Strasbourg, 07/02/2002 (Agence Europe) - The Convention on the Future of Europe is to "redefine the missions of the Union, its role in the world (…), its policies (…), but take care not to consider all the rest like (…) abstract exercises of institutional engineering that cannot be of interest to citizens", said Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra), Chair of the European Parliament's Constitutional Committee, as he presented his report to plenary on Wednesday afternoon, on relations with national parliaments (see summary in EUROPE of 4 February, p.5). In order to win back the "consensus" of citizens, one must clarify who the decision-maker in the Union is, how these decisions can be made transparent and controllable, and what institutions effectively represent citizens in Europe, said Mr Napolitano. In his view, "a clear and consequent choice must now be made in favour (…) of parliamentarising the Union, in addition to the progress already made in the nineties". Such parliamentarising must be based on two pillars, the European Parliament and the national parliaments, he stressed, adding: "I want to be explicit. If, as a European Parliament, we have sinned through being over exclusive, then we must be rid of this behaviour. We must clear the ground of all mutual distrust between the European Parliament and national parliaments, and we must understand the concerns of the latter and suggest good responses". In his view, it is necessary to work along three lines: - Firstly, increased powers of direction and control for national parliaments vis-à-vis their governments; secondly, increasingly close EP/national parliament cooperation, also through interparliamentary agreement signed by the respective presidents. "This is a new idea that I am mainly entrusting to the initiative of the president of our parliament", said Mr Napolitano. And thirdly, attribution to the EP and to the national parliaments of a "constitutive power, shared with the governments and with the Commission, for review of the treaties, and today with the aim of a real European Constitution". Mr Napolitano confirmed, on the other hand, his opposition to solutions like that of creating a second Chamber formed of national parliaments which, he said, as the report by the House of Lords notes, would be an "unreal solution to some real problems".
Mr Napolitano told several journalists that the president seems ready to give a sign of his commitment in favour of the elaboration (in the most appropriate framework, namely the Conference of Presidents) of the interparliamentary agreement that he is proposing and which would indicate the possible forms of cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments, for example, in the form of meetings between equivalent committees. But this should under no circumstances lead to interference or to attempts by national parliaments to seize the powers that the European Parliament has taken from them. The national parliaments may - as the Treaty of Amsterdam states, with specific indications concerning time limits - be briefed on the Commission's proposals, and may seek to influence, at this stage, the position that their respective governments are to defend in Council. However, as soon as a decision has been taken at European level, it is the European Parliament that will give its position, said Mr Napolitano.
Napolitano promises constitutional committee will examine, "as it deserves", the question of regional parliaments with legislative powers - Barnier welcomes "new spirit" at EP
During the plenary as in committee, the Napolitano report received considerable support, with the notable exception of Georges Berthu (Mouvement pour la France), who considers that, on the basis of a just statement, the report does not propose a good balance (Mr Berthu hopes, for his part, that the national parliaments would have direct influence in the European decision-making process). William Abitbol (Rassemblement pour la France) was not convinced by Mr Napolitano's answer to an "institutional question inspired by a sort of democratic remorse".
All MEPs approved the explicit rejection on the part of Mr Napolitano of the creation of a second Chamber. "What for?", asked Luxembourg Socialist Jacques Poos, who was convinced that the proposals made by Giorgio Napolitano could be received unanimously within the Convention. Andrew Duff, British Liberal, said he hoped the British government would abandon the "dangerous" idea of a third Chamber that would "shatter" the codecision procedure. He felt the national parliaments should focus on what they know how to do, namely "scrutinise and check" their governments. British Conservative Lord Inglewood said the report by Mr Napolitano is a good point of departure for seeking a solution to the discontent felt by citizens. There is no conflict between the European Parliament and the national parliaments, exclaimed Austrian Green member Johannes Voggenhuber, who invited the Parliament to closely follow the work of the Convention, which must not become "a place for endorsing what the Council does". There is democratic deficit in Europe, but it is above all a deficit of control over the governments, said Sylvia Kaufmann, German PDS.
Roberto Bigliardo (Movimento sociale europeo) welcomed the rejection of the double mandate clearly put forward by Mr Napolitano - if we want to make Parliament's debates more useful, we have to ensure MEPs are present. Neil MacCormick (Scottish National Party) tabled an amendment calling for the role of regional parliaments to be explicitly mentioned, noting that if as Mr Napolitano had told him, the question could be considered in another context, he might reconsider his position. Spanish Socialist Carlos Carnero Gonzalez also called for the role of regional parliaments to be taken into account. Giorgio Napolitano replied to Neil MacCormick in the plenary by saying that he committed himself as the President of the Constitutional Committee to ensure that the issue would be dealt with in the manner it deserved, adding that he would not want it to be hidden by the amendment potentially being rejected (Mr McCormick ended up withdrawing his amendment in any case). German Social Democrat Joe Leinen hoped that there would not be any confusing the role of national parliaments and the EP, stressing that what they had in common was their constitutional role. We should approach this debate with "serenity" stressed Teresa Almeida Garrett (EPP-ED, Portugal), while Austrian Social Democrat Hans-Peter Martin added that they were not playing at being deputies against their fellows. Dutch Christian Democrat Hanja Maij-Weggen said that they should not discuss the division of power between the European Parliament and national parliaments but give one power where the other loses it, and vice versa, which is what parliamentarisation was.
European Commissioner Michel Barnier welcomed the new stage and the new state of mind in inter-parliamentary co-operation, adding that the Commission was of course in favour of greater parliamentary control as the European project progressed in sensitive areas of sovereignty such as under the second and third pillars. He said that in the current project, it as necessary to respect tow great principles - not pitting different legitimacies against each other; and taking account of the breakdown of power in each Member State. How could national parliaments be more closely involved in the European project? The Convention itself was the first answer to this question, he asserted, but recognised that the-re was not yet any agreement on the form that closer involvement should take. He explained that most people preferred the indirect road of improving national parliaments' control over government (adding that the Commission favoured sharing any good practice that existed in Member States), but there was no agreement on the more direct European road of adopting new procedures to allow national parliaments to intervene in European decision-making. The European Commission does not approve of the idea of setting up a new parliamentary chamber, concluded Mr Barnier, noting that the European decision-making process was complicated enough as it is.
The plenary followed its rapporteur's recommendations, endorsing the resolution by 424 to 30 with 13 abstentions with only a few slight amendments. EUROPE will be publishing the full resolution shortly.