Members reject plan to give national MPs a voice in EU

Date: 30/05/1996

By Rory Watson

THE French government is fighting a lonely rearguard action in its bid to increase the ability of national parliaments to exert a direct influence on EU decision-making.

French Foreign Minister Hervé de Charette has been left in no doubt by other member states that Paris has no allies for its proposal to create a second chamber of appointed national parliamentarians to work alongside the existing directly-elected forum for MEPs.

France argues that the new body could be consulted on EU intergovernmental policies, such as those dealing with security and justice and home affairs issues, and be used as a watchdog to ensure the proper application of the 'subsidiarity' principle which demarcates national and Union responsibilities.

European Parliament President Klaus Hänsch has dismissed the idea on the grounds that it would merely sow confusion and insists the European and national parliaments have very different roles within the Union. That view is echoed by 14 member state governments.

“We are very much alone. Other countries fear a second chamber, but what we have in mind is that national parliaments are increasingly aware of EU business and want to be involved in it. Our aim is to reduce a certain hostility in some national legislatures,” explained a senior French diplomat.

Instead, Euro MPs this week began exploring a different route with the appointment of Belgian Liberal MEP Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck to prepare a report on relations between the European and national parliaments.

“In many instances, national parliaments often seem to feel the European Parliament is responsible for what they experience as a loss of sovereignty and competence. Some have a tendency to feel they are more legitimate than us, which is a strange kind of view since all of us are directly elected. I feel some member states are pushing national parliaments to attack us to hide their own government's influence over decision-making,” said Neyts-Uyttebroeck.

She believes there is room for more consultation and information exchange between national and Euro MPs, and even suggests there might be scope for national parliaments to appeal to the European Court of Justice if they considered specific EU legislation was contrary to the treaty. Other ideas circulating include greater use of consultative White and Green Papers to allow national assemblies to comment systematically on proposed EU legislation.

But most observers believe national parliaments should concentrate on examining their own ministers' record in the EU.

“The only way for national parliaments to control what ministers do is for Council of Ministers' votes to be made public and this is not happening very much,” pointed out Neyts-Uyttebroeck, a Belgian national deputy for 13 years until 1994.

The writing was clearly on the wall for the original French initiative as soon as it was mooted last year by the speaker of France's national assembly Philippe Séguin.

The frosty reception given to the idea of creating a High Consultative Council containing two representatives from each national parliament was confirmed in Reflection Group chairman Carlos Westendorp's report to last December's Madrid summit.

“The creation of a second chamber comprising members of national parliaments has been rejected by the group,” he noted, adding: “The group shares the view that closer association of national parliaments should not result in the creation of a new institution or a permanent organ with its own staff and premises.”

Those close to the IGC negotiations suggest some gesture may be made towards the French, but it will not amount to much.

“The French might get a fig leaf since President Chirac has possibly promised something to Séguin, but it will not be very much. What the French should do is introduce a more effective national feedback system like the Danish parliament has for its ministers,” suggested one.

Some believe that Paris' recent resistance to extending MEPs' legislative powers may be a tactical ploy to be sacrificed later in exchange for agreement on the establishment of some form of forum providing a more direct institutional channel for national MPs to inject their views into EU policy-making.

Their current target is to upgrade COSAC, a flexible group containing a delegation of MEPs and representatives from the European affairs committees of national parliaments, into a more formal forum for purely national MPs.

But this is unlikely to find favour with other EU governments.

“Most IGC negotiators feel COSAC is good for information exchange, but they are not likely to take kindly to moves to turn it into something else,” commented one senior parliamentary official.