PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2013-14
EUU Alm.del Bilag 589
Offentligt

19 June 2014

Twenty-first Bi-annual Report:

Developments in European Union

Procedures and Practices

Relevant to Parliamentary Scrutiny

Prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and presented to:

LI Conference of Parliamentary Committees

for Union Affairs of Parliaments

of the European Union

15-17 June 2014

Athens

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs

of Parliaments of the European Union

COSAC SECRETARIAT

WIE 05 U 041, 50 rue Wiertz, B-1047 Brussels, Belgium

E-mail:

[email protected]

| Tel: +32 2 284 3776

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background ....................................................................................................................................iv

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1:

FUTURE OF COSAC .................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Past and current success - evaluation

......................................................................................................8

1.2 Tools currently used by COSAC - evaluation

...........................................................................................9

1.3 Future of COSAC

.....................................................................................................................................15

CHAPTER 2:

COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT ............................................................................................................................. 23

2.1 Evaluation of formal and informal mechanisms of interparliamentary cooperation

..........................24

2.2 Lisbon guidelines for interparliamentary cooperation

.........................................................................30

CHAPTER 3:

DEVELOPING THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF THE EMU: THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENTS .. 32

3.1 Scrutiny of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council

on "Strengthening the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union", COM(2013) 690

final

.........................................................................................................................................................32

3.2 European Social Fund (ESF)

....................................................................................................................34

3.3 Youth Employment Initiative proposed by the European Council on 7-8 February 2013

...................35

3.4 Exchange of best practices amongst Parliaments

.................................................................................36

Chapter 4:

DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE BUDGET PROCESS ............ 39

4.1 Implementation of the European Semester process

............................................................................39

4.2 Parliamentary scrutiny of "Troika's" operations

...................................................................................49

iii

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Background

This is the Twenty-first Bi-annual Report from the COSAC Secretariat.

COSAC Bi-annual Reports

The XXX COSAC decided that the COSAC Secretariat should produce factual

Bi-annual Reports, to be published ahead of each ordinary meeting of the

Conference. The purpose of the Reports is to give an overview of the

developments in procedures and practices in the European Union that are

relevant to parliamentary scrutiny.

All the Bi-annual Reports are available on the COSAC website at:

http://www.cosac.eu/documents/bi-annual-reports-of-cosac/

The four chapters of this Bi-annual Report are based on information provided by the national

Parliaments of the European Union Member States and the European Parliament. The deadline for

http://www.cosac.eu/en/documents/biannual/

submitting replies to the questionnaire for the 21st Bi-annual Report was 28 March 2014.

The outline of this Report was adopted by the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC, held on 27

January 2014 in Athens.

As a general rule, the Report does not specify all Parliaments or Chambers of which the case is

relevant for each point. Instead, illustrative examples are used.

Complete replies, received from all national Parliaments/Chambers of 28 Member States and the

European Parliament, can be found in the Annex on the COSAC website.

Note on Numbers

Of the 28 Member States of the European Union, 15 have a unicameral Parliament and

13 have a bicameral Parliament. Due to this combination of unicameral and bicameral

systems, there are 41 national parliamentary Chambers in the 28 Member States of the

European Union.

Although they have bicameral systems, the national Parliaments of Austria, Ireland and

Spain each submitted a single set of replies to the questionnaire.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER 1 - FUTURE OF COSAC

The first chapter of this report seeks Parliaments'/Chambers' views on the effectiveness of

COSAC to date as a forum for interparliamentary dialogue and exchange of information and

best practice. It reviews where COSAC has been successful in the past and highlights

repeatable best practice. In this context, it provides an evaluation of a number of tools

currently used by COSAC to stimulate exchange between national Parliaments and with the

European Parliament.

This chapter looks further into the future of COSAC and collects the views of

Parliaments/Chambers on how COSAC should evolve to adapt to the evolving landscape of

interparliamentary cooperation within which it exists. In this respect, it outlines Parliaments'

ideas on how COSAC can contribute to enhancing the role of Parliaments in the EU and how

its role can potentially be strengthened in any matter related to EU affairs.

Networking of members of Parliaments/Chambers was considered by the responding

Parliaments/Chambers the most successful aspect of COSAC meetings followed by exchange

of best practices through the Bi-annual Reports, the recent trend of organising informal

sessions, the agenda, the exchanges with significant figures and the side meetings with

officials from the capitals. The quality of debates was considered the least successful aspect.

Regarding the evaluation of certain tools used by COSAC, Parliaments/Chambers provided

various ideas and suggestions. When asked how the quality of the debates could be

improved, the majority expressed different ideas. Background notes, the Bi-annual Report,

informal sessions at the side of COSAC meetings and informal meetings of officials from the

capitals were the tools mostly highlighted as useful tools by the responding

Parliaments/Chambers.

In relation to COSAC's future role, Parliaments/Chambers were asked to provide an

evaluation of and further ideas on its debates, its role after the issuing of two "yellow

cards", the creation of different smaller formal and informal meetings of members of

Parliaments submitting contributions to COSAC and the role of the COSAC Secretariat. The

majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers presented their views as to what specific

European policies and issues COSAC could discuss in the context of the evolving landscape

of interparliamentary cooperation. In general, there seemed to be a desire that COSAC

discussed both policy and institutional issues.

Most responding Parliaments/Chambers supported that, after the issuing of two "yellow

cards", national Parliaments should engage in better exchanging information and best

practices on the subsidiarity principle checks in the framework of COSAC. As to how this

could be achieved, the most favoured option was holding a discussion in COSAC meetings

on the European Commission's response to a "yellow card".

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The majority Parliaments/Chambers welcomed different smaller formal and informal

meetings of members of Parliaments submitting contributions to COSAC referring mostly to

the importance of discussions on topics of common interest to national Parliaments. Several

Parliaments/Chambers expressed their concerns as to the abovementioned meetings, citing

the very busy programme of COSAC and the risk of proliferation of meetings, and the

undermining of inclusiveness.

The majority Parliaments/Chambers did not think that the role and functioning of the

COSAC Secretariat should be improved or reformed within the evolving landscape of

interparliamentary cooperation.

CHAPTER 2 - COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT

The second chapter of the report focuses on the evaluation of current formal and informal

mechanisms of interparliamentary cooperation exploring on how interparliamentary

cooperation could be improved and further deepened. In this respect, it seeks

Parliaments'/Chambers' ideas on how the relationship between national Parliaments and

the European Parliament could be further strengthened and on how information could be

better exchanged, especially in the context of recent

ad hoc

initiatives taken by the European

Parliament and other suggested mechanisms. It further outlines Parliaments/Chambers'

views on whether there is a need to update the Lisbon guidelines for interparliamentary

cooperation and on how COSAC may provide a useful input to future EU Speakers'

Conference.

The majority of Parliaments/Chambers responding replied that they regularly attended

interparliamentary meetings held at the premises of the European Parliament, while 12

respondents informed they were attending them sometimes. The large majority responded

that they regularly attended meetings organised by the Presidency Parliament in the

Member States holding the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU.

In both cases, the vast majority of those Parliaments/Chambers which responded,

considered networking of members of Parliaments the most successful aspect of these

meetings, whereas the quality of the debate, in the case of meetings held at the premises of

the European Parliament, was considered the least successful. The agenda and the

exchanges with leading figures in meetings both held at the premises of the European

Parliament and organised by the Presidency Parliaments in the Member States, as well as

the quality of debates in the case of meetings organised by the Presidency Parliament in the

Member States, were considered positively by the majority of Parliaments/Chambers.

The large majority of Parliaments/Chambers responded that there was a need for

improvement of meetings held at the premises of the European Parliament and of meetings

organised by the Presidency Parliament in the Member States holding the rotating

Presidency of the Council of the EU, especially in terms of duration of interventions.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

In relation to both types of meetings, the majority replied that the organisation and

outcome of such meetings were sometimes or regularly evaluated.

The vast majority of Parliaments/Chambers considered recent

ad hoc

initiatives taken by the

European Parliament useful tools in promoting interparliamentary cooperation. The most

favoured option was inviting rapporteurs or specialised members of national Parliaments on

specific topics/ draft proposals for discussion in committee meetings of the European

Parliament. The second most favoured option was inviting members of national Parliaments

to hearings in the European Parliament, while the third was inviting national Parliaments to

committee enquiries in the European Parliament. The vast majority of the respondents

thought that these initiatives could be further improved.

Bilateral visits between members of national Parliaments and members of the European

Parliament and video-conferencing were considered by the overwhelming majority useful

tools in promoting interparliamentary cooperation.

When asked whether the Lisbon guidelines for interparliamentary cooperation of June 2008

should be updated, the majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers responded

positively, in several cases referring to new recent interparliamentary fora and the need for

an update to reflect these.

A vast majority of the respondents supported the idea of COSAC providing some useful

input to future EU Speakers Conferences in relation to a possible reflection on the

guidelines. The most favoured means through which this could be achieved was by

submitting a working document, based on the replies to the COSAC questionnaire on the

Lisbon guidelines, in preparation of the EU Speakers Conference, followed by submitting the

COSAC Bi-annual Report currently under preparation to the EU Speakers Conference.

CHAPTER 3 - DEVELOPING THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF THE EMU: THE ROLE OF PARLIAMENTS

The third chapter of this report focuses on scrutiny by Parliaments/Chambers of the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on

"Strengthening the social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union", COM (2013)

690 final, on monitoring by Parliaments/Chambers of the European Social Fund and on the

discussion in Parliaments/Chambers of the Youth Employment Initiative proposed by the

European Council on 7-8 February 2013. This chapter highlights best practices and

procedures regarding how social and employment problems and related policies at a

European and national level can be better monitored and coordinated at the level of

Parliaments/Chambers in such a way as to strengthen and improve parliamentary

surveillance over employment and social issues. It further outlines best practices amongst

Parliaments as to how social dialogue and active participation of social partners could be

achieved in the formulation of more effective and targeted policies.

Almost unanimously responding Parliaments/Chambers pointed out that the social

dimension should be better or more integrated into EU policies. Several

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Parliaments/Chambers deemed that the social dimension should be considered as a

"horizontal" issue.

A majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (22) scrutinised the Communication

from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on "Strengthening the

social dimension of the Economic and Monetary Union", while a small number (4) expressed

the intention to do so.

Concerning the content of the abovementioned Communication, a narrow majority of the

responding Parliaments/Chambers was of the view that it addressed adequately the crucial

issues related to the social dimension. However, some Parliaments/Chambers indicated that

the social indicators should be better designed and adapted to the national circumstances.

Nine out of 10 responding Parliaments/Chambers deemed there was room for improvement

in terms of content of social indicators. A majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers

deemed that negative trends detected after using the employment and social indicators

should trigger the adoption of specific measures.

The results of the questionnaire showed that the majority of the responding

Parliaments/Chambers monitored the allocation of funds in the context of the European

Social Fund operations in their own country, while a wide majority of the respondents

intended to play a role in taking responsibility for EU money spent in the context of the

structural funds by supervising their own Government or agencies which manage EU funds.

However, there was no consistent position among responding Parliaments/Chambers on

strengthening the role of national Parliaments to ensure better accountability of the

allocation of EU funds in this area.

As regards the Youth Employment Initiative proposed by the European Council, this was

discussed by the vast majority of the respondents. A large number of them (27) responded

that their respective countries had submitted a Youth Guarantee Implementation Plan,

while 1/3 had contributed to the designation of the Plan.

Parliaments/Chambers often cited having been engaged in interparliamentary dialogue

mostly with other national Parliaments for exchanging best practices on social protection

and social welfare matters, then with the European Parliament and then with the European

Commission.

Parliaments/Chambers, when asked to share best practices on social protection and social

welfare matters, expressed general support to existing forms of interparliamentary

cooperation. Best practices cited varied from organising workshops and debates involving

interested parliamentarians and experts to organising "cluster-meetings".

A positive reply was quasi-unanimous (34 out of 35) to the question whether

Parliaments/Chambers supported social dialogue and active participation of competent

social partners in the formulation of more effective and targeted policies. As to how social

dialogue and active participation of competent social partners could be achieved,

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Parliaments/Chambers presented a number of procedures used in their own systems.

Consultation with, invitation to relevant Committees and participation of social partners in

hearings were frequently cited.

CHAPTER 4 - DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE BUDGET PROCESS

The fourth chapter of the report focuses on the European Semester process implementation

and the practical lessons learnt by Parliaments from their experience with this new

procedure. It refers to existing practices on scrutinising national budgetary, fiscal and

economic policies in the framework of the European Semester procedure, and outlines

Parliaments/Chambers views on how to enhance the European Parliament’s and national

Parliaments’ potential role for ensuring greater democratic legitimacy in the process. It

further examines the accountability of participating institutions, namely of the Commission,

the ECOFIN and the Eurogroup and also seeks Parliaments'/Chambers' views on

parliamentary scrutiny over the "Troika's" (European Central Bank, European Commission

and International Monetary Fund) working methods, in cases of countries under

macroeconomic adjustment programmes.

Over half of the responding Parliaments/Chambers have adopted or introduced special

procedures, since the first European Semester was put into practice in 2011. Although in

some Parliaments/Chambers no new legal procedure has been introduced, several new

practices, aimed at greater involvement of Parliaments, were established and, in some

cases, existing parliamentary practices regarding the European Semester were subject to

improvement.

In order to ensure better parliamentary scrutiny in relation to the European Semester

process, several Parliaments/Chambers adopted new scrutiny procedures by amending the

relevant legislation or their Rules of Procedure, revised the procedure for the adoption of

the annual budget, or comprehensively reformed the national economic and financial

planning cycle.

The element most often highlighted was the importance of focusing on the European

Semester during its most important phases: the Annual Growth Survey (AGS), the Stability

(SP) or Convergence Programme (CP) and the National Reform Programme (NRP), as well as

the Country-Specific Recommendations (CSR).

The scrutiny procedures mentioned included plenary debates/votes on European Semester

documents before they are submitted to the European institutions and scrutiny undertaken

predominantly in meetings of the sectoral committees and/or the Committee on European

Affairs via debates/resolutions/reports on the European Semester, as well as

documents/written questions/correspondence to the Government. In some cases, members

of the Government take part in the debates, and in some cases representatives of the

European institutions are also invited.

Other tools for monitoring the activities of the European Semester cited were the

participation in interparliamentary meetings or the Interparliamentary Conference on

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Economic Governance of the European Union based on Article 13 of the Treaty on Stability,

Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG), the

appointment of a rapporteur to coordinate the work of relevant committees and to collect

information or the creation of an entity with reporting, scrutiny and monitoring functions.

There was consensus among those Parliaments/Chambers which answered positively that

closer economic coordination and integration needed to be accompanied by tighter

democratic control both at national and European level. Most respondents raised the issue

of time constraints and deadlines that prevented thorough scrutiny.

A large majority stated that the SP or the CP and NRP were presented /submitted by the

Government for discussion/ consideration/approval by relevant sectoral committees and

the European Affairs Committee and/or by the plenary.

As regards participation in drafting national Draft Budgetary Plans (DBPs) submitted by

Member States to the European Commission, for the first time on 15th October 2013, in line

with the "Two-Pack" Regulations, the vast majority of responding Parliaments/ Chambers

did not participate in such drafting. A narrow majority of Parliaments/Chambers examined

the European Commission's CSRs at either committee or plenary level.

Regarding the role of the Eurogroup in the DBPs' assessment, most Parliaments did not

express any view.

Most of the respondents believed that national Parliaments must ensure the democratic

legitimacy of the process of the European Semester at both EU and national level. Political

dialogue between national Parliaments and relevant stakeholders was identified as one of

the most effective tool for providing a more democratic dimension to the European

Semester and enhancing participation of national Parliaments in the process.

As to whether the European Parliament should play a more active role during the European

Semester process, almost half of the respondents replied positively. There was however no

agreement as to the phase of the European Semester cycle when greater involvement of the

European Parliament should be ensured.

As regards debates on the economic and social consequences of the austerity measures

provided for in economic adjustment programmes, nearly two thirds of the respondent

Parliaments/ Chambers answered that they had held such debates, often at a committee

level as well as at the plenary level.

When asked which institution should decide whether a country should enter an economic

adjustment programme, a number of Parliaments/Chambers replied it should be the

relevant Government with the approval of its national Parliament. A number of

Parliaments/Chambers were of the opinion that the European Commission should design

the specific measures and reforms to be applied, after a Member State had entered a

macroeconomic adjustment programme, either in cooperation with the government of the

State and the national Parliament or the Council.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The majority of Parliaments/Chambers did not comment on the possible role of the

International Monetary Fund (IMF). Several respondent Parliaments/Chambers expressed

the view that the IMF should participate in the "Troika", whereas opinions on whether the

IMF should be replaced by a European mechanism were equally divided.

Concerning the role that national Parliaments of Member States under macroeeconomic

adjustment programmes should play with regard to monitoring the negotiation and

implementation process of such programmes, several Parliaments/Chambers referred to an

oversight – scrutiny function falling within their constitutional competences, in order to

legitimise the procedures. Some Parliaments/Chambers called for a greater and more

decisive role for national Parliaments.

When asked what role the European Parliament should play with regard to the negotiations

and implementation process, several Parliaments/Chambers referred to a possible

monitoring role over the work and the decisions taken by the European institutions.

The vast majority of Parliaments/Chambers responding expressed the view that

macroeconomic adjustment programmes were not characterised by sufficient democratic

legitimacy and accountability. Some Parliaments/Chambers noted that these programmes

had been negotiated and implemented without sufficient involvement of the national

Parliaments in question, especially in scrutinising the process of "Troika" decision-making.

Some of the responding Parliaments/Chambers mentioned the underestimation of the

social dimension, highlighted the element of the emergency risk and called for more

transparency and political ownership.

CHAPTER 1: FUTURE OF COSAC

___________________________________________________________________________

The importance of democratic legitimacy in the EU and interparliamentary cooperation has

been growing in recent years. Whilst interparliamentary cooperation has been blossoming

in importance and a number of significant fora have been created in recent years, it can be

argued that COSAC has not evolved significantly. For this reason, following the recent

celebration of the 50th meeting of COSAC in Vilnius in October 2013, the moment seemed

ripe to review COSAC's recent past and look into its future.

This chapter of the Bi-annual Report seeks Parliaments'/Chambers' views on the

effectiveness of COSAC to date as a forum for interparliamentary dialogue and exchange of

information and best practice. It reviews where COSAC has been successful in the past and

highlights repeatable best practice. In this context, it provides an evaluation of a number of

tools currently used by COSAC to stimulate exchange between national Parliaments and

with the European Parliament.

This chapter looks further into the future of COSAC and collects the views of

Parliaments/Chambers on how COSAC should evolve to adapt to the evolving landscape of

interparliamentary cooperation within which it exists. In this respect, it outlines Parliaments'

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

ideas on how COSAC can contribute to enhancing the role of Parliaments in the EU and how

its role can potentially be strengthened in any matter related to EU affairs. In this respect,

this chapter examines recent trends in the developing landscape of interparliamentary

cooperation and explores whether the role of the COSAC Secretariat should be improved or

reformed.

1.1

Past and current success - evaluation

The responding Parliaments/Chambers almost unanimously (35 out of 37) considered

networking of members of Parliaments/Chambers to have been the most successful aspect

of COSAC meetings. The Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

assessed the COSAC meetings as the most

significant fora for networking of parliamentarians involved in European affairs.

Most Parliaments/Chambers (29 out of 34) emphasised that the exchange of best practice

through Bi-annual Reports had also been a successful aspect of COSAC meetings. The UK

House of Lords,

calling COSAC meetings "the heart of interparliamentary cooperation",

noted that networking and the exchange of best practice should be paramount, and this

principle should guide COSAC agendas.

The recent trend of organising informal sessions, exchanges with significant figures and

agenda were seen by the majority of Parliaments/Chambers (more than 2/3) as being

among the most successful attributes of COSAC. The UK

House of Lords

suggested that more

space in future agendas should be set aside for informal or "workshop" type meetings.

However, the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

commented that informal sessions were

sometimes used by some parliamentarians to promote their own agendas.

Almost half of the Parliaments/Chambers responding (15 of 29) considered that the quality

of debates had been the least successful aspect of the COSAC meetings. Eight

Parliaments/Chambers stated that recent trends had shown that the quality of debates had

often been affected by too broad and over-ambitious agendas, limited speaking

opportunities and formulaic debates, based on prepared speeches rather than on a true

debate.

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

assessed the discussions on the COSAC Contributions in the

recent years as ineffective. The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

believed that the COSAC Conclusions

and Contributions often stretched beyond their aim of summarising debates and

increasingly contained political statements about various issues that either were not part of

deliberations, or were not shared by all delegations. The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

claimed that the efforts of putting into practice the Contribution and Conclusions of the

meetings were the least successful exercise.

Twelve out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers replied that the recent trend of organising side

meetings with officials from the capitals was the least successful initiative. In that respect,

the Belgian

Chambre des représentants

noted that representatives from capitals have

regularly the opportunity to meet in Brussels.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

1.2

Tools currently used by COSAC - evaluation

Debates

When asked how the quality of the debates could be improved, 34 Parliaments/Chambers

expressed different ideas.

The Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

the Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

the Estonian

Riigikogu

and the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

suggested holding fewer sessions or inviting

fewer speakers per session. The Lithuanian

Seimas

was of the opinion that it was essential

to strike the right balance in selecting the speakers for the items of the agenda of the

meeting (for example, at least one speaker per item of the agenda should be a

representative of a national Parliament) and in scheduling proportional time for speeches in

relation to the discussions.

Five Parliaments/Chambers suggested giving time in the debate to one member of each

delegation followed by a second round of interventions by other members of the

delegations.

The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

believed that consideration should be given to "break-

out" sessions which would facilitate better discussion among smaller groups. The UK

House

of Lords

suggested that exchange of best practice could be heightened via a "standing

group" or panel of members of EU Affairs Committees being established, drawing members

from a range of Parliaments/Chambers and scrutiny systems. The European Parliament's

Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO Committee) believed that better involvement

and advanced consultation of Troika Parliaments should allow avoidance of duplications,

reduction of costs and improvement of the effectiveness of meetings and

interparliamentary conferences; meetings between European political groups and European

political parties should be developed as well. The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

suggested that

COSAC could allow interruptions or a catch-the-eye-procedure during its plenary meetings

in order to establish a vivid debate between members; moreover, plenary meetings should

be combined with informal and side sessions in order to increase exchange and interaction

between delegations. The Belgian

Sénat

mentioned that more time could be allowed to

develop individual contacts between parliamentarians (for example, more time for lunch).

The Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

suggested extending the second day with

continuation of discussions later in the afternoon (without additional dinner increasing the

cost).

Eight Parliaments/Chambers emphasised that significant improvement could be achieved by

reducing the number of topics to have more time for debates and to encourage in-depth

debate on each of them.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

With regard to the subjects discussed, Parliaments/Chambers expressed the following

ideas



the agenda should focus on politically important issues (Portuguese

Assembleia da

República,

Belgian

Sénat,

Hungarian

Országgyűlés),

on the priorities of the European

Union and of the rotating Council Presidency and, if necessary, include current

political, economic and social developments (Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Polish

Senat,

Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

French

Assemblée nationale);

the topics selected should be of a broad interest which would reflect the concerns

and interests of as many national Parliaments as possible (Cyprus

Vouli ton

Antiprosopon)

and the debates should focus on key legislative proposals or other

topical policy matters of importance to national Parliaments at the time of the

meeting (Danish

Folketing);

COSAC should concentrate on specific policies, while proposals should be considered

in interparliamentary Conferences involving sectoral committees (Italian

Camera dei

Deputati);

topics should be more focused on particular issues rather than on "big questions"

(Croatian

Hrvatski sabor);

topics should be focused on important European issues such as ensuring an

effective, transparent, participatory EU decision-making process, youth employment,

wider inclusion of women in politics and in leading roles in EU institutions, the social

dimension of the Economic Monetary Union (EMU) and environmental protection

policies (Romanian

Senat);

the inclusion of topics discussed in other conferences should not be considered a

repetition (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

Polish

Senat).



The UK

House of Lords

suggested that interest groups of parliamentarians might also wish to

cooperate – perhaps working remotely – in order to prepare discussion papers that could

help to focus debates, alternatively, such groups could take forward agreed conclusions with

a view to reporting back to COSAC at a later meeting.

The Swedish

Riksdag

suggested reducing the agenda by shortening the time for introductory

speeches, or by keeping down the number of keynote speakers. The UK

House of Lords

also

said that greater time restrictions should be placed on podium speakers, who could circulate

beforehand extensive background documents, if necessary.

The Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie,

the Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

the Croatian

Hrvatski sabor

and the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

emphasised that sufficient time should be ensured

(at least 2-3 minutes) for individual interventions.

The Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

suggested that in best practices debates members of

Parliaments/Chambers of different or complementary philosophies might deliver

coordinated presentations. The French

Sénat

stated that the debate could be introduced by

See also point 1.3 of Chapter 1 on the "Future of COSAC" under heading "Discussions at COSAC meetings and

the future role of COSAC".

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

a speaker from a national Parliament while the presence of a number of interlocutors was

essential (Commissioners, representatives of the Presidency of the Council of the Union); in

some occasions, the presence of representatives of European agencies would be useful. The

House of Lords

said that in the future some space on the agenda could be dedicated to a

topical debate with the European Commission or with the President of the European

Council, perhaps once per year, who would address COSAC and hear Parliaments’ views on a

salient topic.

When asked which keynote speakers Parliaments/Chambers considered more useful, a large

majority of Parliaments/Chambers (37 out of 39) answered Commissioners, while 23 out of

39 Parliaments/Chambers replied members of national Parliaments. Less than half of

Parliaments/Chambers believed that experts (19 out of 39 Parliaments/Chambers),

members of the European Parliament (15 of 39 Parliaments/Chambers) and other speakers

(11 of 39 Parliaments/Chambers) were useful keynote speakers, whereas 8 out 39

Parliaments/Chambers responded Members of the Government of the country holding the

EU Presidency. The Belgian

Chambre des représentants

and the Romanian

Camera

Deputaţilor

considered the President of the European Council a useful keynote speaker,

while the European Parliament suggested representatives of other EU institutions, where

necessary. Four out of 39 Parliaments/Chambers considered experts and officials from the

European Commission as useful keynote speakers. The Romanian

Senat

and the Latvian

Saeima

believed that the choice of keynote speakers should continuously focus on, among

others, members of the European civil society, representatives of non-governmental

organisations and the business sector.

Background notes

Parliaments/Chambers quasi-unanimously (37 out of 39) replied that they considered

background notes a useful tool for the preparation of delegations.

Bi-annual Report

Parliaments/Chambers quasi-unanimously (36 out of 38) answered that they considered the

Bi-annual Report as a useful tool in exchanging best practices amongst

Parliaments/Chambers. The Spanish

Cortes Generales

and the UK

House of Commons

emphasised that the questions included in the questionnaires of the Bi-annual Report

should be more focused on procedures and recent practices in national Parliaments and

suggested that policy-specific issues be better addressed in COSAC plenary debates.

When asked who was involved in responding to the questionnaire which provided the basis

for the Bi-annual Report, all of 35 Parliaments/Chambers responding answered that officials

from the Committees on European Affairs were and 10 out of 35 Parliaments/Chambers

replied that officials from sectoral Committees were also involved. The Romanian

Camera

Deputaţilor

named officials from the Parliamentary Studies and EU Policies Department, the

Latvian

Saeima

reported about representatives of the

Saeima

in Brussels and the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

reported about officials of the EU Affairs Department being tasked

with responding to the questionnaire.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Eighteen out of 35 Parliaments/Chambers said members of the Committees on European

Affairs were engaged. Four out of 35 Parliaments/Chambers answered that members from

sectoral Committees also took part in the exercise. Twelve out of 34 Parliaments/Chambers

responded by saying that the draft of the answers to the questionnaire was prepared by the

staff of the committees or other officials and then Committee Chairs or/and members were

engaged in the final approval of its draft replies.

The European Parliament replied that, since 2013, the COSAC questionnaire has been

forwarded by the Vice-President responsible for relations with national Parliaments and

COSAC to the President of the Conference of Committee Chairs and the competent

committee for the preparation of answers; the answers, which represented the position of

the committee that had prepared them, were forwarded to the relevant Vice-President.

Nearly half of the Parliaments/Chambers responding (19 of 39) answered that the final draft

of replies to the questionnaire was politically discussed and approved by a Committee of the

Parliament/Chamber. The Czech

Senát

stated that answers to all "political" questions in the

Report were strictly based on existing resolutions adopted by the

Senát,

therefore, there

was no formal procedure for answering the questionnaire.

The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

and the UK

House of Commons

noted that the length of

questionnaires and the Bi-annual Report itself seemed to be increasing and it was important

that the Report was not overly ambitious in the issues it sought to address, because this

could place a burden on parliamentary staff tasked with completing the questionnaire and

the COSAC Secretariat in compiling the Bi-annual Report.

Two out of 37 Parliaments/Chambers replied that the Bi-annual Report was discussed at a

Committee meeting. The Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

responded that the Bi-annual Report was

included in the agenda of a Committee on European Affairs meeting (usually as a side-topic)

and distributed to all members of the Committee both by e-mail as well as by regular post.

The European Parliament's AFCO Committee reported that it organised, at least once a year,

an exchange of views on the developments within COSAC and in such circumstances the Bi-

annual Report was distributed and eventually discussed. The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

stated

that the Report was discussed by the EU Affairs Committee in the framework of the

mandate of the delegation to the plenary of COSAC. The Finnish

Eduskunta

responded that

the Report was distributed to members, but that it had never led to a discussion. The

Estonian

Riigikogu

answered that the Bi-annual Report was sent only to the members that

participated in the COSAC plenary meeting. The Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

said that

the new Chair of the Committee on European Affairs intended to discuss the Bi-annual

Report at a Committee meeting in the future.

The majority of Parliaments/Chambers (28 of 39) replied that the Bi-annual Report was

communicated to members of the Parliament/Chamber's Committee on European Affairs

and to the officials of the Parliament/Chamber. In the large majority of

Parliaments/Chambers (32 of 39) the Report was not communicated to members of sectoral

Committees. Almost the same number of Parliaments/Chambers (30 of 39) answered that it

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

was not published on the Parliament/Chamber's website. The UK

House of Commons

and

the Latvian

Saeima

reported that the Bi-annual Report was distributed on an ad hoc basis,

depending on the subjects involved (e.g. if relevant to an inquiry).

More than half of the Parliaments/Chambers responding (21 of 37) believed that the Bi-

annual Report should not be further communicated. The Dutch

Eerste Kamer

and the

Portuguese

Assembleia da República

stated that, instead of further external communication,

more attention could be given to Bi-annual Reports in COSAC's own meetings; Bi-annual

Reports tended to be highly informative and rich in data about working methods and best

practices of other Parliaments and this could help structure discussions aimed at exchanging

best practices among Parliaments. The French

Sénat

also believed that Bi-annual Reports

could enhance the debate in COSAC and the role of national Parliaments in the EU. The UK

House of Commons

agreed that a session dedicated to a discussion on issues related to the

Report, without a long opening keynote speech, would be a positive innovation and could

ensure greater linkage between the content of the Report and the scheduled debates in the

plenary.

Sixteen out of 37 Parliaments/Chambers were of the opinion that the Bi-annual Report was

a useful document which deserved greater visibility and wider circulation. The Irish

Houses

of the Oireachtas,

the Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

and the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

stated that the Bi-annual Report should be easily accessible by members and officials of

Parliaments and should also be disseminated among academics and experts. The Hungarian

Országgyűlés

also suggested that Bi-annual Reports should be available on IPEX. The

Maltese

Kamra tad-Deputati

agreed with this proposal and added that the Report should

also be circulated to the Presidency of the EU Speakers Conference. The UK

House of

Commons

and the Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie

said the Report should be further

communicated to the members of the relevant sectoral Committees. The Belgian

Chambre

des représentants

and the Estonian

Riigikogu

stated that Bi-annual Reports should be

further communicated to interested groups with regard to topics discussed in these reports.

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

suggested that should the Bi-annual Report discuss matters which

were relevant for interaction between Parliaments and other stakeholders, it could be

relevant to send it to the members of the Council or the European Parliament.

The European Parliament's AFCO Committee highlighted that the Bi-annual Report was a

unique tool that gave a synthetic overview on the developments of procedures and

practices in relation to the parliamentary control on European affairs exerted by national

Parliaments; it was therefore necessary to increase its "usability" through its diffusion at

national and European parliamentary level by providing its translation in all EU languages.

The Czech

Senát

believed that the Bi-annual Report could not be viewed as a joint

declaration or contribution of COSAC and it would rather be useful if the Conclusions and

Contributions of COSAC were further communicated.

The majority of Parliaments/Chambers (19 out of 35) considered that the COSAC Secretariat

should have a role in further communicating the Bi-annual Report. The Irish

Houses of the

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Oireachtas

suggested that the Bi-annual Report should have increased visibility and

prominence on the COSAC website, with an index of issues addressed (with links) in the

reports. The UK

House of Commons

said that the COSAC Secretariat could disseminate the

Bi-annual Report to a Brussels audience/academia, and more proactively offer to provide

presentations on it to interested parties. The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

stated that the COSAC

Secretariat should formulate a communication strategy with regard to its work and to

interparliamentary cooperation in cooperation with the representatives of national

Parliaments. The Estonian

Riigikogu,

the Belgian

Sénat

and the Dutch

Eerste Kamer

responded that it would be up to the COSAC Chairpersons or COSAC plenary and the Latvian

Saeima

suggested that it would be up to the Presidency or the Presidential Troika of COSAC

to decide to whom the Bi-annual Report should be further communicated.

Informal sessions

Most Parliaments/Chambers (30 out of 36) responding considered informal sessions at the

side of COSAC meetings a very useful or useful tool. The Danish

Folketing

reported that

small informal sessions provided members of Parliaments with a better opportunity to

exchange views in greater depth with members of Parliaments from other Member States

than large scale formal sessions. The UK

House of Lords

underlined that informal sessions

could offer a smaller group of delegates the opportunity for genuine debate and exchange

of best practice, as well as further networking opportunities, and suggested that

simultaneous "workshops" on separate issues could be run for parliamentarians in lieu of

one of the plenary debates, rather than informal sessions being squeezed into lunch or

other breaks. The Swedish

Riksdag

stated that informal sessions might be useful, but they

also entailed the risk of distracting the focus from the actual plenary meeting; thus, the

number of such informal sessions needed to be limited. Six out of 35 Parliaments/Chambers

replied informal sessions at the side of the COSAC meetings were not so useful or not really

useful, distracting the focus from the actual meeting. The Spanish

Cortes Generales

responded that additional sessions imposed an extra burden on the COSAC agenda, which

was sufficiently dense thus not needing to be complemented by extra meetings. This would

allow the focus to stay in the interparliamentary debate held in the plenary of COSAC.

Informal meetings of officials from the capitals

Most Parliaments/Chambers (29 out of 36) considered informal meetings of officials from

the capitals at the side of the COSAC meetings a very useful or useful tool. The UK

House of

Commons

recommended these meetings became standard practice during plenary

meetings, as they were very useful events, noting that sufficient time needed to be allotted

in order for informal/side events to be successful. The UK

House of Lords

emphasised that

informal staff meetings allowed secretariats to share practical experience and information

about their procedures, helping them to support effective European scrutiny work by their

Committees and therefore suggested that informal sessions for both groups -

parliamentarians and officials - should be one of the focuses of COSAC meetings in future.

The Finnish

Eduskunta

replied that informal sessions and meetings of officials could be

helpful, when they had a clear agenda, but that it would be hesitant to "institutionalise"

them.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Seven out of 36 Parliaments/Chambers were of the opinion that informal meetings of

officials from the capitals at the side of the COSAC meetings were not so useful or not really

useful. The Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

replied that the network of representatives of national

Parliaments was a more valid and immediate point of reference and communication for

issues of interparliamentary cooperation due to regular meetings and update of its

synthesis.

1.3

Future of COSAC

Discussions at COSAC meetings and the future role of COSAC

Thirty one Parliaments/Chambers presented their views as to what specific European

policies and issues COSAC could discuss in the context of the evolving landscape of

interparliamentary cooperation. Parliaments/Chambers’ views varied. In general, there

seemed to be a desire that COSAC discussed both policy and institutional issues.

According to the Portuguese

Assembleia da República,

COSAC could be a forum to debate

not merely a specific draft act, but policy options at the origin of the European

Commission’s initiatives expressed in working papers or in its Communications. What is

more, according to the UK

House of Lords,

"COSAC's remit needn't be constrained..." and

"...COSAC should be free to address any salient European policy or issue." On a similar note,

according to the Danish

Folketing,

COSAC should exchange views and information on all

policy issues that the European Affairs Committees deal with in their

Parliaments/Chambers, including all kind of issues of a legislative nature, but also of

institutional nature.

However, according to the Czech

Senát,

"COSAC should concentrate primarily on

institutional questions rather than specific EU policies", while, regarding specific policies, it

should "concentrate on the most salient ones for national Parliaments". According to the

Croatian

Hrvatski sabor,

"COSAC should focus more on the EU legislative process" and

always have legislative business as an item on its agenda. According to the Belgian

Chambre

des représentants,

COSAC's contributions cannot go beyond the exchange of best practices

within the established framework of COSAC.

The European Parliament, noting the establishment of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference

for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence

Policy (CSDP) and the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic Governance of the

European Union, suggested that COSAC could also perform a detailed examination of the

problems that national Parliaments encountered in exercising the prerogatives conferred to

them by the Lisbon Treaty. COSAC should rather focus on horizontal/institutional issues,

while leaving specific policy areas to other existing interparliamentary fora, e. g. the

European Parliamentary Week.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Three national Parliaments underlined the need for consultation with the Troika (Spanish

Cortes Generales,

House of Lords,

Finnish

Eduskunta)

and the delegations (Spanish

Cortes

Generales,

House of Lords)

regarding the choice of topics on the agenda of the COSAC

meetings, while the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

highlighted that it would be best not to

be too prescriptive about the agenda.

Four Parliaments/Chambers (Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

House of Lords,

Polish

Sejm,

Estonian

Riigikogu)

warned against the risk of replicating debates taking place in other

interparliamentary fora, while a number of others underlined the importance of addressing

issues highly on the agenda of the EU at the time of the meetings (Belgian

Sénat,

French

Assemblée Nationale)

and current political, economic and social developments (Polish

Sejm).

More specifically, COSAC, according to the proposals submitted, could have discussions and

exchange of information on, amongst others, the following:



institutional issues which may deepen interparliamentary cooperation and help

strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the EU (Portuguese

Assembleia da

República)

and practices of interparliamentary cooperation, exchange of

information and networking between delegations (Dutch

Tweede Kamer);

the issue of democratic accountability and legitimacy (Lithuanian

Seimas,

Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

Dutch

Eerst Kamer

and

Tweede Kamer,

governing

coalition parties SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat and

Bundesrat),

the role of Parliaments in improving democratic legitimacy in the EU

(Dutch

Eerst Kamer

and

Tweede Kamer)

and the role of national Parliaments

(Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Danish

Folketing);

best practices on parliamentary scrutiny of the activity of national governments

on EU matters (Italian

Senato della Repubblica);

how to reinforce the European dimension of national Parliaments’ activities to

strengthen the consciousness of national parliamentarians and to promote a

"European reflex" in sectoral committees (Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés);

the European Commission’s Work Programme (CWP) (Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

Italian

Camera dei Deputati)

in order to draw a list, at an early stage, of proposals

that Parliaments feel might be in breach of the subsidiarity principle (Dutch

Tweede Kamer)

and the European Commission’s annual political strategy (Italian

Camera dei Deputati);

those legislative proposals that attracted most attention at national Parliaments’

level in the context of the subsidiarity check procedure (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

Polish

Senat)

not reaching, however, the threshold for the issuing of a "yellow

card" (Polish

Senat),

the role of the "yellow" and "orange card" and its limits

(Slovenian

Državni zbor).



PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Parliaments/Chambers, which responded to the question, proposed a number of specific

issues that COSAC could discuss. Amongst those, some notable and recurring ones were the

following:



parliamentary control of Europol and Eurojust (French

Sénat);

national Parliaments' participation in consultations of the European Commission

(French

Sénat);

future priorities and issues of European policy of Justice and Home Affairs (French

Sénat,

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

Romanian

Senat);

Multiannual Financial Framework (Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

Dutch

Tweede

Kamer)

promoting mobility and the Labour Mobility Package (Romanian

Senat,

Cyprus

Vouli

ton Antiprosopon);

addressing unemployment and youth unemployment (Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

Romanian

Senat);

enlargement (Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

Dutch

Tweede Kamer);

strengthening the role of COSAC (Romanian

Senat)

and its future (Irish

Houses of the

Oireachtas);

Treaty changes (Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

Danish

Folketing);

environment and energy policies (French

Sénat,

Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

Romanian

Senat,

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon)

and green growth (Green party, opposition, of

the Austrian

Nationalrat and Bundesrat);

taxation (Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon)

and tax harmonisation (Green party,

opposition, of the Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat);

Eastern Partnership (Lithuanian

Seimas,

Latvian

Saeima);

assessment of the functioning of the EU after the entry into force of the Lisbon

Treaty - intergovernmental versus community approach (Polish

Sejm);

state of play of the Union (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon).

A number of Parliaments/Chambers expressed additional views regarding the future

substantive role of COSAC. The view was expressed that COSAC should give "a sort of green

card" to European initiatives (Italian

Senato della Repubblica)

and that it could give

consideration to whether its ability to submit any contribution it chooses to the European

Parliament, Council and European Commission could be used in order for a group of

Parliaments to suggest a legislative proposal that they believe the Commission ought to

bring forward (UK

House of Commons).

It was also suggested that COSAC might also benefit

from appointing a longer-term chair of COSAC (UK

House of Commons).

Better exchange of information and best practices on the subsidiarity principle checks in

the framework of COSAC

Most (30 out of 39) Parliaments/Chambers replied that, after the issuing of two "yellow

cards", national Parliaments should engage in better exchanging information and best

practices on the subsidiarity principle checks in the framework of COSAC.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

The replies regarding how this could be achieved can be seen on the table below.

Proposal

Percentage of

Parliaments/Chambers

in favour of a proposal

93%

Number of

Parliaments/Chambers

in favour of a proposal

Through a discussion in COSAC meetings

on the European Commission's response

to a "yellow card"

Through a discussion in COSAC meetings

on proposals which have triggered a

"yellow card"

Through pre-selecting specific proposals

from the Commission Work Programme

for discussion in COSAC meetings

Through forming a group of members

within COSAC aimed at discussing a

"yellow card"

Total respondents

63%

60%

27%

When asked further to provide other ways/means for better exchange of information and

best practices, Parliaments/Chambers provided the views below:



through a discussion in COSAC on draft legislative acts scrutinised by national

Parliaments raising doubts as to compliance with the principle of subsidiarity

(Portuguese

Assembleia da República);

sharing, via the network of Representatives in Brussels, those specific proposals from

the CWP which they had selected for detailed scrutiny (Irish

Houses of the

Oireachtas);

in the framework of informal sessions (Hungarian

Országgyűlés);

COSAC could consider whether the COSAC Presidency should have a role in issuing a

factual statement should a "yellow card" threshold be reached. This would avoid the

sort of circumstance that arose with EPPO

, where national Parliaments had to wait

several days for the Commission to inform them that a "yellow card" had been

triggered (UK

House of Lords);

through issuing Guidelines for assessing the compliance with the subsidiarity

principle, in cooperation with the European Commission, the European Parliament,

the EU Court of Justice and the Committee of the Regions (Romanian

Camera

Deputaţilor).



When asked to provide reasons why they would not favour such an exchange of information

and best practices, eleven Parliaments/Chambers submitted their views.

Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office,

COM(2013) 534 final.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Two Parliaments/Chambers expressly rejected a collective approach of national Parliaments

regarding Protocol 2 of the Lisbon Treaty. The Belgian

Chambre des représentants

stated

that COSAC had decided that the application of the subsidiarity procedure was a prerogative

of national Parliaments and that a collective approach had been rejected. Similarly, the

European Parliament's AFCO Committee, referring to Protocol 2 of the Lisbon Treaty,

according to which COSAC promotes the exchange of information and best practices

between national Parliaments and the European Parliament, stated that the control of

subsidiarity was not a collective exercise, but an individual one of every

Parliament/Chamber. The European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI)

supported further that it could be useful to involve the competent European Parliament

Committee in the discussions of the follow-up to "yellow cards" and the Commission's reply

to these. Along the same line, the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

stated that COSAC should not

be conferred any power to 'coordinate' the monitoring of subsidiarity by national

Parliaments. According to the latter, conferring such power would be in contradiction to the

conferral of relevant responsibilities to individual parliaments, which are exercised in

accordance with Parliaments' own procedures and powers.

The Finnish

Eduskunta

underlined that neither the subsidiarity mechanism had any impact

on legislative outcomes, nor national Parliaments' contributions had been given the

attention they warranted, suggesting that the procedure needed to be rethought. The Polish

Senat

referred to a risk that the COSAC meeting could focus on a single draft legislative

proposal and not on the subsidiarity principle check, whereas the Spanish

Cortes Generales

supported such exchange only on an

ad hoc

basis. According to the Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

substantial discussion should take place among sectoral committees, while COSAC should

discuss substantial proposals if the subsidiarity procedure was compromised, i.e. when the

European Commission's response was contrary to expectation.

Four Parliaments/Chambers mentioned IPEX (Lithuanian

Seimas,

Polish

Sejm,

Italian

Camera

dei Deputati,

Belgian

Chambre des représentants)

and national Parliaments' permanent

representatives in Brussels (Polish

Senat,

Polish

Sejm,

Italian

Camera dei Deputati,

Belgian

Chambre des représentants)

as sufficient existing mechanisms for exchange of information

and best practices. The Lithuanian

Seimas

suggested additionally sharing best practices in

the framework of clusters of interested groups of national Parliaments or conferences or

seminars.

Formal and informal meetings of members of Parliaments/Chambers

The majority (25 out of 36) Parliaments/Chambers welcomed different smaller formal and

informal meetings of members of Parliaments submitting contributions to COSAC.

When asked to explain why they supported these meetings, Parliaments/Chambers gave

different justifications. The most prevalent justification was related to commonality

identified and established amongst Parliaments/Chambers. Thus, "discussion of issues

related to specific situations common to members of national Parliaments" (Portuguese

Assembleia da República)

and "groupings of members of Parliaments with similar interests"

(Maltese

Kamra tad-Deputati),

finding "common positions" on subjects on the agenda of the

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

EU (Slovak

Národná rada,

Polish

Senat,

Belgian

Sénat),

"providing information of common

interest" to national Parliaments (Slovenian

Državni zbor),

representing "certain common

interests and will of those who approved [contributions]" (Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna),

facilitating "coordination of positions of various delegations" (Czech

Senát),

"networking

amongst members with a shared interest" (UK

House of Lords),

giving the "opportunity to

the Chairmen of Committees on European Affairs...to gather, discuss and submit collectively

their views on matters of specific interest and importance to COSAC" (Cyprus

Vouli ton

Antiprosopon),

enhancing "closer cooperation among national Parliaments and

parliamentarians on a broad spectrum of common issues of concern" (Greek

Vouli ton

Ellinon),

"addressing issues of common interest" (Latvian

Saeima)

were cited as justifications

for Parliaments/Chambers' positive reply.

In addition, Parliaments/Chambers stressed, amongst others, the possibility for deeper,

better-focused, result-driven and more thorough discussion and analysis where more

concrete proposals could be formulated (Lithuanian

Seimas),

the exchange of information

with a view to reinforcing parliamentary control, influence and scrutiny (Dutch

Tweede

Kamer),

the opportunity to take into consideration certain priorities of Southern Europe

(French

Sénat)

and the reinforcement of transparency in forming positions at COSAC

meetings (Italian

Senato della Repubblica).

Twelve Parliaments/Chambers expressed their concerns as to the abovementioned

meetings.

Though both the Dutch

Eerste Kamer

and the Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon

stood in favour of

these meetings, they expressed some concern. The former "would be hesitant to support

institutionalisation of these meetings", while the latter stated that "these meetings should

not constitute, in any case, a mechanism serving interests other than the Union's common

benefit."

The Finnish

Eduskunta

stated that, while the contributions per se were welcome, time

constraints, also underlined by the Swedish

Riksdag

and the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor,

did not allow consideration of these. It also underlined that COSAC and the Presidency

should retain control over the agenda of the meetings and that there should not be an

assumption that all

ad hoc

contributions would automatically be debated. The Irish

Houses

of the Oireachtas,

stating that it was not in favour of such meetings, underlined the already

very busy programme of COSAC. Both the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

and the

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

supported the view that such meetings were distracting

the focus from the actual meeting, while the Italian

Camera dei Deputati

and the French

Assemblée Nationale

referred to the danger of fragmentation of debates. The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

stated that "the criteria employed to create the groups should avoid

gender, age, nationality or geography...". The Belgian

Chambre des représentants

warned of

the risk of proliferation of meetings, while the UK

House of Commons

warned against the

introduction of unnecessary costs and the undermining of the inclusiveness of COSAC. "In

the light of developments that can be detected in the wake of the economic and financial

crisis, COSAC should not encourage the emergence of such interest groups" (German

Bundesrat).

The Spanish

Cortes Generales,

citing the European Parliament resolution of 16

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

April 2014 on relations between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments

shared the view of the European Parliament that "interparliamentary cooperation must be

open and inclusive". Both the Spanish

Cortes Generales

and the European Parliament

expressed their concern regarding the unilateral organisation of restricted

interparliamentary meetings, which excluded certain parliamentarians and aimed at the

aggregation of positions on EU affairs which were not consensus-based.

Concerning the frequency of meetings of the already established Women's Forum, mixed

replies were provided.

Four Parliaments/Chambers expressly said it should meet twice a year (French

Sénat,

Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie,

Croatian

Hrvatski sabor,

Romanian

Senat),

while four others

specified that the meetings should be held in consideration of the timing of the COSAC

plenary (Belgian

Sénat,

Italian

Camera dei Deputati,

Slovenian

Državni zbor,

Italian

Senato

della Repubblica).

Three Parliaments/Chambers and the Green party (opposition) of the

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat

replied that it should meet once a year (Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon)

without specifying exact timing or "once a year,

within the framework of the plenary session of COSAC" (Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon).

The

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

suggested meeting once or twice a year, while the

governing coalition parties SPÖ (S&D) and ÖVP (EPP) of the Austrian

Nationalrat and

Bundesrat

according to the necessity and the on-going political agenda.

The Portuguese

Assembleia da República

stated that the frequency should be set in liaison

with the chair of COSAC, whenever there should be matters for discussion. On a similar

note, the Slovak

Národná rada

and the Czech

Poslanecká sněmovna

suggested meetings

when there was a real need or when it was deemed to be useful. The Czech

Senát

said the

issue should be decided by the trio Presidencies and the COSAC Secretariat. The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

suggested it should meet as often as it chooses separately from the

plenary meetings of COSAC, in the format of cluster of interest meetings. The European

Parliament recalled the "need of calling such a forum at the side of COSAC, when specific

reasons, related to the role of COSAC, justify its call, and, if needed, once per year".

Replying it had no official view on this issue, the Finnish

Eduskunta

nevertheless warned

against the proliferation of semi-permanent parliamentary conferences.

The role and functioning of the COSAC Secretariat

In reply to the question whether Parliaments/Chambers considered that the role and

functioning of the COSAC Secretariat should be improved or reformed within the evolving

landscape of interparliamentary cooperation, 22 out of 37 respondents replied negatively.

From those Parliaments/Chambers, which responded positively and which chose to provide

comments on the abovementioned issue, 6 (French Sénat, Luxembourg

Chambre des

Députés,

Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

House of Commons,

Italian

Senato della

Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0430

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Repubblica

and Danish

Folketing)

supported an expanded role for the COSAC Secretariat in

supporting other interparliamentary meetings, namely the Inter-Parliamentary Conference

for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Common Security and Defence

Policy (CSDP) (French

Sénat,

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

Irish

Houses of the

Oireachtas,

House of Commons,

Danish

Folketing),

the Conference on Economic

Governance (French

Sénat,

Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

Irish

Houses of the

Oireachtas,

Danish

Folketing),

the future mixed parliamentary committee in the area of

Europol and of the evaluation of Eurojust (French

Sénat),

the EU Speakers Conference

(Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés)

and all interparliamentary meetings organised in

national Parliaments and the European Parliament (Italian

Senato della Repubblica).

More specifically, the Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés

referred to "a certain experience

of the Secretariat in the field of interparliamentary cooperation" stating that it "could offer

its competences to the benefit of respective Presidencies, being reinforced, where

appropriate, with a second or third or fourth permanent member for co-financing amongst

Parliaments". The UK

House of Commons

referred to an expanded role of the Secretariat for

cost and efficiency reasons.

In addition, the following notable views were expressed:



the COSAC Secretariat should give priority to the improvement of a structural

coalition-formation in the context of the "yellow card" procedure by facilitating

discussion on the CWP, exchange of priorities amongst its members and

identification of potential coalitions on specific topics (Dutch

Tweede Kamer);

more online tools could be used, such as a Facebook web page or email lists (Dutch

Tweede Kamer);

potential increase of the resources available to COSAC and the small Secretariat

should COSAC modify its working practices to include simultaneous workshops, topic

debates, or

ad hoc

working groups of members preparing discussion papers (UK

House of Lords);

subject to guidelines set down by COSAC, there could be a role for the COSAC

Secretariat in providing logistical or other support and advice in order to facilitate

hoc

"cluster" meetings of parliamentarians, given the increasing frequency of these

(UK

House of Lords);

the COSAC Secretariat should be up to date with any exchange of information

between national Parliaments and the European Parliament (Romanian

Senat);

there may be a role for the COSAC Secretariat to more actively facilitate

interparliamentary activities between COSAC meetings, both at official and political

level, for example on occasions when a "yellow card" is reached (UK

House of

Commons);

there is scope to foresee a role in terms of content (i.e. preparation of notes for

reflection) rather than a purely formal role (Belgian

Chambre des représentants);

the COSAC Secretariat may work to further encourage and trigger cooperation and

awareness, i.e. by maintaining a database of requests/questionnaires on

parliamentary procedures, accessible through the COSAC webpage (Greek

Vouli ton

Ellinon);



PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the COSAC Secretariat may also produce a more elaborate working paper based on

the replies to the COSAC questionnaire on the Lisbon guidelines, in preparation of

the EU Speakers Conference (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon);

the COSAC Secretariat could, under the political responsibility of the COSAC

Presidency and the Presidential Troika, have greater role both in diffusing the COSAC

Bi-annual Report and in preparing information notes (European Parliament's AFCO

Committee);

the COSAC Secretariat could, in cooperation with the Presidency, contribute in

exploring ways to improve the functioning of COSAC, strengthen its role and increase

the role of national Parliaments in the legislative process of the EU (Latvian

Saeima).

The Dutch

Tweede Kamer

noted that the Secretariat should implement its duties within

the existing financial arrangements.

On a different note, according to the Italian

Camera dei Deputati,

there was no need to

change the role, the composition and the functioning of the COSAC Secretariat, which

should continue to concentrate on the preparation of Bi-annual Reports and to assist the

Presidency Secretariat in all its tasks.

CHAPTER 2: COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS AND THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

___________________________________________________________________________

Since the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament and national

Parliaments have had a significantly larger role to play within the European Union. The

European Parliament and national Parliaments shall together determine the organisation

and promotion of effective and regular interparliamentary cooperation within the Union. A

number of new mechanisms, both formal and informal, have been introduced to increase

the level of cooperation and improvements have been made to working methods. However,

it can be argued that there is still space for further enhancement and that more could be

done to strengthen interparliamentary cooperation at the level of informal dialogue.

This chapter of the Bi-annual Report focuses on the evaluation of current formal and

informal mechanisms of interparliamentary cooperation exploring how interparliamentary

cooperation could be improved and further deepened. In this respect, it seeks

Parliaments'/Chambers' ideas on how the relationship between national Parliaments and

the European Parliament could be further strengthened and on how information could be

better exchanged, especially in the context of recent

ad hoc

initiatives taken by the European

Parliament and other suggested mechanisms. It further outlines Parliaments/Chambers'

views on whether there is a need to update the Lisbon guidelines for interparliamentary

cooperation and on how COSAC may provide a useful input to future EU Speakers

Conference.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

2.1

Evaluation of formal and informal mechanisms of interparliamentary

cooperation

Evaluation of interparliamentry meetings and Parliaments' views on how to improve them

The majority of Chambers/Parliaments (24 out of 38) responding replied that they regularly

attended interparliamentary meetings held at the premises of the European Parliament. The

Danish

Folketing

and the Slovenian

Drzavni zbor

responded that they rarely attended these

meetings.

Most responding Parliaments/Chambers (30 out of 38) replied that they regularly attended

meetings organised by the Presidency Parliament in the Member States holding the rotating

Presidency of the Council of the EU.

In relation to the meetings held at the premises of the European Parliament, the vast

majority of those Parliaments/Chambers which responded (27 out of 31) considered

networking of members of Parliaments the most successful aspect of these meetings. The

quality of debate was considered by 18 Parliaments/Chambers out of 31 the least successful.

The agenda was considered positively by 24 out of 33 Parliaments/Chambers and the

exchanges with leading figures were considered positively by 20 Parliaments/Chambers out

of 34.

Similar replies were provided with regard to meetings organised by the Presidency

Parliament in the Member States holding the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU.

All but one of those Parliaments/Chambers which responded (31 out of 32) ranked

networking of members of Parliaments the most successful aspect of these meetings. Then

the agenda was considered most successful by 23 out of 29 Parliaments/Chambers. The

quality of debates and the exchanges with leading figures were ranked last by responding

Parliaments/Chambers (18 out of 30).

When Parliaments/Chambers were asked to provide other most/least successful aspects,

the Estonian

Riigikogu

pointed out the importance of written contributions provided before

such meetings, while the UK

House of Lords

stressed that meetings organised in the

European Parliament gave the opportunity to share their Committee's work with a wider

audience and to discuss with other parliamentarians possible subsidiarity issues on new

proposals.

With regard to the meetings held at the premises of the European Parliament, the vast

majority of Parliaments/Chambers (32 out of 37) identified a need for improvement.

Parliaments/Chambers thought that improvement should take into account the duration of

interventions (26 out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers), the content (14 out of 31

Parliaments/Chambers), the duration of meetings (13 out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers), the

timing of meetings (13 out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers), and the choice of keynote speakers

(11 out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers).

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

In relation to the meetings organised by the Presidency Parliament in the Member States

holding the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU, the large majority of those

Parliaments/Chambers which responded (27 out of 37), identified that there was also a need

for improvement.

The proposed improvement should take into account the duration of interventions (20 out of

31 Parliaments/Chambers), the content (13 out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers), the choice of

keynote speakers (10 out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers), the timing of meetings (8 out of 31

Parliaments/Chambers) and the duration of meetings (8 out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers).

When asked to explain their proposals, Parliaments/Chambers proposed a number of ideas.

More specifically, in relation to the content, Parliaments/Chambers proposed, among others,

the following ideas:



the Conference agenda should be both focused (specific pieces of legislation/topics)

and flexible (Polish

Senát,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

House of Lords,

Romanian

Senat,

French

Assemblée nationale,

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

Romanian

Camera Deputatilor,

Latvian

Saeima,

Green party, opposition, of the

Austrian

Nationalrat

and

Bundesrat);



topics of the interparliamentary meetings held at the premises of the European

Parliament should be equally relevant both for the European Parliament and

national Parliaments (Lithuanian

Seimas,

House of Lords,

Romanian

Senat,

European Parliament's AFCO Committee);



the answers to questions from the European Commission representatives

participating in interparliamentary meetings should be less vague (Slovenian

Drzavni

zbor);



interparliamentary meetings should end with the adoption of conclusions (Italian

Senato della Repubblica,

Lithuanian

Seimas,

Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas)

- by

majority vote, if necessary, taking into account the minority positions (French

Assemblée nationale)

- and issues raised at the conclusions should be reflected in

the agenda of future meetings (Lithuanian

Seimas);



interparliamentary meetings should "allow national Parliaments to take into account

the European perspective in national debates, and the European Parliament to take

account of the national perspective in European debates. A better cooperation

between rapporteurs on specific legislative initiatives should be ensured" (European

Parliament's AFCO Committee).

In relation to the choice of keynote speakers, Parliaments/Chambers proposed, among

others, the following:



the keynote speakers should be chosen among those who are involved in the

decision-making process (Polish

Senát,

Italian

Camera dei Deputati,

House of

Lords,

Romanian

Senat);



the number of keynote speakers should not exceed the number of 2 or 3 (French

Assemblée nationale).



more academics should be invited as keynote speakers (Estonian

Riigikogu);

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the keynote speakers should always be present throughout the whole event in order

to enable a real dialogue and exchange of views (Polish

Sejm,

Belgian

Sénat,

Czech

Poslanecka snemovna,

Czech

Senat,

Latvian

Saeima).

In relation to the duration of meetings, the following was, among others, proposed:



meetings organised by the European Parliament should not start before 10 am and

should not end after 4 pm because of travel arrangements. One-day events could

start in the afternoon with the first session; the second session could continue in the

morning of the following day (Czech

Senat);



the European Parliament should not organise meetings in Brussels which last two

hours (Polish

Sejm,

Czech

Senat).

Regarding the duration of interventions, the comments and the proposals included, among

others, the following:



duration of interventions is considered insufficient for national Parliaments (13

Parliaments/Chambers));



more meetings in parallel should be organised in order to allow for more individual

speaking time (European Parliament's BUDG Committee);



time allocated for interventions should be short (German

Bundesrat,

Dutch

Eerste

Kamer),

discussions should remain 'on topic' and delegates should avoid make long

pre-prepared speeches (Dutch

Eerste Kamer,

House of Lords,

German

Bundesrat,

Romanian

Camera Deputatilor);



sufficient time for discussion should be allocated (9 Parliaments/Chambers).

Regarding the timing of meetings, the proposals included, among others, the following:



the organisers should confirm a date and time and circulate the agenda well in

advance, so that parliamentarians can discuss their attendance and have time to

prepare (Luxembourg

Chambre des Députés,

House of Lords);



better coordination and planning of the interparliamentary meetings should be

ensured in order to avoid duplication in the agenda (Italian

Camera dei Deputati)

and

overlapping (Belgian

Sénat,

Lithuanian

Seimas,

Belgian

Chambre des représentants,

Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon,

German

Bundestag);



interparliamentary meetings should be organised shortly after the publication of the

proposals that national Parliaments deem to be priorities (Dutch

Tweede Kamer);



interparliamentary meetings at the European Parliament should be organised during

the pre-legislative phase and the legislative phase, preferably shortly before the

relevant Council meetings and before the deadline for amendments in the relevant

Committee of the European Parliament, while the timing of meetings organised by

the Presidency should be fixed before the relevant Council meetings (Italian

Senato

della Repubblica);



more general policy debates should be organised at an early stage (UK

House of

Lords);



interparliamentary cooperation should be more focused on already established

Conferences and COSAC in order to avoid proliferation of other fora (French

Assemblée nationale)

and there should be coordination of calendars of national

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Parliaments, Presidency Parliament, the European Parliament etc. to avoid

duplication of topics on the agenda (Belgian

Sénat,

Italian

Senato della Repubblica).

Other notable ideas included, among others, the following:



detailed background notes (Czech

Senat,

Italian

Camera dei Deputati,

House of

Lords),

contributions of participating parliaments and questionnaires (Italian

Camera

dei deputati)

should be provided before the meetings;



speakers' names and political group information should be displayed on the screen

(Estonian

Riigikogu);



participation of national parliamentarians through video-conferencing (Italian

Senato

della Repubblica,

House of Lords);



an official report should be provided at the end of the meetings (Belgian

Chambre

des représentants,

Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas).

Evaluation of organisation and outcome of interparliamentary meetings by Parliaments

In relation to both types of meetings, the majority of Parliaments/Chambers (21 out of 38)

replied that they sometimes evaluated the outcome of such meetings.

Almost equal number of 30 Parliaments/Chambers replied that such evaluation took place at

the level of members of Parliaments (23) and at the level of officials (24).

Fourteen Parliaments/Chambers replied that delegates reported back to their Committee;

the main topics on the agenda and outcome were often discussed at Committee meetings.

Some 7 Parliaments/Chambers stated that officials prepared written reports summarising

the meetings. According to the Bulgarian

Narodno sabranie,

the Chairperson of its

competent Committee submitted a report to the Speaker.

The Belgian

Sénat

responded that the evaluation referred mainly to organisational matters;

other Parliaments/Chambers replied that they focused on the outcome of the meetings

rather than on their organisation (Dutch

Eerste Kamer).

The UK

House of Lords

responded that the evaluation of logistical/organisational aspects

takes place mainly at official level. The House of Lords' EU Committee secretariat discussed

the benefits of such conferences, including the ways in which to capitalise on the

opportunities they offered, and any difficulties or constraints at logistical/organisational

level.

Seven Parliaments/Chambers stated that they never evaluated the outcome of

interparliamentary meetings.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

As to the results of the evaluation, the following views were, amongst others, expressed:



the Italian

Senato della Repubblica

and the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

responded that the overall assessment was positive although the latter specified

that, as to specific interparliamentary meetings, there had been debates over the

relation between the content and duration of the meeting and the travel costs

involved;

the Czech

Senat

responded that they could not evaluate the real outcome of the

meetings since no formal outcomes had been distributed to the participants;

the UK

House of Commons

responded that "attendees at recent interparliamentary

meeting in the European Parliament recently questioned the added value and

concrete purpose/outcome of such meetings. They felt that a series of unconnected

pre-prepared speeches did not assist in their work scrutinising EU policy/legislation,

in contrast to the bilateral visits our select committees often conduct to Brussels".



The European Parliament responded that, according to its Rules of Procedure, in relation to

the COSAC meetings, its delegation submits a report to the Conference of Presidents after

each meeting. The European Parliament's AFCO Committee organises, at least once per year,

an exchange of views on the developments within COSAC with the Vice-President

responsible for relations with national Parliaments.

With regard to the meetings organised by the Presidency Parliament in the Member States

holding the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU, the Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

pointed out that Presidency Parliaments failed to improve the quality of debates, in

particular they sometimes avoided to put "difficult" issues on the agenda; participants

usually went over their allotted speaking time; Chairpersons were not capable of channelling

debates into concrete and/or innovative ideas and managing debates on amendments to

adopt meetings documents.

The European Parliament's BUDG Committee, focusing on the European Parliamentary

Week, stressed that continuity in the composition of national Parliaments' delegations

should be ensured to allow debates to be more fruitful, and that it would be desirable if

national Parliaments could be regularly represented at the level of (Vice) Presidents,

Committee Chairs, Rapporteurs or Group Presidents, to ensure that the opinions expressed

represent those of the Parliaments and not only individual opinions. It also underlined that it

was necessary to better differentiate between the Interparliamentary meeting on Economic

Governance of the European Union and European Semester meetings.

Commenting on the same meeting, the UK

House of Lords

noted that in 2013 and 2014 the

format of after-dinner speeches had not worked well and that, although these had been very

good, the environment was not conducive for them.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Recent ad hoc initiatives taken up by the European Parliament

The vast majority of Parliaments/Chambers considered these initiatives useful tools.

Parliaments'/Chambers' replies can be seen on the table below.

Initiative

Percentage of

Parliaments/Chambers

responding in favour

of a proposal

Inviting rapporteurs or specialised

94%

members of national Parliaments on

specific topics/draft proposals for

discussion in Committee meetings in the

European Parliament

Inviting members of national

Parliaments to hearings in the European

Parliament

Inviting members of national

Parliaments to committee enquiries in

the European Parliament

Total respondents

86%

Number of

Parliaments/Chambers

responding in favour

of a proposal

74%

Thirty-one out of 34 Parliaments/Chambers responded that these initiatives could be further

improved.

When asked to add other useful initiatives, the UK

House of Lords

mentioned invitations to

members of European Parliament and other national Parliaments to national Parliaments

and Committee meetings in the capitals and the Belgian

Chamber des Représentants

invitations to European Parliament rapporteurs by national Parliaments to discuss main

dossiers.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of Parliaments/Chambers considered bilateral

visits between members of national Parliaments and members of the European Parliament

(36 out of 38) and video-conferencing (31 out of 35) useful tools in promoting

interparliamentary cooperation.

When asked to provide additional information, Parliaments/Chambers expressed the

following ideas:



the Portuguese

Assembleia da República

considered the organisation of more

informal meetings (such as the

ad hoc

meetings promoted by the Danish

Folketinget

on social security systems and the French

Assemblée nationale

on the funding of

European cinema) a useful tool;

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files



the Finnish

Eduskunta

pointed out that "inter-parliamentary cooperation was often

helpful for networking and general information-gathering, but it did not affect

legislative outcomes and thus contributed little to the influence of Parliaments. Inter-

parliamentary cooperation should thus be understood as a complementary activity

rather than a priority";

the Czech

Senat

responded that it was interested in strengthening political dialogue

with the European Parliament shortly after the eight-week deadline. With regard to

hearings/enquires, it was of the opinion that the European Parliament should

organise them around topics where there is a genuine interest in conducting a

concrete dialogue with members of a national Parliament;

the Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas,

noting that the current format of

interparliamentary meetings, particularly in the European Parliament, was not

working, stated that "consideration should be given to 'break-out' sessions at larger

gatherings which would facilitate better discussion among smaller groups";

the UK

House of Lords,

the Romanian

Senat

and the Latvian

Saeima

stressed that the

use of video-conferencing should be increased.

Lisbon guidelines for interparliamentary cooperation

2.2

When asked whether the Lisbon guidelines for interparliamentary cooperation of June 2008

should be updated, the majority of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (21 out of 35)

responded positively.

Twenty Parliaments/Chambers explained what would be the main points they would have

liked to see reflected in a possible update.

Several Parliaments/Chambers underlined that the interparliamentary landscape had

changed since the conception of the guidelines in 2008, referring to new recent

interparliamentary fora and the need for an update to reflect these. A number of

Parliaments/Chambers made express reference to the establishment of the Inter-

Parliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the

Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and the Conference on Economic Governance

and the need that these be included or taken into consideration in the guidelines (French

Sénat,

Belgian

Sénat,

Cyprus

Vouli ton Antiprosopon,

Estonian

Riigikogu),

while others

referred generally to new interparliamentary fora (Hungarian

Országgyűlés,

House of

Commons),

a new institutional environment and current needs for enhanced cooperation

amongst Parliaments in economic governance and new formats of interparliamentary

cooperation (Greek

Vouli ton Ellinon).

The Lithuanian

Seimas

agreed that "we should start discussing the redefinition and re-

approval of the main aims and forms of interparliamentary cooperation" adding that the

objectives of interparliamentary cooperation "should no longer be limited to the monitoring

of the principle of subsidiarity". The Irish

Houses of the Oireachtas

stated that, although its

Joint Committee had not discussed the Lisbon guidelines, it was of the opinion that "a

review would be timely". What is more, according to the UK

House of Commons,

the

guidelines could also reflect recent discussions within COSAC in relation to the fundamental

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

role of national Parliaments in ensuring democratic legitimacy; it could further be explored

whether Article 352 TFEU should trigger an enhanced form of interparliamentary

cooperation. In addition, more focus should be given to interparliamentary cooperation in

the framework of EU legislative process, particularly subsidiarity checks (Croatian

Hrvatski

sabor).

The Romanian

Camera Deputaţilor

suggested specific amendments to the objectives,

the framework and the fields of cooperation in the text of the guidelines. The Latvian

Saeima

stressed the need that these reflected that the European Parliament and national

Parliaments functioned on an equal footing, while further suggesting setting uniform and

clear principles for subsidiarity and proportionality checks.

Despite support to a possible update of the guidelines, three Parliaments/Chambers

(Spanish

Cortes Generales,

Dutch

Tweede Kamer,

Swedish

Riksdag)

did not consider there

was a need for an update or a major overhaul. The first, while supporting this view,

acknowledged, nevertheless, the need for an adaptation to the post-Lisbon situation, while

the second urged for implementation rather than discussion of the guidelines. The Italian

Camera dei Deputati

pointed out that the Guidelines could be updated only in order to

include the new permanent Conferences established by the EU Speakers' Conference.

The European Parliament cited the proposal of its AFCO Committee to develop an

arrangement between national Parliaments and the European Parliament to govern efficient

cooperation, in accordance to Article 10 of Protocol 1 of the Lisbon Treaty and its Rules of

Procedures. Citing Article 12 of TEU and Protocol 1, it added that the principles of the Lisbon

guidelines should be adapted following the idea of "a European parliamentary system". The

Italian

Camera dei Deputati

suggested compliance with Article 9 of Protocol 1 and expressed

its opposition to any attempt to confer the competence to express national Parliaments'

"collective positions" upon new or existing interparliamentary fora or bodies.

When Parliaments/Chambers were asked whether COSAC could provide some useful input

to future EU Speakers Conferences in relation to a possible reflection on the guidelines, a

large majority of those replying (28 out of 35) responded positively.

The most favoured means through which this could be achieved was "by submitting a

working document, based on the replies to the COSAC questionnaire on the Lisbon

guidelines, in preparation of the EU Speakers Conference" (21), followed "by submitting the

COSAC Bi-annual Report currently under preparation to the EU Speakers Conference" (14).

The Finnish

Eduskunta

noted, however, that it was not convinced any formal guidelines

were necessary, questioning whether the Lisbon guidelines had had any effect. It added that

"a submission to the Speakers’ Conference would only add to the volume of papers that the

Speakers do not read, but officials acting in the Speakers’ name might use to promote their

own agendas". The UK

House of Commons

supported discussing the working document to

be submitted by a future COSAC plenary, while the Danish

Folketing

highlighted that such a

contribution to the EU Speakers Conference should primarily focus on COSAC's own role in

interparliamentary cooperation.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Other possible means suggested included forwarding the summary of the answers given in

relation to the future role of COSAC, or COSAC looking at the issue through a future Bi-

annual Report, or a plenary session with resulting Conclusions, or COSAC asking for follow-

up from the European Parliament to the COSAC issues/proposals.

CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPING THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF THE EMU: THE ROLE OF

PARLIAMENTS

_______________________________________________________________________

The deep economic recession in the euro area and the on-going European sovereign debt

crisis have placed the debate on the social dimension of Europe's Economic and Monetary

Union (EMU) high on the European political agenda. Even though this issue is by no means a

new one, it has recently been put into a more focused and targeted context and has been

associated with key issues relating to EU’s overall legitimacy and EMU’s structural reforms,

such as the European project’s questioning by its citizens, the concept of a deep and

genuine EMU and the tackling of employment and social challenges resulting from the crisis.

This chapter of the Bi-annual Report focuses on scrutiny by Parliaments/Chambers of the