Paris, 17/09/2002 (Agence Europe) - The Assembly of the Western European Union's political committee is holding a public debate in Paris on 18 September on the work of the European Convention, where the French Senate's representative on the Convention, Hubert Haenel will outline his ideas on the role of national parliaments in the EU (see below). Before the debate, Mark Eyskens (Member of the WEU Assembly) will present reports with his views on the EU's place in international affairs (see Europe of 5 June, p.5 on Esykens' report to the most recent WEU Assembly meeting).
In a contribution to the European Convention, Hubert Haenel highlights the "complementary" role of national parliaments and the European Parliament, noting what the European Parliament cannot do, namely control the Council (although it can control the Commission) or acting as an intermediary with citizens in the way national parliaments do. Haenel said that debate at the EP might be comprehensible to powerful, organised lobby groups based in Brussels, but they are not comprehensible to the man in the street in London, Athens or Helsinki and it is no accident that the Member States report so little on the work of MEPs. The question facing the Convention is whether national parliaments should be given a specific role at European level (it is British MEP Gisela Stuart who chairs the European Convention's working group on national parliaments). At the French Senate, we think it would be possible to rely on a version of the COSAC, said Haenel, seeing the COSAC (made up of MEPs and national parliaments' committee members specialising in European affairs) as a perfect example of a democratic approach and the blueprint of a collective role for national parliaments at European level. Senator Haenel raised the idea of such a body having a certain number of MPs from each Member States and being able to send cases to the European Court of Justice or "ad hoc jurisdiction" over issues of subsidiarity when requested by sufficient national parliamentary assemblies' delegations (see Europe of 14 September, p.6, on MEP Inigo Mendez de Vigo's statements on the ideas being considered by the Convention working group on subsidiarity - which he chairs).
Moreover, Haenel argues in favour of making the investiture of the President of the Commission the task of a European Congress, one third of which would be made up of representatives of the European Parliament, and two thirds of national parliament representatives. He said this would help to cement the Commission's legitimacy, while guaranteeing a degree of independence from the European Parliament (see Europe of 24 July, p.7, on Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's ideas). Haenel said the investiture could take the form of a presentation of general guidelines, endorsed in this way by the Congress and an annual meeting might be considered at which the Commission would report to the Congress on the guidelines. Hubert Haenel added that the Commission would clearly no longer report to the European Parliament, but to the Congress. He recognised that there would be resistance to this idea but felt the Convention had to bypass traditional modes of thought and sectarian interests.