Swedish Greens call for internal reform

Date: 27/06/1996

By Rory Watson

SWEDISH Green MEPs have wasted little time in pressing for a radical overhaul of the European Parliament.

Elected less than a year ago, they have tabled a 23-point programme designed to stimulate public debate on ways to make the institution more efficient and accountable.

The proposed innovations range from new mandatory rules, such as a ban on double or treble political mandates, to more practical suggestions, including introductory courses on the Union and the Parliament for all new MEPs and their assistants.

“I came here with a pretty critical view of parliaments in general and thought it would be appropriate, when we had enough to say and before we had been here too long to become blind, to make our views known,” explained MEP Per Gahrton.

Unlike his three Swedish Green colleagues, who were only elected last September, Gahrton has witnessed the Parliament at work from the inside since Swedish membership of the Union in January 1995 as one of his country's appointed representatives to the assembly before last year's direct elections.

“My basic view is that the European Parliament is increasingly sure of itself and wants more and more power. But my question is whether, given the way it works, the Parliament is sufficiently mature to receive or handle this power. I believe it must carry out internal reforms and demonstrate to the electorate and governments alike its maturity before demanding more power,” said Gahrton.

The Swedish initiative follows increasingly vociferous complaints about poor parliamentary attendance and notorious absentee rates on the Friday mornings of Strasbourg plenary sessions. It also coincides with efforts to be made by MEPs later this month to tighten up rules on their own outside activities and lay down guidelines for lobbyists.

The attention being paid to the Parliament's inner workings is in line with the emphasis its current President Klaus Hänsch has placed on improving internal procedures and increasing financial efficiency during his term of office.

The Swedish members acknowledge that the internationalism of the Parliament, the open door nature of most of its committee work and the warm welcome MEPs receive from the city of Strasbourg are strong, positive influences.

But they feel these are more than outweighed by a longer list of negative factors. They complain of chaotic sessions where complex procedures are frequently impossible to follow and a tendency for the Parliament to spend a large part of its time on issues over which it has no formal impact.

To support their argument, the Swedish Greens point out that during the Parliament's June plenary session, only 11 of the 22 reports on the agenda were in policy areas where Euro MPs have a formal influence.

Of these, there were just four involving the co-decision procedure, where MEPs have their strongest legislative input.

They complain that genuine debate rarely takes place in the Parliament - with members usually happy to read out set speeches - and maintain that individual parliamentarians are relatively powerless in a system run largely by the main political groups.

Some of the proposals involve practical changes which the Parliament itself could make. The programme suggests that the time allocated to debates should be determined by their legislative importance, that all texts requiring MEPs' approval should be available in good time in all official languages and that members should have greater opportunities to cross-examine Commissioners and ministers.

Other innovations would almost certainly be refused by EU governments, such as the Swedes' suggestion that the Parliament should select one permanent home instead of continuing to commute between Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Brussels, and their proposal that the institution should try to gain access to the work of Union ambassadors in Coreper.

Some proposed changes are likely to face opposition from parliamentarians themselves. For example, those who also act as local mayors are unlikely to agree to moves to limit MEPs to just one political mandate.

Even more controversially, the Greens want every member to keep a full account of the way they spend any money they receive from the Parliament and to register their financial situation every year.

The proposals are expected to be considered by the full Green group in the coming weeks. But to have any chance of success, they will have to win the approval of the Parliament's bureau.