Bid to liven up dull Parliament debates

Date: 25/05/2000

By Gareth Harding

DEBATES in the European Parliament could be livelier and reports on draft legislation much snappier if proposals under discussion in the assembly's ruling body are agreed by MEPs early next month.

Parliament Vice-President James Provan, author of a far-ranging report on internal reform, admits that all the assembly's political leaders are worried about the image of "lamentably-attended and lacklustre debates in the chamber" which is projected to the outside world.

The British Conservative MEP argues that the root causes of this problem lie in the "fixed allocations of speaking time to groups, pre-arranged lists of speakers and the consequent ritual recital of largely unrelated set-piece interventions".

Provan believes that such practices should be abolished in favour of 'catch the president's eye' debates. However, some members of Parliament's bureau, which is made up of members' representatives, vice-presidents and President Nicole Fontaine, fear that this would favour 'star performers' and national groups.

Provan has now suggested a compromise solution which would allow 'catch the eye' debates to begin immediately after the presentation of a reports or resolution by its author. The discusssion would then revert to the current practice of alternating between political groups.

The leaders of the Parliament's groups look set to adopt the proposal at their next meeting on 8 June. They are also almost certain to scrap the current practice of limiting speeches to three minutes. At a meeting earlier this month, members of the bureau agreed that this would help end the "regrettable" practice of reading out pre-prepared written statements.

Provan's proposals for reform reflect the widely-held view that the assembly's debates are dull and dreary affairs which are of little interest to the general public. "If the House of Commons was divided it would be expressed through debate, but here it just degenerates into pettiness," said UK Socialist MEP and fellow Parliament Vice-President David Martin.

Another problem is that MEPs often spend hours voting through hundreds of highly technical amendments which they have neither read nor understood. Provan argues that these should instead be dealt with by a newly-created 'grand committee' in Brussels and that the Parliament's plenary sessions should be devoted to holding 'big picture' debates and the adoption or rejection of reports.

Political group leaders are also likely to give their support to radical changes in the way reports on draft plans for EU-wide legislation are drawn up. Under plans already agreed by the Parliament's bureau, opinions from 'non-lead' committees without a direct interest in the proposals would be abolished from the beginning of next year, and the sometimes long and rambling explanatory texts which accompany proposed amendments to legislation would be pared back to a single-page document.

Debates in the European Parliament could be livelier and reports on draft legislation much snappier if proposals under discussion in the assembly's ruling body are agreed by MEPs.