Lawmakers learn to get along

Date: 06/03/1997

TWO years ago this month, the European Parliament astonished itself and a wider Union audience by dealing a deathblow to long-awaited EU legislation on biotechnology.

That single incident was graphic proof of the increasing legislative power wielded by MEPs, who were handed the weapons they had been seeking to determine the fate of a range of EU proposals by the Maastricht Treaty in late 1993.

To increase the Union's democratic accountability, the treaty set out 15 policy areas where MEPs and governments were to share legislative responsibility.

This meant that any arguments over the final wording of texts in those areas had to be ironed out in conciliation negotiations between representatives from each institution and then approved or rejected by the Parliament as a whole.

In July 1994, the death knell sounded for draft legislation on voice-telephony when the co-legislators could not settle their differences. But it was eight months later, when MEPs rejected a compromise deal already thrashed out by conciliation teams from both sides, that the shock waves were really felt.

To the Parliament's critics, this act of defiance was further proof that, paradoxically, the Union's only directly elected members should be let nowhere near the legislative process.

But since that March day, MEPs have not rejected a single EU legislative item. Instead, they have increasingly used their Maastricht co-decision powers to amend texts and fashion them closer to their own concerns.

French Christian Democrat MEP Nicole Fontaine - one of three parliamentary vice-presidents at the heart of attempts to iron out any legislative differences between the Parliament and governments - believes that, after the initial hiccups, the system is working well.

“Overall, the experience has been very positive, especially for the Parliament. At the beginning, there was a lot of arm-wrestling between the Council and the Parliament, but now there is much more mutual understanding,” she says.

Fontaine acknowledges that three clear trends have emerged.

Whenever budgetary issues are raised, governments have a tendency to insist on 'not a penny more', while institutional questions involve fundamental arguments over the scope of co-decision.

“But many issues are technical and there we have made a lot of progress. Most of our amendments are accepted by the Council of Ministers. That makes the legislation more democratic and is good for citizens. Our aim is not to win for our own sake, but for the citizens' sake,” she explains.

Invariably, the Parliament's technical amendments are designed to strengthen future legislation from the consumer or user's point of view. The fact that two EU institutions now scrutinise a large proportion of proposed Union legislation in minute detail is also generally believed to have led to better law-making.

Whether the Parliament gains a greater say in a wider area of Union legislation from the current Intergovernmental Conference will depend largely on how governments assess the use MEPs have so far made of these powers.

That IGC spectre is also forcing the Parliament generally to be on its best behaviour.

The biotechnology vote still stirs strong emotions and the Parliament's critics are quick to remind MEPs of the incident. In response, some maintain that rejection was a perfectly legitimate and democratic parliamentary response to controversial legislation. But most of those involved now acknowledge that a combination of mistakes, ignorance and naïvety lay behind the move and insist that a page has been turned.

Two developments in particular have helped to smooth the passage of subsequent legislation.

Key parliamentary players have taken firmly on board the need to ensure that the political groups are kept fully informed of any compromises being thrashed out with EU governments in the final stages of the legislative process. (In the abortive 1995 biotechnology vote, the influential Socialist Group only learnt of the legislative deal on the cards on the eve of the crucial vote.)

Secondly, all involved openly recognise the need for diligent preparation of any final compromise. “The key to any successful conciliation is careful planning between the Council, Parliament and the Commission beforehand, with meetings at various levels between small groups of experts, senior officials and MEPs,” explains one of those involved.

On purely statistical grounds, the co-decision system appears to be working well.

On the 89 occasions it has been applied, 50 separate items of legislation have been approved without recourse to the last resort of conciliation. In addition, 75&percent; of the amendments to draft texts tabled by the Parliament have eventually been accepted by governments.

That parliamentary influence, however, has hardly been noticed outside the small group of aficionados who follow this intricate decision-making process closely.

“The problem is that most of this concerns highly-technical issues and that does not really appeal to the electorate,” observes one official.

Despite the generally clean bill of health most of those involved give the system, critics maintain that it slows down the Union's legislative procedures.

On average, non-controversial legislation can take at least 18 months, while any dispute requiring conciliation will add a further six months to the process.

The need to find a consensus between different views of legislation is also considered by some to encourage fudged wording. “That does not help transparency or efficient legislation,” said one official.

The Maastricht innovation has undoubtedly forced the various EU institutions to rethink their roles and relationships with each other.

“It has been a fairly tough time for institutions which work in very different ways. The Council of Ministers is a consensual body which prefers not to vote where possible. The Parliament is more adversarial and tends to resolve everything by voting,” explains one observer.

It has also taken time for the Commission itself to establish its role as an honest broker when MEPs and governments argue over draft legislation. Not everyone believes it has succeeded and parliamentary sources are still critical of the role the institution played in the battle over novel foods legislation last year.

On that occasion, the Commission's tactics were to support the Council of Ministers wholeheartedly in an attempt to force the Parliament to back down. The stalemate was only ended when the then Irish EU presidency changed tack and negotiated with MEPs.

Irrespective of the political arguments over whether the Parliament's legislative powers should be maintained or increased, mundane practical problems come into play.

Without exception, MEPs and officials from every institution point to the huge physical demands the system places on those involved.

The pressure point is the conciliation process, which involves endless meetings if the two sides are to bridge their differences. Last week alone, MEPs, diplomats and officials sat in meetings to try and agree on legislation in six different areas where the Parliament and EU governments share powers: comparative advertising, Trans-European telecoms Networks, health indicators, television without frontiers, open network provision for telecom services, and the Ariane and Raphael programmes.

“We now have between 15 and 20 conciliation procedures a year. It is physically not possible to extend co-decision without accompanying it with some changes in political behaviour or administrative practices. The system would just clog up,” warns one official.

Despite the complexities of the system and the increasing demands it makes on people's time, co-decision is here to stay and is likely to be extended. Certainly, most in the Parliament believe that it is the most fertile area in which to push for more influence over EU business.

“This is where the future lies. It is where the hardest subjects are handled and compromises need to be found. With two to three meetings a week, it takes up a lot of my time. But I have made it my priority,” explains Fontaine.