Brussels, 26/10/2001 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday, the European Parliament adopted the report by the Luxembourg Socialist Jacques Poos on the reform of the EU Council of Ministers by 422 to 23 with 17 abstentions (see full description in EUROPE of 27 September, p.6, and A Look Behind the News of 4 October). The report stressed the need to give more weight to the General Affairs Council and distinguish between a legislative Council (whose work is public) and an executive Council. The 28-point resolution puts forward reform options that do not require a change to the Treaty (and which Romano Prodi hopes will soon become operational - see yesterday's EUROPE, p.4). The resolution is highly critical of the greater role being taken by the European Council and calls for the General Affairs Council to meet more regularly, ideally once a week, and be made up of Ministers who also carry out a coordination role in their own government and have the necessary political authority. The Permanent Representatives Committee should return to its earlier role of being the single preparation channel (a dig at the Heads of States' "sherpas"). The resolution wants a series of concrete reforms calling for a minimum amount of discipline from Ministers - respecting the quorum (already set out in Article 11 of the Council regulation) and the option of limiting speaking time… In terms of relations with Parliament, the resolution wants Parliament representatives to have the right to intervene in the Council when decisions are taken under the codecision procedure. The plenary adopted an amendment regretting that several Council Presidencies had called themselves "Presidencies of the Union" although the Union does not actually have a President as such, and the resolution calls on the Council to stop using this deceptive name.
The President of the Council, Annemie Neyts, said that she chaired the institution believed to work the least efficiently, but pointed out that several improvements had been made: the number of Council bodies had been scaled back; COREPER's role had been defined in an internal regulation; and the General Affairs Council had improved its coordination role, adding that the Council was aware that other changes had to be made.
Every institution has its own autonomy, but they are all interested in how the whole picture works, noted European Commissioner Michel Barnier, calling for a fundamental assessment of the Union's institutions as long as this is not used as an excuse for putting off reforms that can be carried out immediately. The European Commission wanted to do this with its White Paper (in terms of the Commission itself) - Mr Barnier said it was now for the Council and Parliament to do likewise. He felt that the Council should be organised differently depending on whether it was carrying out legislative or executive functions.
Progress has been made at the Council, but it's a mini-reform, protested the former President of the Parliament, Mr Gil Robles (Partido Popular, Spain). The President of the EPP-EP, Mr Pöttering, hoped that the members of the Council would be as open to reform as when they were members of the Parliament (referring to the fact that Mr Poos was President of the Council when he was Foreign Minister). Mr Baron, President of the Socialist group, continued in the same vein - when Mr Poos chaired the Council when the Maastricht Treaty was being negotiated, he was very open and cooperative vis-à-vis Parliament. Ms Frassoni (Greens) said countries did not share the same view of how the Council should be reformed, while Mr Collins (Union for a Europe of the Nations) lambasted Council Members who only attended meetings for as long as required to be shown on television. Ms Neyts retorted that Ministers tend to be present at meetings and stay there. Mr Leinen (SPD) said it was not the number of sectoral Councils that was a problem, but the lack of coordination. Mr Brok (Christian Democrat) noted that the structure of the meetings was a problem since there are too many points on the agenda for work to progress well. He called for a legislative Council, open to the public in the final stages to allow citizens to know who decided what and why.