Power struggle turns into food fight

Date: 25/07/1996

By Rory Watson

THE European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will cross swords again after their summer recess. The battle this time will be over novel foods.

The hostilities have been provoked largely by strong disagreements between MEPs and governments over the amount of information which should be included on the labels of genetically-modified food.

Behind the highly technical debate lie issues of deep significance for industry and consumers alike.

In an attempt to bridge the differences, each institution will field a 15-strong delegation to try to construct an acceptable compromise within the six-week timetable laid down by the Union's conciliation procedure.

However, to many observers, the dispute is symptomatic of a wider political phenomenon: an ongoing power struggle between MEPs keen to make the most of their new legislative responsibilities and governments who want to keep the trend in check.

The assembly does not see it this way.

“When the Parliament becomes involved in an inter-institutional battle, it is invariably because it is defending itself against an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation by the Council of Ministers,” explained one senior official.

The most recent high-profile dispute focused on the selection of 14 priority transport Trans-European Networks (TENs). MEPs argued they had a right to be involved in the process and cited Article 129(c) of the Maastricht Treaty, which stipulates that the Parliament and Council have co-decision powers on “the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures” on TENs.

The dispute was not over substance - MEPs were happy enough with the 14 projects - but over the Parliament's powers.

It went to conciliation and remained stubbornly unresolved, despite at least one ten-hour meeting which ended at 5am, until the inevitable compromise was struck at the last possible moment.

But the statistics suggest that such institutional drama is the exception rather than the rule.

Up until early this month, the co-decision procedure under which the Parliament and the Council share legislative powers had been used 68 times since being introduced by the Maastricht Treaty.

On 21 occasions, MEPs approved the final text agreed by member states without trying to introduce any further changes of their own. In the remaining 47 cases, the Parliament insisted on amendments. Of these, 15 were accepted by the Council, nine are still being examined and 23 went to conciliation proceedings to be settled by further negotiation between the two institutions.

The two delegations failed to reach an agreement on just one item -the proposed EU rules on voice-telephony - and as a result the draft legislation fell through.

On another notorious occasion involving a draft biotechnology directive, a consensus was reached only for the deal to be thrown out by the full Parliament.

“Sometimes there is a temptation to indulge in disputes about existing institutional powers and co-decision is not an easy process. But on the whole agreement is reached and the system is working quite well,” said one senior official regularly involved in the complex procedure.

The Parliament has successfully used the system to establish its legislative credentials. It has been helped in this by the generally consistent membership of its delegation and by the expertise built up by its vice-president, French Christian Democrat MEP Nicole Fontaine. In contrast, the Council's team changes frequently.

The co-decision procedure is not the only policy-making area where the two institutions clash.

The Parliament has established a reputation for challenging Council decisions where it feels that it has not been adequately consulted or where it believes the legislation was agreed on an incorrect legal base. At any one time, it tends to have about six cases before the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

MEPs secured their most recent victory at the end of June when the ECJ found in their favour and annulled EU legislation on the quality of ground water. The judges agreed with the Parliament that it had not been consulted as required on the level of pesticide residues to be tolerated.

Legislative disputes between the Parliament and the Council may well increase in the future.

There is now growing support for the two to share even more legislative powers than in the 14 existing areas. The Commission has proposed the principle could be extended to core policies such as aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy, taxation and social provisions.