AustrianNationalratandBundesratreceive reportsfrom every ministry on the CWP and the programme of the Presidencies. These reports arediscussed in the respective parliamentary committees. In the ItalianCamera dei Deputati,theCWP and the Council Trio Presidency documents are scrutinised in accordance with a newprocedure, together with the Government priorities for the coming year (although priorities for2011 have not been transmitted to the Parliament yet). The DutchTweede Kamerplaces CWP onthe agenda after its publication to identify the priorities for future scrutiny of selectedCommission proposals. All standing committees are involved in the selection process. TheCommittee on European Affairs exchanges views with the Government about its plannedpriorities.The SwedishRiksdagregards theparliamentary opinion on the published CWP as an inputinto the future CWP.It indicates that the statements of its committees on their examination ofthe Commission documents often include opinions that should be taken into consideration also inforthcoming CWPs. In addition, a translation into English of thesummariesof all statements ispublished on theIPEXwebsite to inform other Parliaments on their findings.The PortugueseAssembleia da República,despite its dissolution on 7 April 2011 and the generalelections to be held in June, notes the will to maintain the traditional debate on the CWP with theGovernment, the Commission, the Portuguese Members of the European Parliament andMembers of the Regional Legislative Assemblies of the Azores and Madeira.44

The European Parliament may hold a debate in December after the adoption of the CWP45.In the FrenchAssemblée nationale,debates on the CWP have not been organised since 2006.Instead, the Chairman of the Committee on European Affairs has proposed an annual "State ofthe Union" meeting, with the participation of Members of all national Parliaments and theEuropean Parliament, as well as the President of the Commission and the High Representative ofthe Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The composition of the meeting would followthe model of the 2002 Convention on the Future of Europe. The "State of the Union" meetingwould take place in the European Parliament in Strasbourg.Some of the Parliaments/Chambers (e.g. the CzechSenát,the LithuanianSeimas)are of theopinion that the previous practice to debate the Annual Policy Strategy of the Commission hadadded value. The LithuanianSeimasconsiders that it was useful and important as a preparatoryexercise for further consideration of the annual Legislative and Work Programme of theCommission. The CzechSenátstates that there isno possibilityfor such anex antedebate in theChamber"without any background documentfrom the Commission".4.2. Coordinated

ex ante

debate in COSACOut of 35 Parliaments/Chambers, 32 have answered the question on a futureex antedebate onthe CWP in the framework of COSAC in order to use the possibility to influence the EUstrategic planning process at the earliest possible stage.A vast majority of Parliaments/Chamberscomment on the

ex ante

debatein COSAC. Forinstance, the FinnishEduskuntaconsiders every new form (on anad hocor experimental basis)of exchange of information and views on topical EU affairs, as beneficial to all.Several Parliaments/Chambers expressconcerns about the timeframe for such a debate(e.g.the FinnishEduskunta,the CzechSenátand the SlovakNárodná rada).The CzechSenátnotesthat the idea of presenting the CWP during the ordinary meeting of COSAC in the secondsemester of the year will be hardly feasible. Instead, theSenatsupports the idea of debating theCWP at the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC in the first semester of the year.The SlovakNárodná radastresses that national Parliaments must be given enough time todiscuss the CWP and that the debate should take place not only in the respective committees butalso in the plenary. National Parliaments should select the most sensitive/problematic legislativeproposals, including those that may breach the principle of subsidiarity, and subsequently discussthem together at COSAC meetings.4.2.1. SubjectsAlmost all Parliaments/Chambers propose somegeneral optionsfor the selection of subjects forfuture coordinatedex antedebates on the CWP in COSAC.

4.2.2. ProcedureThe idea, expressed by several Parliaments/Chambers, is to hold a coordinated

ex ante

debate inthe framework of COSAC during the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC in the firstsemester of the year46. The GermanBundestagsuggests that the debate should be prepared bythe COSAC Secretariat. The PolishSejmdefines further steps following the submission ofproposed issues by the national Parliaments/Chambers to the meeting of the Chairpersons ofCOSAC. According to the PolishSejm,between this meeting and the ordinary meeting in thefirst semester of the year, national Parliaments would have an opportunity to express theirreservations about the compiled list. Then, during the ordinary meeting in the first semesterparticipants would be able to adopt the list as a COSAC document. That way all Parliamentswould have an input into the EU strategic planning process. The DanishFolketingstates that thedebate in COSAC should take place in the presence of the relevant Member of the Commission.A slightly differentmodus operandiis proposed by the ItalianCamera dei Deputatiwhichconsiders that it would be appropriate to organise anadditional COSAC meetingbetween mid-April and mid-May, when the Commission is elaborating its CWP for the following year.In this context, thequestion of the lack of a basis for the discussionof the Commissionproposals arises. The SwedishRiksdagexplains that there cannot be a meaningfulex antedebatewithout a common point of reference (such as the aforementioned Commission Annual PolicyStrategy). The SlovenianDržavni zboralso poses a question on what basis a debate in COSACprior to the publication of the CWP could take place. More suitable solution, according to theDržavni zbor,would be a debate on the CWP in COSAC following its publication. Otherwise the46