MEPs engaged in a reflection on an internal reform of the functioning of the European Parliament to boost European democracy and bring the EU institution closer to the citizens have submitted the results of their work ahead of the summer break to the President of the European Parliament, David Sassoli, who initiated the initiative (see EUROPE 12688/1). These recommendations will be discussed in early September in the Conference of Presidents of the political groups (CoP).
Four working groups (‘caucuses’) were set up in the spring to work on the following themes: – the reform of the plenary session; – strengthening parliamentary prerogatives; – strengthening parliamentary diplomacy; and – citizen relations and communication.
According to documents from the first three working groups consulted by EUROPE, MEPs commend Parliament’s ability to continue to sit and take decisions since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. But they stress the importance of returning as soon as possible to plenary sessions and parliamentary committees in person, as a guarantee of a better democratic dynamic.
Organisation of plenary sessions. The group on the reform of the plenary session makes proposals on agenda setting, organisation of debates, and voting. In its view, the number of topics on the agenda should be reduced, and the issues on the agenda should be prioritised according to their potential for controversy.
Among the recommendations put forward was the idea of holding a vote immediately after the flagship debates on Tuesday and Wednesday morning, or even during the debates. Debates on legislative work could be held on Thursday, while those on human rights violations would be brought forward to Wednesday. Flexibility could also be introduced for the convening of mini-plenary sessions to fit in with current events, and the President of the European Council could be invited to debate with MEPs before European summits are held.
Legislative action. MEPs are full of ideas to boost Parliament’s legislative work and increase its relative weight in the institutional trio.
In particular, they want to give more weight to their indirect right of legislative initiative. Building on a promise by the European Commission (see EUROPE 12338/3), they advocate that the deadline for the Commission to respond to a Parliament own-initiative report based on Article 225 of the Treaty be shortened from 3 months to 1 month.
In interinstitutional trilogue negotiations on legislative texts (ordinary co-decision procedure), a balance must be struck between efficiency and transparency, MEPs say.
To increase the efficiency of Parliament/EU Council negotiations, one idea put forward would be to vote “automatically” in plenary on Parliament’s position at first reading if the interinstitutional negotiations for a first reading agreement last more than 6 months. The aim is to avoid protracted negotiations.
To increase the transparency of the negotiations, MEPs put forward the idea of a database managed by the Commission, Parliament, and the Council of the EU, which would provide an overview of the state of play of interinstitutional negotiations.
More generally, Parliament’s internal documents—including voting lists—should be more easily accessible, compromise amendments to a legislative text submitted to a vote, the timetable for trilogues, and documents discussed at meetings of the CoP, the Conference of Committee Chairs (CCC), and the European Parliament Bureau.
Moreover, if it considers that the EU Council or the Commission is not cooperating fairly, Parliament could consider rejecting a budget or legislative proposal, say MEPs. They are taking their cue from the negotiations on the EU budget for 2021-2027, with Parliament expected to give its final consent to the deal. Parliament succeeded in obtaining from the EU Council a budgetary extension and political commitments, notably on own resources for the EU budget and on the protection of the EU’s financial interests.
Other proposals concern Parliament’s supervision of the Commission’s activities. This includes strengthening the nomination process for European Commissioners-designate, an increased obligation for the Commission to respond quickly, at the appropriate technical/political level, to MEPs’ questions. In the light of the experience gained from the Commission’s consultation of contracts with manufacturers of Covid-19 vaccines, safe rooms could also be developed, MEPs suggest.
Finally, greater consistency should be introduced to manage access to the European Parliament by representatives of private companies who refuse to testify about their activities. The importance of preserving as much linguistic diversity as possible, while English has become the dominant language of work, should also receive some attention.
Parliamentary diplomacy. MEPs put forward several ideas to increase the visibility and impact of Parliament’s diplomatic activity.
According to MEPs, Parliament should assess the impact of its offices in third countries and international organisations (UN, African Union, ASEAN). Secondment of staff to EU delegations could also be considered. The same applies to the parliaments of the EU candidate countries, and vice versa.
The CoP should provide guidance on the relations the Parliament would continue to have with countries subject to EU sanctions, in particular in order to avoid instrumentalisation by the political power in place and to be able to keep in touch with the political opposition and civil society.
Regarding European Parliament resolutions on the political situation in a third country, MEPs believe that thought should be given to increasing their coherence with the EU’s diplomatic activity in the countries concerned and their impact on the general public. This could be done through better dissemination of the resolutions in the country concerned (official transmission to more political actors and civil society, notably via the network of EU delegations, translation of the text into the language of the country concerned).
In addition to increased support for the winners of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, Parliament could increase its support for human rights and democracy around the world. In particular, the new programme to support parliamentary democracy outside the EU, through twinning between MEPs and national/regional MPs from a third country, deserves to be more well known. Financial support could also be given to MEPs under threat in third countries or subject to legal proceedings.
According to MEPs, Parliament should also ensure better monitoring of the activities of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs. This would include an extension of the dialogues with the Head of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and even the possibility to approve or reject the appointment of EU Special Representatives.
In addition, parliamentary diplomacy should help to promote European political priorities—climate change, gender equality, etc.—outside the EU. Parliament should be integrated into the ‘Team Europe’ approach, they believe.
Finally, MEPs devote a significant part of their recommendations to the security of Parliament’s information and buildings in order to avoid undue influence from foreign powers. They propose that: – they be trained in the risks of disinformation and cyber security for themselves and their staff; – the system of accreditation of diplomatic representations to the Parliament be refined (with the possibility of withdrawal); – the conditions for Parliament staff to participate in trips paid for by third country authorities be tightened; and – foreign funding to lobbies accredited to the European Transparency Register be better investigated. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)