Committee of the Regions (CoR) member Michael Schneider (EPP, Germany) said at a conference in Brussels on Tuesday 10 April that, through the subsidiarity and proportionality task force set up by the European Commission (see EUROPE 11942), he would ultimately like it to be made compulsory to have a territorial impact assessment carried out before any EU legislative initiative.
In his speech, Schneider, who is also the rapporteur on the opinion on the future of cohesion policy (see EUROPE 11787), repeated that the goal of the task force was certainly not to revolutionise the concept of subsidiarity. The format does not allow it, he said, given that the task force consists of only six members who will meet no more than six times before submitting its report to the president of the European Commission in July.
Schneider, who represents Saxony-Anhalt, stated, however, that its aim was for a territorial impact assessment to be made mandatory in all European legislation. He argued that the impact of European legislation can differ considerably from one region to another. In his view, if a draft law were to be damaging for the regions, it would have to be determined, according to the principle of subsidiarity, which is the most appropriate political level to take action.
At the last task force meeting on 15 March, Austrian MP Reinhold Lopatka submitted a working paper arguing this point. He says that any new European legislative act should be submitted for approval once its European value added has been “clearly” demonstrated. Lopatka argues that this principle should apply to implementing and delegated acts.
When asked by EUROPE earlier in the day about the outcome the regions are hoping for after the six task force meetings, Barbara Duden (PES, Germany) said she hoped that the Committee of the Regions could attend inter-institutional negotiation meetings (or trialogues). She would also like to see regional and local authorities more closely involved in the decision-making process by putting in place a “green card” mechanism that would make it possible, subject to certain conditions, to initiate or amend European legislation. On this last point, Lopatka proposes in his paper that national parliaments should be allowed to get behind a national proposal and ask the Commission to initiate a European law.
These proposals found little favour in the eyes of Professor Gabriele Abels, head of the PRRIDE centre of excellence at Tübingen University. In her view, while ensuring that the Committee of the Regions is present in trialogue meetings may improve the effectiveness of the European legislative process, it would do nothing for its transparency. With regard to the green card, Abels pointed out that powers vary widely from region to region and she made the point that only 73 regions have legislative powers. In her view, what is important is to strengthen the “parliamentarisation” of the Committee of the Regions by increasing the number of representatives from regional parliaments. This, however, is a discussion to be had at national level, she acknowledged.
This debate comes a few weeks before the European Commission presents its communication on the next multiannual financial framework (see EUROPE 11978). The task force is due to submit its report in July (see EUROPE 11969). (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)