Europaudvalget 2013-14
EUU Alm.del Bilag 91
Offentligt
1300693_0001.png
4 October 2013
Twentieth Bi-annual Report:
Developments in European Union
Procedures and Practices
Relevant to Parliamentary Scrutiny
Prepared by the COSAC Secretariat and presented to:
L Conference of Parliamentary Committees
for Union Affairs of Parliaments
of the European Union
27-29 October 2013
Vilnius
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0002.png
Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs
of Parliaments of the European Union
COSAC SECRETARIAT
WIE 05 U 041, 50 rue Wiertz, B-1047 Brussels, Belgium
E-mail: [email protected] | Tel: +32 2 284 3776
ii
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Table of Contents
1 Background ........................................................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1: EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 2014: PLATFORM FOR DEBATE ON THE EU FUTURE WITH
ITS CITIZENS ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. National Parliaments’ debates on the arrangements for the European Elections 2014 .... 4
1.2. Display of European Party affiliations............................................................................... 6
1.5. Voter turnout and participation ....................................................................................... 7
1.6. Engagement of citizens in a dialogue on the European elections ..................................... 8
1.7. Outreach and educational activities in relation to the European elections ..................... 10
CHAPTER 2: DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY IN THE EU AND THE ROLE OF EU PARLIAMENTS .......... 14
2.1. The reach of democratic accountability ......................................................................... 14
2.2. Relative importance of accountability mechanisms ....................................................... 16
2.3. Effectiveness of existing tools and formats of interparliamentary cooperation .............. 17
2.4. Proactive involvement in EU policy making .................................................................... 18
2.5. Staffing levels for the EU function.................................................................................. 18
2.6. Legislative phase of EU decision-making process ........................................................... 19
2.7. Pre-legislative phase of EU policy formation .................................................................. 20
2.8. Models of parliamentary scrutiny and their strengths.................................................... 21
2.9. Gaps in parliamentary scrutiny ...................................................................................... 23
2.10. Future evolution of parliamentary democracy in the EU .............................................. 24
CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY............................................. 26
3.1. Scrutiny of Europe 2020 Strategy goals.......................................................................... 26
3.2. Cooperation on Europe 2020 Strategy goals .................................................................. 28
3.3. Political commitment to achieving goals ........................................................................ 28
3.4. Impact of austerity measures on targets........................................................................ 29
3.5. Youth unemployment .................................................................................................... 29
1
iii
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0004.png
Background
This is the Twentieth Bi-annual Report from the COSAC Secretariat.
COSAC Bi-annual Reports
The XXX COSAC decided that the COSAC Secretariat should produce
factual Bi-annual Reports, to be published ahead of each ordinary meeting
of the Conference. The purpose of the Reports is to give an overview of
the developments in procedures and practices in the European Union that
are relevant to parliamentary scrutiny and to provide information better
to facilitate plenary debates.
All the Bi-annual Reports are available on the COSAC website at:
http://www.cosac.eu/en/documents/biannual/
The three chapters of this Bi-annual Report are based on information provided by the national
Parliaments of the European Union Member States and the European Parliament. The deadline
for submitting replies to the questionnaire for the 20th Bi-annual Report was 2 September
2013.
The outline of this Report was adopted by the meeting of the Chairpersons of COSAC, held on 8
July 2013 in Vilnius.
As a general rule, the Report does not specify all Parliaments or Chambers whose case is
relevant for each point. Instead, illustrative examples are used. Please consult the Annex of the
Report for more information on the content of replies.
Complete replies, received from 40 out of 41 national Parliaments/Chambers of 28 out of 28
Member States and the European Parliament, can be found in the Annex on the COSAC
website. The Czech
Poslanecká sněmovna
did not answer the questionnaire due to the timing of
elections.
Note on Numbers
Of the 28 Member States of the European Union, 15 have a unicameral
Parliament and 13 have a bicameral Parliament. Due to this combination of
unicameral and bicameral systems, there are 41 national parliamentary
Chambers in the 28 Member States of the European Union.
Although they have bicameral systems, the national Parliaments of Austria,
Ireland and Spain each submitted a single set of replies to the questionnaire,
therefore the maximum number of respondents per question is 39. There were
38 responses to this questionnaire.
iv
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0005.png
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1: EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 2014: PLATFORM FOR DEBATE ON THE EU FUTURE
WITH ITS CITIZENS
The first chapter of this report focuses on the preparedness of Parliaments/Chambers for the
upcoming European elections by giving an overview on related debates and scrutiny. It
outlines to which extent Parliaments got involved in the preparations for the European
elections 2014. It sets out how Parliaments have managed to fulfil their role in engaging EU
citizens in the debate on the EU and its future and provides information about the methods
used to engage in the discussion with voters, for instance outreach and educational activities.
Finally, Parliaments were invited to express their views on whether the time was ripe for a
new Convention on the Future of Europe. The chapter highlights positive examples and
trends, however, it also shows that with less than one year to go a majority of national
Parliaments/Chambers had not yet embraced their role in preparing the European elections
in May 2014.
Those Parliaments which provided details expressed contradictory ideas about the practical
arrangements for the elections to the European Parliament, e.g. about a common election
day. A two-thirds majority of responding Parliaments were in favour of propagating the
affiliation between national and European parties prior to the elections to the European
Parliament. Only about one third of national Parliaments expressed views on the question
about which entity should nominate a candidate for the President of the European
Commission and most of these favoured a nomination by European and national parties
together towards a sole role for national governments or national parties.
Less than one quarter of Parliaments/Chambers had considered any recommendations to
improve the efficient conduct and the removing of obstacles to voting in the European
elections. A majority of national Parliaments/Chambers had not discussed the question
concerning the reasons for the falling voter turnout in the European elections or not taken a
formal position on it. The others expressed a broad variety of views ranging from a lack of
interest in European politics, a lack of information or the information spread by tabloid
media, the dominance of national politics over European politics but as well the current
financial, economic, employment and social crisis. Accordingly Parliaments' ideas how to
enhance the profile of European elections, particularly to increase voter turnout, varied
widely, including changes to the electoral system, more information (about candidates and
programmes) and a more media-driven electoral campaign, new projects to deepen the
European integration, public debate or targeting specific interest groups. The two-fold
approach developed for the information and communication campaign on the 2014
European elections by the European Parliament was also presented.
A number of Parliaments/Chambers reported that they were organising or would organise
numerous initiatives and activities with respect to citizens' involvement in a dialogue on the
European elections. Some had organised debates in the media on the European elections,
others had engaged or planned to engage citizens through public meetings and fewer had
organised round-table discussions with think tanks. Some of the Parliaments/Chambers said
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0006.png
that they were currently exploring ways to promote the participation of the citizens in
debates on the European elections. Only a few Parliaments/Chambers said that they believed
that this dialogue should not be organised by national parliamentary institutions. Sixteen out
of 36 Parliaments/Chambers had implemented or planned activities to engage citizens in a
dialogue on the future of Europe and its role in the globalised world.
A number of Parliaments/Chambers (10) had or would be undertaking outreach and
educational activities in relation to the European elections, a number of
Parliaments/Chambers reported organising various competitions aiming to educate young
people on the EU. Some Parliaments/Chambers provided education for teachers, local
politicians and officials. Some tools were being introduced to increase awareness of the EU
institutions' role in the citizens’ daily lives as well as the upcoming elections.
Many Parliaments/Chambers had not formally taken a position on the issue of whether a
new Convention was required. Only one fifth of Parliaments/Chambers believed that a new
Convention was needed. Some of these Parliaments/Chambers proposed that a new
Convention could address the issues concerning EU decision-making, the role of Parliaments,
Union's economic policy and budgetary capacity.
CHAPTER 2: DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY IN THE EU AND THE ROLE OF EU PARLIAMENTS
The second chapter of the report outlines the methods national Parliaments use to pursue
democratic scrutiny of and control over their governments and the EU institutions. In this
regard, just over half of all Parliaments/Chambers believe that democratic accountability
should not be limited only to scrutinising their respective national governments but should
also include scrutiny of EU institutions. Having said that the majority of
Parliaments/Chambers ranked scrutiny of their own government as most important followed
by the Commission, the European Council and the Council.
The mechanisms to ensure accountability over government actions were seen by most
Parliaments/Chambers as being direct and quite strong and as being exercisable either in
committee or in plenary or in both. A range of mechanisms for ensuring accountability have
been developed but the most important mechanism is the holding of a government to
account for its actions in Council followed by the use of the subsidiarity check and political
dialogue as mechanisms for holding EU institutions to account. Some additional mechanisms
considered as useful for the purposes of holding all entities to account included, for example,
the use of National Parliament Representatives, engaging with MEPs and rapporteurs,
holding national Parliament/Chamber committee meetings in Brussels and giving national
MEPs the right to sit on national committees.
Parliaments/Chambers ranked COSAC, political dialogue and IPEX as the most effective tools
for interparliamentary cooperation and reserved the highest level of criticism for the
subsidiarity mechanism and the CFSP/CSDP Conference.
Parliaments/Chambers are actively involved in the EU decision-making process (through
exerting influence over their governments, by using the subsidiarity check mechanism and
through the political dialogue) and in the pre-legislative phase of EU policy formation
(through the scrutiny of consultation papers, evaluation of the Commission Work
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0007.png
Programme, and through receiving information from their governments for example). Many
examples of how Parliaments "actively contribute to the good functioning of the Union" are
also outlined in the report.
When asked to classify their scrutiny systems, Parliaments/Chambers appear to be
developing more sophisticated or tailored approaches to EU scrutiny work. This would merit
a more detailed examination at a future date. Parliaments/Chambers also gave more details
about their chosen systems, highlighting strengths and any perceived gaps therein.
When discussing the future evolution of parliamentary democracy in the EU, many
Parliaments/Chambers declined to give a view, whereas others concentrated their comments
on the need to strengthen existing mechanisms and enhance interparliamentary
cooperation.
CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY
The third chapter of the biannual report examines parliamentary scrutiny of the
implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy targets as well as the state of play of ongoing
reforms and examine best practices and procedures. The report shows that the majority of
the Parliaments/Chambers actively debated all or most of the referred goals of the Europe
2020 Strategy, with the issue of unemployment slightly prevailing to others. The scrutiny
procedures included committee meetings, often with the participation of members of the
government and in many cases in the context of the National Reform Programme
discussions. The scrutiny of the implementation of the reforms applying to the Europe 2020
strategy took place predominately in committee meetings, in many cases with the input of
the government as well as socials partners and other stakeholders. Plenary hearings were in
both cases less often.
Almost one third of the Parliaments/Chambers did not comment on the means of
cooperation in order to achieve the goals set by the Europe 2020 Strategy. Close to a third
referred to scrutiny over government work on a national level, whereas on an EU level most
of the Parliaments/Chambers referred to the exchange of information and best practices
through
existing
mechanisms
of
interparliamentary
cooperation.
Seven
Parliaments/Chambers highlighted the importance and potentials of the parliamentary week.
A small number (8) of Parliaments/Chambers answered that political commitment to achieve
the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy was in fact reflected in the policy and budget
formation on both the European Union and national level. Most of those that answered
negatively made special references to the impact of the financial crisis on the 2014-2020
MFF. This was reflected in the relatively high percentage of Parliaments/Chambers that had
debated the social impact of the austerity measures taken at both the EU and the national
levels, as well as - on a smaller scale - the impact of the austerity measures on the targets set
in the Europe 2020 Strategy.
The report also shows an increased interest on the issue of youth unemployment since 71%
of responding Parliaments/Chambers (22 out of 31) answered that they intended to discuss
the Communication from the Commission on "Working together for Europe's young people –
A call to action on youth unemployment".
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0008.png
CHAPTER 1: EUROPEAN ELECTIONS 2014: PLATFORM FOR DEBATE ON THE EU
FUTURE WITH ITS CITIZENS
The 2014 European elections will be the first since the entry into force of the Treaty of
Lisbon. They will take place under the conditions of persistent global financial crisis and while
the European Union (EU) is taking important steps towards a genuine Economic and
Monetary Union (EMU). The credibility and sustainability of the EMU depend on the
institutions and the political construct behind it; and as the President of the European
Commission, José Manuel Barroso stressed "the Economic and Monetary Union raises the
question of a political union and the European democracy that must underpin it." The 2014
European elections offer a timely opportunity to engage Europeans in the debate about their
views on the EU and its future.
This chapter of the Bi-annual Report examines how the upcoming European elections have
been scrutinised or debated by Parliaments. It outlines the views of Parliaments on European
elections. The report examines whether there should be affiliation between national and
European political parties prior and during the elections to the European Parliament and
whether each European party should nominate a candidate for President of the European
Commission prior to the European elections.
1
It also examines the ideas of Parliaments on
how to improve voter turnout in the European elections.
Parliaments play a crucial role in engaging EU citizens in the debate on the EU and its future.
This chapter therefore sets out how Parliaments have managed to fulfil this role. It also
summarises information about the methods used to engage in the discussion with voters for
instance, the debates in the media, public meetings or round table discussions with think
tanks. The chapter also gives details of outreach and educational activities that have been
undertaken or are planned by Parliaments in this regard. In the overall context of the debate
on the future of the EU, Parliaments were asked to express their views on whether the time
was ripe for a new Convention on the Future of Europe.
1.1. National Parliaments’ debates on the arrangements for the European Elections 2014
When asked whether the upcoming European elections had been considered or debated a
majority Parliaments/Chambers replied negatively (20 out of 38). Eighteen
Parliaments/Chambers had reflected on the question so far, even though three of them
primarily in the framework of changes to their electoral laws for the European elections
(Belgian
Chambre des représentants,
German
Bundestag
and
Bundesrat).
Some Parliaments/Chambers held hearings with Members of the European Parliament
(Italian
Camera dei Deputati
and
Senato della Repubblica)
or discussed the question in their
EU Affairs Committee already (French
Assemblée nationale,
Estonian
Riigikogu)
or held a
debate in the plenary (UK
House of Commons).
Some Parliaments/Chambers (e.g. the Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
Dutch
Tweede
Kamer,
Slovenian
Državni zbor,
the Greek
Vouli ton Ellion
and the French
Sénat)
replied they
1
As examined in COM (2013) 126
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0009.png
intended to hold debates in the second semester of 2013, some did not exclude this option
(e.g. Belgian
Sénat,
Spanish
Cortes Generales
and Polish
Sejm)
while others straightforwardly
ruled out any debate (Slovak
Národná rada
and UK
House of Lords).
The Swedish
Riksdag
had
scheduled a specific debate on the issue for 7 May 2014, two weeks before the elections.
Just four (out of 37) of the national Parliaments/Chambers had so far scrutinised or debated
the European Parliament resolution of 4 July 2013 on improving the practical arrangements
for the holding of the European elections in 2014, while the Czech
Senát
had informed the
Members of the Committee on EU Affairs about its content and the Italian
Senato della
Repubblica
as well as the Dutch
Tweede Kamer
said they would discuss it in the autumn.
When asked whether they had scrutinised or debated the European Commission
Communication on "Preparing for the 2014 European elections: further enhancing their
democratic and efficient conduct",
2
15 Parliaments/Chambers replied positively while 22 (out
of 37) replied negatively.
The EU Committee of the UK
House of Lords
generally welcomed “measures which would
address the issues of low voter turnout in the European elections and direct voters to the
role of the European Parliament” but did not favour the idea of a common election day
because it was “based on the false premise that voters in one state might be influenced by
the voters in another” and it “would run counter to national political cultures". On the
contrary the Polish
Sejm,
while acknowledging the existence of different political traditions,
nevertheless expressed the view "that establishing a single date of the European Parliament
election and the same voting hours across the Member States was an idea based on a right
assumption" and the Lithuanian
Seimas
asked Member States to "reach an agreement on a
common day for holding the European Parliament elections with polling stations closing at
the same time". It also expressed the view that the "European Parliament must become a
genuine European legislature with the right of legislative initiative and the right to appoint
the European Commission
in corpore".
In contrast to that the European Scrutiny Committee
of the UK
House of Commons
"objected to the Commission's over-emphasis of the European
Parliament's role in the selection process for the Commission President" it highlighted,
however, "that the prominence given to the proposals in the national press underlined the
considerable public interest in them". The Romanian
Camera Deputaţilor
welcomed the
intention of the European Commission to further enhance transparency and the European
dimension of the European elections but warned that "imposing uniformity
per
se should be
avoided". The European Parliament expressed its full support for the practical conclusions
expressed in the Commission document.
Some of the responsible committees of those Parliaments/Chambers that replied negatively
reported that they intended to examine the Communication in autumn or might do so after
the imminent elections (e.g. German
Bundestag,
Committee on Internal Affairs).
2
COM (2013) 126
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/document/files/com_2013_126_en.pdf
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0010.png
1.2. Display of European Party affiliations
A majority of the 19 Parliaments/Chambers which replied to that question (13 against six)
were in favour of propagating the affiliation between national and European parties prior to
the elections to the European Parliament. Most (18 out of 32) Parliaments/Chambers had not
yet discussed the question/adopted a position on whether political parties should be able to
display their European party affiliation on the ballot papers in the European elections 2014 or
were just about to do so (Italian
Senato della Repubblica
and Portuguese
Assembleia da
República).
The German
Bundestag
replied that the German electoral rules for the European
elections provided for that possibility and the Estonian
Riigikogu
agreed that national parties
should have the freedom to decide while the Romanian
Senatul
considered this a necessity.
The Austrian
Nationalrat
and
Bundesrat
(governing majority) and the Czech
Senát
pointed
out that the electoral laws would have to be changed, while the Polish
Senat
and the Belgian
Chambre des représentants
believed that the question should not be dealt with by
Parliament but at party level. According to the latter this additional information could
overburden the ballot sheets whereas the Latvian
Saeima
believed it could be useful for
voters. The Bulgarian
Narodno sabranie
replied that the major political parties in the National
Assembly support the idea as did the Belgian
Sénat.
1.3. Nomination of the President of the European Commission
Fourteen Parliaments/Chambers replied to the question about which entity should nominate
a candidate for the President of the European Commission. While nine
Parliaments/Chambers proposed a nomination by European and national parties together,
four were in favour of a nomination by governments and two in favour of a combination of
both.
3
No one suggested a nomination by national parties alone and just three
Parliaments/Chambers a nomination by the European parties on their own (French
Assemblée nationale,
Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas,
European Parliament).
1.4. Improving the conduct of European Elections
Questions to Parliaments/Chambers about whether they had considered any
recommendations to improve the efficient conduct and the removing of obstacles to voting
in the European elections triggered only very few positive replies: for example encouraging
voting by EU citizens residing in Member States other than their own (10
Parliaments/Chambers), agreeing a common day for the elections of the European
Parliament, with polling stations closing at the same time (11 Parliaments/Chambers) or
ensuring that political broadcasts of national parties in view of the European elections inform
citizens about the candidate they support for President of the European Commission and the
candidate's programme (eight Parliaments/Chambers). The Romanian
Senatul
also reported
about a political pact between political parties for the European elections to campaign only
on European topics. In addition, the European Parliament, in its above mentioned Resolution
of 4 July, also urged national political parties to inform the public before and during the
electoral campaign about their affiliation to a European political party and their support for
the candidate to the post of President of the European Commission and requested that no
official results be published in any Member State before the close of the voting in the
3
The Italian
Senato della Repubblica,
which was affirmative on of both replies, pointed to article 17, paragraph
7 TEU, which is setting out the procedure to propose a candidate after the elections to the European
Parliament, whereas the question aimed at a nomination before the elections.
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Member State where voters will be the last to vote on Sunday, May 25, 2014. Some
Parliaments/Chambers, however, explained that there was not yet an official decision taken
on these issues.
1.5. Voter turnout and participation
Most (21 out of 36) Parliaments/Chambers replied that they had not discussed or not taken a
formal position on the question concerning the reasons for the falling voter turnout in the
European elections. A few Parliaments/Chambers believed it was because of the effects of
the current financial, economic, employment and social crisis and the lack of belief that the
EU could provide solutions as contributing to the low voter turnout.
While a couple of Parliaments/Chambers stated a lack of interest in European politics or
blamed the information spread by tabloid media (Polish
Sejm,
German
Bundesrat),
others
saw reasons for the low turnout mainly in poor media coverage and a lack of information for
voters on the importance of the EU and the European Parliament, the role of Members of the
European Parliament and the voting system.
The German
Bundesrat
added that voters were "convinced that voting in the EP elections
does not afford them an opportunity to influence European Union policy" and that therefore
"elections to the European Parliament have frequently been used as means to express
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with national policies". This reflected the concern raised by the
European Parliament that the "vote has not become the way to exercise popular sovereignty
in Europe, but a kind of simple national opinion poll." While the European Parliament stated
that the European elections had been used by national parties "as a test of the weight of
national political parties within each Member State" the Romanian
Senatul
considered that
discussion on national issues during the electoral campaign negatively affected the turnout
of the European elections.
Some Parliaments/Chambers mentioned the following ideas: e.g. the Croatian
Hrvatski sabor
criticised a lack of concentrated and programme oriented European campaigns. The Green
Party in the Austrian
Nationalrat
and
Bundesrat
also found that the lower personalisation of
EU politics (compared to the national level) was one of the reasons and the governing
majority added that the population needed to be more involved into the European decision
making process. The report of the President of the European Affairs Committee of the French
Assemblée nationale
singled out the failure to establish a real European public space which
would allow citizens to understand European challenges and to exercise influence on them as
the biggest obstacle; voters should have a clear choice between different party policies for
the new legislature and should be able to identify those responsible for the decisions taken
and that parties should nominate their candidates for the post of President of the European
Commission. The Bulgarian
Narodno sabranie
stated that EP debates were not close enough
to the topical issues which of concern for the Bulgarian society while the Greek
Vouli ton
Ellinon
highlighted the "inability of the European Parliament to communicate its work to the
European citizens and engage them in the political dialogue" in addition to "crucial domestic
issues". The Estonian Riigikogu stated that the public did not see how Members of the
European Parliament would serve their country's interest in the European Parliament and
called for more visibility for it. The French
Sénat
blamed the electoral system (proportionate
vote) while in Belgium the issue was no matter of discussion due to compulsory voting.
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
When asked about their ideas how to enhance the profile of European elections, particularly
to increase voter turnout, most (16 out of 35) Parliaments/Chambers said they had no official
position. Some Parliaments/Chambers put forward ideas such as:
In line with its previous answer the French
Sénat
mentioned a return to individual
candidatures instead of an election of candidates on lists in a proportional
representation electoral system.
The Italian
Camera dei Deputati
suggested organising a so called "European Assizes"
before the next European elections that should debate on how to strengthen the EU
integration, notably by achieving a banking, a budgetary, an economic and a political
union and by adopting an actual strategy for re-launching economic growth.
The Hungarian
Országgyűlés
was in favour of holding national and European elections
at the same day, which would not only save costs but also increase voter turnout,
while the Luxembourg
Chambre des Députés
which is normally elected on the same
day as the European Parliament advocated a split of national and European elections.
The Lithuanian
Seimas
called for a wide coverage on candidates, party programmes
and other aspects of the elections on national radio and television programmes, to
inform the public and to organise debates. The Polish
Senat
supported the latter and
added that also the competences of the European Parliament should be underlined.
The Cyprus
Vouli ton Antiprosopon
added that campaigns targeted at specific interest
groups could be organised to help these groups address specific issues.
The Romanian
Senatul
suggested Parliaments and parliamentarians be engaged in
discussion with voters, debates in media, public meetings, round table discussions
with think tanks, on European themes since Parliaments, as institutions, played a
crucial role in engaging EU citizens in the political debate.
A rather holistic approach using mainly parliamentary means was suggested by the
Croatian
Hrvatski sabor.
Following the low turnout at the first elections of 12 Croatian
Members of the European Parliament in April 2013, the Croatian
Hrvatski sabor
has
used the creation of the Croatian parliamentary scrutiny method for promotion of the
roles European institutions also via broad public consultation and debates as well as
web based counselling held prior to the enactment of the relevant law.
The European Parliament had developed a two-fold approach: In the short term, for the
information and communication campaign on the 2014 European elections it conceived an
awareness-raising phase until March 2014 (taking stock of the decisions taken in the present
term, informing citizens about the institution and its relevance to their daily lives) and an
activation phase starting end of March where the main focus will be increasing awareness of
the date of the elections, how to vote, etc. A final phase after the elections will also inform
citizens about the outcome of their choices. In the long term the European Parliament
believes that a "re-foundation" of Europe would be necessary, reanimating the deeper
reasons that justify and require a Union, recalling the reasons that pushed for its origin after
the Second World War, for which the recent conferral of the Nobel Prize for Peace can be the
starting point for reflection to be offered to citizens.
1.6. Engagement of citizens in a dialogue on the European elections
A number of Parliaments/Chambers reported that they were organising or would organise
numerous initiatives and activities with respect to citizens' involvement in a dialogue on the
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
European elections. Some of the Parliaments/Chambers said that they were currently
exploring ways to promote the participation of the citizens in debates on the European
elections. A few Parliaments/Chambers said that they believed that this dialogue should not
be organised by national parliamentary institutions.
Fourteen out of 25 Parliaments/Chambers responded that they had organised debates in the
media on the European elections. For instance, the Lithuanian
Seimas
and the Italian
Senato
della Repubblica stated
that debates were planned on the European elections on the national
television. The European Parliament said that it engaged daily with citizens through social
media (over 800,000 fans on Facebook) and also had developed the "Newshub" to aggregate
all the social media activity of the Members of the European Parliament into one page to give
more visibility to their positions, thus highlighting the political nature of the institution.
Fourteen out of 25 Parliaments/Chambers replied that they had engaged or planned to
engage citizens through public meetings. The European elections were debated in the
framework of European Affairs Committee meetings (in the Portuguese
Assembleia da
República,
French
Assemblée nationale,
Croatian
Hrvatski sabor)
and the meetings of the
European information offices of the Parliaments/Chambers (Lithuanian
Seimas,
Swedish
Riksdag,
the European Parliament) or other parliamentary bodies.
Ten out of 24 Parliaments/Chambers responded that they had organised round table
discussions with think tanks. The European Parliament engaged citizens through organising
"Regional Discussion Fora" or round table debates/discussions.
Thirteen out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers stated that the subject of organising specific
activities with respect to citizens' involvement in a dialogue on the European elections had
not been discussed yet or there was no official position so far. The Italian
Camera dei
Deputati
responded that it was currently exploring ways and strategies to promote a more
effective participation of citizens in debates on European affairs, also with the use of new
technologies and social media.
Thirteen out of 31 responding Parliaments/Chambers indicated that they had engaged or
would engage citizens in a dialogue on the European elections. Some Parliaments/Chambers
replied that specialised public debates would be held. The Swedish
Riksdag
responded that in
October 2013, a seminar for compulsory and upper secondary school teachers on the
national and European elections would be organised. The European Parliament reported that
it organises seminars for journalists and is planning a series of "large and innovative"
conferences. Visitors to the European Parliament and other Parliaments/Chambers would
also be given the opportunity to contribute views on the topic of the upcoming European
elections by exchanging opinions during meetings with Members of Parliament and civil
servants. On 20 January 2014 Danish
Folketing
planned to host a debate among students
regarding the main themes of the European elections. The students will also exchange views
with the main candidates of the political parties standing for the European elections.
Five out of 31 Parliaments/Chambers emphasised that it was not up to them to engage
citizens in a dialogue on the European elections. The Czech
Senát
said that such events
should be conducted by the political parties as a part of their electotral campaigns. The Dutch
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0014.png
Eerste Kamer
and
Tweede Kamer
also agreed that individual politicians might actively
contribute to the electoral campaigns for individual political parties. The Finnish
Eduskunta
noted that it was a routine duty of the information centre of the Parliament to provide
information on EU-related issues to the public.
1.7. Outreach and educational activities in relation to the European elections
In response to the question of what outreach and educational activities had been or would
be undertaken in relation to the European elections, a number of Parliaments/Chambers
reported organising various competitions aiming to educate young people on the EU. Some
Parliaments/Chambers provided education for teachers, local politicians and officials. Some
tools were being introduced to increase awareness of the EU institutions' role in the citizens’
daily lives as well as the upcoming elections. Eleven out of 34 Parliaments/Chambers
responded that no decisions on outreach and educational activities had yet been made.
Ten out of 34 Parliaments/Chambers stated that various outreach and educational activities
were being organised or planned. Some examples of good practice were mentioned,
including the following:
The Portuguese
Assembleia da República,
the Hungarian
Országgyűlés
and the
German
Bundesrat
and the Romanian
Camera Deputaţilor
said that they had planned
activities specifically targeted at young people.
The Austrian
Nationalrat
and
Bundesrat,
within the framework of the project of the
Democracy Workshop
(an educational programme about parliamentary structures in
Austria), will organise the Europe-workshop in the forthcoming school-year, which
will focus on the European elections.
The Swedish
Riksdag
reported that it would provide information regarding the
European elections on its website and through its regular inquiry service. Throughout
2012, the administration had provided education for local politicians and officials on
EU affairs and on the EU institutions. Around 100 municipalities had been included in
the project.
The European Parliament reported that it would develop several communication tools
to increase awareness of the European Parliament’s role in the citizens’ daily lives and
about the upcoming elections. These would include background articles, leaflets, info
graphics, educational videos, etc. There will also be a big component of social media
including chats with Members of the European Parliament, polls, etc.
4
The Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon
would examine the possibility of "Youth Parliament"
sessions related to European citizenship in order to highlight both the Greek
Presidency and the European elections.
The Danish
Folketing
would launch a web based European Parliament candidate test,
which can be used by teachers in upper secondary school and vocational schools and
which aim is to allow students to inform themselves of the main political themes of
the European elections and the views of the different EP candidates.
Seven of 34 Parliaments/Chambers responded that currently they were not planning to
undertake any outreach or educational activities in this field. Six out of 34
4
All the tools developed will be available for download in a brand new Download Centre which will be placed
on the
www.europarl.eu
website
10
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Parliaments/Chambers answered that no specific outreach and educational activities had
been planned, but public discussions, debates, seminars and other initiatives with respect to
citizens' involvement in a dialogue on the European elections would be implemented.
1.8. Engaging citizens in a dialogue on the future of Europe and its role in the globalised
world
Less than half of Parliaments/Chambers had implemented or planned activities to engage
citizens in a dialogue on the future of Europe and its role in the globalised world. Other
Parliaments/Chambers, at the moment, were exploring possibilities of developing initiatives
or have no intentions to do this.
Sixteen out of 36 Parliaments/Chambers replied that they had engaged or would engage
citizens in such a dialogue. Five Parliaments/Chambers replied generally that they intended
to engage their citizens by organising public meetings and hearings, public debates, round
table discussions, public consultations on their websites and by implementing other general
instruments.
Ten Parliaments/Chambers had arranged or would be arranging special initiatives to engage
their citizens, social partners and non-governmental organisations in a dialogue on the future
of Europe and its role in the globalised world. For example:
The Swedish
Riksdag
Administration organised a seminar in April 2013, where
high-level officials, researchers and politicians from the Parliament, as well as
Members of the European Parliament, met with around 200 Swedish teachers to
discuss the EU and Sweden in a global world.
A debate between Members of Parliament and civil society on this issue would be
held in the Maltese
Kamra tad-Deputati
later this year.
The Bulgarian
Narodno sabranie
said that it engages citizens through its newly
established Interaction with Civic Organizations and Movements Committee and
the Councils for public consultations to the specialised committees.
The UK
House of Commons
said that several outreach events had been held on the
UK Parliament and Europe in 2013, which had included talks by the Chairs of the
House of Commons
and
House of Lords
Committees and reported that these
would be re-run in 2014.
The European Parliament organised events around this topic in its EP Information
Offices with Members of the European Parliament from respective countries. The
European Parliament also organised press seminars with the leaders of the
political groups and representatives of the media on the topic of the future of
Europe.
Fourteen out of 36 Parliaments/Chambers answered that at this stage no decisions
concerning engagement of citizens in a dialogue on the future of Europe and its role in the
globalised world had been made or been planned.
Six out of 36 Parliaments/Chambers responded that for the moment, no activities to engage
citizens in a dialogue on the future of Europe and its role in the globalised world had taken
place or been planned.
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1.9. Convention on the Future of Europe and possible mandate
Many Parliaments/Chambers had not formally taken a position on the issue of whether a
new Convention was required. Only one fifth of Parliaments/Chambers believed that a new
Convention was needed. Some of these Parliaments/Chambers proposed that a new
Convention could address the issues concerning EU decision-making, the role of Parliaments,
Union's economic policy and budgetary capacity. A few Parliaments/Chambers believed that
there was no need for a new Convention.
Twenty five out of 37 Parliaments/Chambers responded that at the moment they had not
debated or formally taken a position on the issue of whether a new Convention on the future
of Europe was required. Although having no defined position, some of these
Parliaments/Chambers proposed some ideas on what the mandate of a new Convention
could be. For example, the Portuguese
Assembleia da República
emphasised that the balance
of powers among the different European institutions, responses to the European crisis
outside the context of the Treaties, the distancing of citizens from the European project, the
role of national Parliaments and the financing of the European Union were some of the
concerns to be addressed. The Cyprus
Vouli ton Antiprosopon
suggested that a new
Convention should address such issues as tackling the economic crisis, (youth)
unemployment and promoting the prosperity of the people and such a Convention should
also lead to more transparency, accountability and democratic legitimacy in EU decision
making. The Slovak
Národná rada
reported having a national convention on the EU, to define
a society-wide, political and expert vision of “What Europe do we want?“ and to bring
European topics closer to the general public.
Eight out of 37 Parliaments/Chambers responded that a new Convention was needed. The
Austrian
Nationalrat
and
Bundesrat
considered a new Convention to be necessary to
overcome the current economic and financial crises of the EU and to tackle ecological and
social challenges. The Hungarian
Országgyűlés
emphasised that an appropriate stock-taking
was needed on the new institutional and operational set-up of the EU and it was inevitable to
consolidate the several changes that had happened recently in EU decision-making. The
Chairperson of the Committee on European Affairs of the French
Assemblée nationale
considered that a new Convention should revise the Treaties. The European Parliament also
expressed a view in favour of making amendments to the Treaties, which first needed to be
examined by a new Convention in order to complete the framing of a genuine EMU by
enhancing the EU competencies, in particular in the field of economic policy, and by
strengthening the Union's own resources and budgetary capacity, the role and democratic
accountability of the Commission and the European Parliament's prerogatives. Latvian
Saeima
said that the time had come for a Convention to address in more detail the issue of
the future of Europe and the role of Parliaments. The Romanian
Senatul
considered that the
future mandate of the next Convention should support European policies leading to a
strengthened Europe towards a "United States of Europe".
Some possible dates for a new Convention were mentioned. The European Parliament said
that a new Convention should take place after the election of the European Parliament,
whereas preparations for such a Convention should start before these elections. The
Chairperson of the Committee on European Affairs of the French
Assemblée nationale
said
that a possible date for a new Convention could be autumn 2014 and that the text adopted
12
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
by the Convention should be subject to a referendum on the same day throughout the
members of the EU. The Hungarian
Országgyűlés
suggested the first possible date for a new
Convention could be 2015 (following the European elections and the inauguration of the new
Commission).
Four out of 37 Parliaments/Chambers considered that there was no need for a new
Convention on the Future of Europe, because first the measures already in force (Lisbon
Treaty, Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU) should be successfully implemented.
13
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0018.png
CHAPTER 2: DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY IN THE EU AND THE ROLE OF EU
PARLIAMENTS
Parliaments play a distinct role in establishing links between European citizens and the
European policy making process. The constantly developing context of European integration,
the challenges posed by the economic and financial crisis, the initiatives launched in the field
of economic governance as well as foreign, security and defence policy – all require proactive
involvement of Parliaments.
The Treaty of Lisbon, often called the Treaty of Parliaments, has reinforced the role of the
European Parliament and national Parliaments in the EU. Since the Treaty, the European
Parliament has developed into a key player in the EU legislative process, however, there is
still much to be done by Parliaments in order to build a truly comprehensive system of
parliamentary accountability in the EU. Despite the intense discourse about the role of
national Parliaments in the EU decision making process, there is still no clear understanding
of how an effective role of national Parliaments can be defined and achieved.
Due to the different political and institutional traditions, a wide array of mechanisms exist in
different Parliaments to exercise parliamentary scrutiny of EU affairs. These have further
evolved since the Treaty of Lisbon. Scrutiny has also taken place at the European level with
the development of the subsidiarity mechanism and the continued evolution of the political
dialogue between national Parliaments and the European Commission. At the level of
interparliamentary cooperation numerous instruments to ensure democratic legitimacy and
accountability have been established, including the Interparliamentary Conference for the
CFSP and the CSDP, as well as the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial
Governance of the European Union.
This chapter of the report outlines the methods national Parliaments use to pursue
democratic scrutiny of and control over their governments and the EU institutions. It
examines the mechanisms of parliamentary scrutiny used and gathers views on the
effectiveness of existing tools and formats of interparliamentary cooperation, including the
monitoring of the principle of subsidiarity.
This chapter collects the views of Parliaments on how democratic legitimacy and
accountability can continue to evolve in the future. It seeks further insights on how
Parliaments see the future of interparliamentary cooperation in order to foster proactive
participation of national Parliaments in the EU policy-making process. It also outlines the
expectations of Parliaments with regard to their role and place in the EU‘s institutional
architecture in the case of any future treaty revisions.
2.1. The reach of democratic accountability
A large number of Parliaments/Chambers, 20 of the 37 which responded, said that they
believe that democratic accountability in the context of the EU affairs should not be limited
only to their own governments but must also include EU institutions. Reasons advanced for
this position included "the EU institutions play an increasingly important role in the
14
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0019.png
governance and integration of the EU" (Lithuanian
Seimas);
and that "democratic
responsibility is a principle which should apply to all political institutions"
5
(French
Sénat).
While in the Maltese
Kamra tad-Deputati "the
Standing Orders of the House already
recognise the importance of extending democratic accountability to the EU institution". Of
the remaining Parliaments/Chambers only two expressed the belief that accountability
should be limited to national governments (Belgian
Sénat
and the Irish
Houses of the
Oireachtas).
In the specific context of the Commission's proposals to reinforce the EMU and the EU
economic governance framework, the UK
House of Commons
noted that any parliamentary
oversight of the strengthened EMU, including that envisaged in Article 13 of the SCG Treaty,
should be at the level of 28 national Parliaments and the European Parliament; and any new
arrangements must respect the different competences of national Parliaments and the
European Parliament and operate consistently with national democratic scrutiny processes,
including our own Standing Orders”. The European Parliament, on the other hand, replied
that “democratic accountability must be ensured at the level where decisions are taken. This
means that at the level of the EU it must be ensured by the European Parliament, while, at
the level of Member States, by the national Parliaments”. The Dutch Tweede Kamer stated
that the additional sharing of competences in the EU should go hand in hand with more
democratic legitimacy and accountability. It therefore said that the democratic legitimacy
and accountability in the context of the EU-affairs should be increased. The report of
Madame Auroi, Chairperson of the Committee on European Affairs of the French
Assemblée
nationale,
advanced the idea of a second chamber of the Union based in Strasbourg
comprising representatives of national Parliaments and which would consider issues of
monetary union and progressively other matters of national importance.
Relative importance of institutions subject to parliamentary scrutiny
Parliaments/Chambers were asked to rank the relative importance to them of the institutions
they scrutinised. Based on the 29 responses to this question, the order of importance was as
follows: scrutiny of their own national Government which received 93% of first preferences;
the European Commission which received 48% of second preferences (and 33% of fourth
preference); the European Council which received 48% of third preferences (and 26% of
fourth preference) and lastly the Council of the European Union which received 41% of
fourth preferences (as well as 32% of 3rd and 27% of 2nd).
Mechanisms of scrutiny
Most of the Parliaments/Chambers employed a wide range of mechanisms to scrutinise all
four of the entities mentioned. The following table draws together the primary mechanisms
which may be of value to all Parliaments/Chambers.
Entity scrutinised
Governments
Mechanisms employed
Formal legal Acts outlining the limits
government's mandate
Oral and written parliamentary questions
of
the
5
"La responsabilité démocratique est un principe qui doit s'appliquer à toutes les institutions politiques"
15
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0020.png
Motions -legislative and non-legislative
No confidence motions
Power of national budget approval
The evaluation of reports on the positions taken by
governments
Ministers appearing before committee or plenary
before and/or after Council usually within a set time
period
Oral or written reports by Ministers before and/or after
Council
Scrutiny reserve resolutions or formal mandates or
resolutions (binding or non-binding depending on the
tradition or legal position)
Written reports on developments occurring during the
outgoing Presidency
Special committee or plenary debates
Reports on the status of negotiations or about the
impact of an EU measure
Full use of political dialogue and subsidiarity
mechanisms
Appearances before committees to give evidence or
meetings with Commissioners or EU Representation
staff in capitals
Special committee or plenary debates (e.g. on the
Commission Work Programme)
Dialogue at interparliamentary conferences
Appearances of Prime Ministers in plenary before
and/or after each European Council usually within a set
time period
Council
Commission
European Council
The mechanisms to ensure accountability over government actions were seen by most
Parliaments/Chambers as being direct and quite strong and as being exercisable either in
committee or in plenary or in both. Those mechanisms for ensuring accountability over EU
institutions were mentioned by many Parliaments/Chambers as being indirect or based on
"mutual good will". The European Council was, in general, not seen as accountable to either
Parliaments/Chambers or to other EU institutions.
2.2. Relative importance of accountability mechanisms
The overwhelming majority of Parliaments/Chambers ranked holding governments to
account in Council (through the various mechanisms outlined above) as being of most
importance with some 92% of first preferences (24 out of 26 who expressed a preference).
The use of the subsidiarity check (50%, 12 out of 24) and political dialogue (42%, 10 out of
16
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
24) were ranked a close second with the use of subsidiarity checking as marginally better
preferred with and "engaging in interparliamentary conferences" considered to be the fourth
preference. This was followed by direct accountability of key EU figures. In this regard two
further comments may be of interest. The Lithuanian
Seimas
would welcome constructive
cooperation with the EU institutions and the possibility of hearing the key EU figures,
however, it had found that national Parliaments were not a priority for key EU figures, i.e.
national Parliaments often experience difficulties trying to engage members of the European
Commission into parliamentary dimension activities and events. Secondly, the Dutch
Tweede
Kamer
argued that most of the existing tools and formats of interparliamentary cooperation
were foremost intended to improve the exchange of information between (Members of)
Parliaments. While nonetheless these instruments ensured that Members of Parliament are
better equipped when exercising their task of holding representatives of Government and
European institutions democratically accountable, these tools, in the view of the
Tweede
Kamer,
were created for another purpose and, therefore, contribute only indirectly to
ensuring democratic legitimacy and accountability.
When asked to specify further, the following additional mechanisms were referred to as
being useful:
a) the use of national Parliament representatives (Lithuanian
Seimas);
b) engaging in political dialogue with the European Parliament (Polish
Senat);
c) engaging in legislative dialogue with the EU institutions (Austrian
Nationalrat
and
Bundesrat);
d) engaging with Members of the European Parliament and European Parliament
Rapporteurs (Italian
Camera dei Deputati,
Portuguese
Assembleia da República
Lithuanian
Seimas
and Croatian
Hrvatski sabor);
e) scrutinising the Commission's Annual Growth Survey and the Commission Work
Programme and the Council Trio Presidency working programme; scrutinising the
ESM bodies’ decisions/activities (Italian
Senato della Repubblica).
f) engaging in interparliamentary cooperation with the European Parliament (German
Bundesrat,
Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon
and Austrian
Nationalrat
Green Party);
g) holding committee meetings in Brussels at which members of the European
Commission attend (German
Bundestag);
h) giving national MEPs the right to sit on national committees (German
Bundestag);
i) developing further the instrument of "clusters of interest" (as proposed by the Danish
Parliament) (Dutch
Tweede Kamer);
j) Plenary vote on the European Commission preceded by the hearings at parliamentary
committees level; regular reports by the President of the European Council and the
President of the Commission open to all Members of the European Parliament; the
report of the President of the European Central Bank in the framework of the
Monetary Dialogue to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs level; and
the supervision of delegated legislation of the EU, through the possibility to withdraw
such a delegation by the parliamentary committees (European Parliament).
2.3. Effectiveness of existing tools and formats of interparliamentary cooperation
Thirty five Parliaments/Chambers took a view on the effectiveness of existing tools and
formats of interparliamentary cooperation in ensuring democratic legitimacy and
17
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
accountability. Parliaments/Chambers were asked to rank various tools as being not
effective, partially effective, effective, very effective or extremely effective.
Starting at the positive end of the scale and grouping the results of effective to extremely
effective we can see that 20 Parliaments/Chambers considered COSAC to be in this category
followed by 18 for the political dialogue and 17 for IPEX. This is followed in turn by 16
Parliaments/Chambers who ranked the tools of the Subsidiarity mechanism, ECPRD and Joint
Committee Meetings (JCM) and 15 who considered the CFSP/CSDP Conference to be in that
category.
This is off-set by the somewhat more critical views of other Parliaments/Chambers in relation
to the same tools. Eighteen Parliaments/Chambers scored the subsidiarity mechanism as
only partially effective, followed by 17 for the CFSP/CSDP Conference, 16 for JCMs, 15 for
IPEX and 14 each for ECPRD and the political dialogue. Thirteen Parliaments/Chambers
placed COSAC in this category. A small number of Parliaments/Chambers took the view that
these tools were not effective i.e. two for the ECPRD, and one each for the subsidiarity
mechanism, COSAC, JCMs and political dialogue.
On balance therefore and taking both the positive and negative ends of the ranking scale it
can be inferred overall that Parliaments/Chambers were slightly more positive than negative
about the effectiveness of COSAC, the use of political dialogue and on IPEX and slightly more
negative than positive about the effectiveness of the subsidiarity mechanism, the ECPRD, the
CFSP/CSDP Conference and JCMs. This obviously points to areas of dissatisfaction in the tool
box of Parliaments/Chambers which may warrant further examination in the future.
2.4. Proactive involvement in EU policy making
Many of the Parliaments/Chambers mentioned the use of political dialogue when asked how
they proactively got involved in EU policy making. However, some others mentioned specific
means which may be of general interest as follows:
a) issuing Reasoned Opinions (Polish
Senat);
b) proactive dialogue with government (German
Bundestag);
c) through the National Parliament Representatives in Brussels (Czech Senát, Latvian
Saeima);
d) through written statements on all Green and White papers submitted to the
Parliament (Swedish
Riksdag);
e) by asking rapporteurs to engage with the Commission at the preparatory stage of a
proposal (French
Assemblée nationale);
f) by engaging regularly with national MEPs on the principle EU issues of the moment
(French
Assemblée nationale);
and
g) by engaging in workshops and other events with the European Parliament and other
national Parliaments in order to discuss the way forward on key legislative dossiers
(UK
House of Lords).
2.5. Staffing levels for the EU function
There was a diverse range of replies to the question of staffing levels working on EU affairs
functions within Parliaments/Chambers and it can be seen that responses were determined
by how the function is organised within each Parliament/Camber. In some
18
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0023.png
Parliaments/Chambers one central committee deals with all EU matters while in others it has
been either mainstreamed to all committees or arranged in a hybrid model of scrutiny of
both. The following table attempts to give some idea of the staff numbers involved in the
function.
6
Table 1: Staff numbers or administrative capacities indicated by Parliaments/Chambers
7
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
Slovak
Národná
rada
9
Danish
Folketing
7
Ceczh
Senát
7
Cyprus
Vouli ton
Antiprosopon
7
Slovenian
Državni zbor
7
Hungarian
Országgyűlés
7
Spanish
Cortes
Generales
6
Luxembourg
Chambre des
Députés
6
Latvian
Saeima
6
German
Bundesrat
6
Estonian
Riigikogu
6
Belgian
Chambre
des représentants
6
Portuguese
Assembleia da
República
5
Croatian
Hrvatski
sabor
5
Belgian
Sénat
5
Austrian
Nationalrat and
Bundesrat
5
Number of Parliaments/Chambers
6
5
4
3
2
1
Maltese
Kamra tad-
Deputati
4
Slovenian
Državni svet 1
Dutch
Eerste
Kamer
14
Polish
Sejm
11
Dutch
Tweede
Kamer
11
Irish
Oireachtas
11
Polish
Senat
10
Bulgarian
Narodno
sabranie
10
Greek
Vouli
ton Ellinon
10
Romanian
Camera
Deputaţilor
18
Italian
Senato
della
Repubblica
18
Italian
Camera
dei Deputati
16
UK
House of
Commons
15
French
Sénat
15
UK
House of
Lords
24
Lithuanian
Seimas
23
French
Assemblée
Nationale
28
Romanian
Senatul
28
German
Bundestag 59
0-4
5-9
10-14
Number of the staff members
15-19
20-24
25-29
55-59
2.6. Legislative phase of EU decision-making process
When asked how their Parliament/Chamber exerted influence over both the EU decision-
making process (legislative procedure) many Parliaments/Chambers (26 out of 37) referred
to the parliamentary systems of accountability or "control" of their government as tools used
to influence the EU decision-making process (or aspects thereof). For example the Lithuanian
6
In certain cases the replies were not fully comparable so there may be some understatement and/or
overstatement in certain of the replies.
7
In certain cases the replies were not fully comparable so there may be some understatement and/or
overstatement in certain of the replies.
19
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Seimas
detailed its combined parliamentary scrutiny model, consisting of mandating the
government and scrutinising documents, which involved hearings of ministers and evaluation
of their reports after Council meetings, and debates on legislative proposals and EU
documents for this purpose. The Estonian
Riigikogu
gave details of its system of specialised
standing committees delivering opinions to the EU Affairs Committee. Others answered that
they used the more generalised tool of discussions with their government to exert influence.
For example Slovenian
Državni zbor
said this was especially important for treaty matters or
when enlargement of the EU was being considered. The Belgian
Sénat
and Dutch
Tweede
Kamer
also highlighted their dialogue with government as important. Eight
Parliaments/Chambers logically said that they used the subsidiarity check powers in Protocol
2 of the Lisbon Treaty to exert influence over the EU decision making.
Seventeen Parliaments/Chambers also said that they engaged in the political dialogue with
the European Commission, within which Parliaments/Chambers can send any comments
about legislative proposals or policies directly to the Commission and can expect a response,
in order to influence the decision making process.
2.7. Pre-legislative phase of EU policy formation
When explaining how they exert influence at an earlier stage over EU policy formation (pre-
legislative phase), 10 of 37 Parliaments/Chambers highlighted scrutiny of consultation papers
(also known as Green and White papers) as a key way to influence the pre-legislative phase
of EU decision-making process. For example, scrutiny of these documents is obligatory in the
Swedish
Riksdag
and it replied that this practice produces "deeper public debate at a pre-
legislative stage".
Other Parliaments/Chambers such as the German
Bundestag,
the Italian
Camera dei Deputati
and the Swedish
Riksdag
said that their rights to receive information from the government
greatly aided their ability to influence EU policy formation.
A small number of Parliaments/Chambers including the Lithuanian
Seimas,
the Slovak
Národná rada
and the Dutch
Eerste Kamer,
highlighted their evaluation of the European
Commission Work Programme (in which the Commission annually outline their legislative
plans for the forthcoming year) as a tool used to exert influence in the pre-legislative phase.
The German
Bundestag
also pointed to its Brussels Liaison Office as a source of information
as it is able to give advanced monitoring of possible legislative initiatives. The Portuguese
Assembleia da República
noted the importance of the growing interaction with other
national Parliaments to work at all stages of the legislative process. The French
Sénat,
the
Romanian
Senatul,
the Polish
Sejm
and the Spanish
Cortes
also stated that they exert
influence through interparliamentary meetings.
In reality many Parliaments/Chambers employ all or a combination of the abovementioned
techniques and tools to exert influence throughout the EU decision-making process. For
example, the Italian
Camera dei Deputati
gave the following long list of mechanisms that it
employed: "a) the Government’s obligation to transmit EU acts and provide the
parliamentary bodies regular information on current EU affairs, meeting and proposals; b)
the direct transmission of documents by the EU institutions; c) the consideration of EU draft
legislative acts and the subsidiarity control; d) the parliamentary scrutiny reserve; e) fact
20
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0025.png
finding, policy settings and oversight activities of the parliamentary bodies; f) the
consideration of the EU consultation and legislative planning documents".
In a similar vein, Parliaments/Chambers were asked how they "contribute actively to the
good functioning of the Union", including by other means than those listed in article 12 TEU
and many answered as they had to the above question regarding the exertion of influence
over the EU decision-making process. Some notable examples of best practice that were also
highlighted included the following:
the Polish
Sejm
organised meetings on topical issues to gain insight into particular EU
matters by inviting stakeholder to express their views;
the German
Bundestag
had increased the number of plenary debates on EU affairs
and noted this had increased public awareness of the issues; the Portuguese
Assembleia da República
also held a higher number of debates in plenary since a
change in the law in May 2012;
the Dutch
Eerste Kamer
had developed a specialised website that aimed to create
greater awareness and improve effectiveness in the scrutiny of European dossiers;
8
the Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas
placed emphasis on its efforts in "relationship
building with other Parliaments and parliamentarians from across the EU";
the Croatian
Hrvatski sabor
highlighted its cooperation with the Croatian
Government in the procedure of nominating the candidates of the Republic of
Croatia for the European Commission, the Court of Justice and General Court, the
Court of Auditors and the Management Committee of the EIB.
The French
Assemblée nationale
and
Senát
both highlighted the need for the arrangements
for the democratic accountability of EUROPOL and EUROJUST to be put in place. The
Bulgarian
Narodno sabranie
and the Maltese
Kamra tad-Deputati
both saw a role for
Parliaments/Chambers to bring citizens closer to the European Union.
2.8. Models of parliamentary scrutiny and their strengths
Parliaments/Chambers were asked to give information about their scrutiny systems and,
although the responses were not complete, the figures in the table below show a general
shift away from the traditional system of classification. Parliaments/Chambers appear to be
developing more sophisticated or tailored approaches to EU scrutiny work. For example, we
can see a lower than expected number of Parliaments/Chambers claiming themselves to
have either mandating or document based systems and a growth in categories of mixed or
other systems of scrutiny. This apparent change in approach would, in our view, merit a more
detailed examination at a future date. Parliaments/Chambers have below expanded these
replies by giving more details about their chosen systems, highlighting strengths and any
perceived gaps therein.
8
www.europapoort.nl
21
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0026.png
Scrutiny system used
Document-based
Mandating
Mixed
Focused on sectoral committees
Other, please specify
Total respondents
Number
8
3
12
3
12
38
%
21%
8%
32%
8%
32%
When asked which elements of scrutiny systems of EU affairs in each Parliament/Chamber
were most effective, the scrutiny or control of their own governments was the element most
often highlighted by Parliaments/Chambers (19 of 37). The Cyprus
Vouli ton Antiprosopon
and the Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon
stated that the subsidiarity check was most effective because
it was the only legally binding power available to their Parliaments for the scrutiny of EU
affairs.
A number of Parliaments/Chambers highlighted the form of their scrutiny system as a
strength in particular, the Polish
Sejm
emphasised the effectiveness of having one European
Affairs Committee dealing with EU affairs, likewise the Hungarian
Országgyűlés
praised the
existence of a centralised Committee on European Affairs to deal with scrutiny tasks,
whereas the Italian
Senato della Repubblica
enjoyed the benefits of each relevant sectoral
committee working on EU affairs,as did the Luxembourg
Chambre des Députés,
and the Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas
highlighted the "mainstreaming model" as it allowed the sectoral
committees to "apply their expertise to related EU matters, and ensures that the vast
majority of parliamentarians are involved in EU scrutiny work". The Czech
Senát
highlighted
as effective the system it had employed of having a "division of labour" within the European
Affairs Committee, i.e. Members have certain policy areas to cover and tried to enhance
involvement of sectoral committees. The Romanian
Senatul
also saw virtue in involving both
the European Affairs Committee and the sectoral committees in the subsidiarity check in
particular.
Other strengths that were highlighted by individual Parliaments/Chambers included:
access to information and regular notifications about the course of deliberations
(German
Bundestag);
access to documents and the process for the selection of documents for scrutiny
(Czech
Senát);
conducting detailed scrutiny of "important" proposals (UK
House of Lords);
early involvement in the legislative process (Dutch
Tweede Kamer);
and
report by the Prime Minister to Parliament after European Council meetings (Maltese
Kamra tad-Deputati).
In a similar vein, Parliaments/Chambers were asked if they could recommend to others the
use of certain elements of their own procedures. Mirroring answers to the above question,
many held the view that ensuring the government position was properly scrutinised was the
most important element of scrutiny. For example, this led the Lithuanian
Seimas
to
recommend its mixed model of scrutiny and the Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas
to
recommend that everyone should adopt a form of mainstreaming. The Dutch
Tweede Kamer
22
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
emphasised that it proactively set EU priorities using the legislative programme of the
European Commission. The European Parliament commented that would recommend
regularly holding debates in advance of the European Council and having reports from the
President of the European Council after meetings.
2.9. Gaps in parliamentary scrutiny
Parliaments/Chambers were not only asked to identify the strengths of current systems but
also to point out the gaps or weaknesses that currently existed and/or changes that were
needed to bring about improvements in parliamentary scrutiny. Parliaments/Chambers
answered on three levels: national level, EU level and in relation to interparliamentary
cooperation.
National level
A number of Parliaments/Chambers commented that at national level, there was currently
no procedure to ensure parliamentary control of the European Semester. The Dutch
Tweede
Kamer
called for greater transparency in national spending of the EU budget by national
Parliaments. The Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas
was very open and listed the gaps in its
system as "the lack of a scrutiny reserve (or mandate) system; the need for greater input into
the pre-legislative phase; the need for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the transposition
and implementation of EU legislation; and the limited resources available for EU scrutiny
work". The Polish
Senat
stated that it had experienced problems due to the timeframe of
receiving information from the government. The European Parliament commented that at
national level, the direct scope of national Parliaments "is relatively limited, especially when
compared to the new powers given to the European Parliament [under the Lisbon Treaty]."
EU level
At EU level, arrangements related to Protocol 2 were often mentioned. The Czech
Senát
appealed for an extension of the subsidiarity check period to 12 weeks as the "eight week
period for submitting reasoned opinions is not sufficient" and the Swedish Parliament said it
was a relatively short timeframe and questioned the high thresholds for yellow and orange
cards. The Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon
said that the workload was excessive for smaller
Parliaments taking into consideration the eight week time limit. The Spanish
Cortes
Generales,
the Polish
Sejm and Senat
also complained about the quality and timeliness of the
European Commission responses.
The Portuguese
Assembleia da República
was concerned that it had "not been possible to
demonstrate/identify the impact of opinions and participation of national Parliaments in the
European legislative procedure, particularly given the content and slowness of replies that
have been given by the European Commission", sentiments echoed by the Czech
Senát
which
was at the same time critical of the quality of European Commission responses to national
Parliament opinions. However, it acknowledged that "the quality and understandability of
reasoning in the NP's opinions is a necessary prerequisite" to good quality replies. The
Swedish
Riksdag
said that it was not clear "the extent to which the Swedish Parliament's
objections to the application of the principle of subsidiarity are taken into account in
legislation that is adopted". The European Parliament answered that at the EU level a gap
exists because the "EP does not have the power to provide democratic legitimacy to the
decisions of the European Council".
23
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0028.png
Interparliamentary cooperation
On the level of interparliamentary cooperation, the Lithuanian
Seimas
identified the absence
of leadership as a significant weakness, where the Dutch
Tweede Kamer
wanted to see
greater coalition building in regard to yellow card procedure amongst national Parliaments
and the Bulgarian
Narodno sabranie
commented that interparliamentary meetings did not
take decisions "which had significant influence on the legislative process". The Romanian
Camera Deputaţilor
said that a real "subsidiarity culture" has not been achieved as
differences in approach, interpretation and application remained. More specifically in
relation to COSAC, the Italian
Senato della Repubblica
wanted to see the forum debate more
individual proposals with the presence of the Commissioner and the Council Presidency. It
also called for no duplication in the agendas of COSAC, sectoral meetings and Joint
Parliamentary Meetings and Joint Committee Meetings. The Czech
Senát
said that COSAC
should put more focus on subsidiarity as this would enhance effectiveness of scrutiny in this
area at the interparliamentary level.
2.10. Future evolution of parliamentary democracy in the EU
Many Parliaments/Chambers (17 of 36) had not formally addressed the issue of how they
saw the evolution of parliamentary scrutiny in the future.
A few Parliaments/Chambers answered that they were considering or had recently made
changes to their internal rules in order to evolve. This included the German
Bundestag
that
had made changes in July 2013 in light of developments regarding the stability mechanism,
the Slovenian
Državni zbor
that wished to introduce changes to be able to better scrutinise
key documents related to the European Semester and the Italian
Camera dei Deputati.
The
Croatian
Hrvatski sabor
stated that it planned to oblige sectoral committees to participate in
European affairs in the future.
The Finnish
Eduskunta
wanted to see national Parliaments "guaranteed a code of conduct
obliging each Member State to give an assurance that its national Parliament had been
involved, in accordance with national constitutional requirements, in forming the positions
that the member state represents in Council".
9
A number of Parliaments/Chambers concentrated on strengthening the existing mechanisms
and interparliamentary cooperation. For example, the Polish
Sejm
hoped to that the political
dialogue would be intensified and should be developed to go "beyond the formal framework
of the Lisbon Treaty". The Irish
Houses of the Oireachtas
had not debated or formally taken a
position on this issue, but said that it hoped to see "the further development of the political
dialogue, the economic dialogue, and the role of Parliaments in the European Semester". The
Italian
Senato della Repubblica
emphasised that COSAC should ensure coordination with
regard to "institutional themes and in relations with the European Parliament". Whereas the
Portuguese
Assembleia da República
stated that the "European Council deserved systematic
scrutiny" and said that it would be important to increase scrutiny of Green papers. The
Belgian
Sénat
said that there should be more structured and direct parliamentary control and
suggested COSAC could play a key role in this regard.
9
Statement of the Grand Committee of the Finnish Eduskunta 4/2012
24
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The European Parliament commented that "closer European integration should provide for
greater parliamentary involvement at both national and at Union level" and that democratic
accountability "must be ensured at the level where decisions are taken.
When asked how the role of Parliaments/Chambers could be strengthened in advance of the
revision of existing treaties only a small number of Parliaments/Chambers substantively
replied (12). The Italian
Camera dei Deputati
repeated the comment that had already been
made by many that the Commission should reply to reasoned opinions in a more timely and
focused manner. They also called on the European Parliament to take account of national
Parliament positions in its committee reports and plenary resolutions. The European
Parliament commented that strengthening could take place through the "harmonisation of
the steering and control mechanisms of national governments in the field of European
Affairs".
Many Parliaments/Chambers (23 of 35) were also unable to answer the question about what
the next European treaty revision should include to strengthen the role of national
Parliaments. Those few that did answer suggested the following ideas:
the political dialogue should be institutionalised to enable national Parliaments to
constructively intervene in the European legislative procedure "namely through the
presentation of proposals that may improve certain aspects of European initiatives"
(Portuguese
Assembleia da República);
national Parliaments' role in shaping and controlling EU decisions in matters that
relate to interparliamentary cooperation should be recognised. An enhanced role
should also be given in matters not of exclusive competence of the EU (Italian
Senato
della Repubblica
and Romanian
Camera Deputaţilor);
the European Commission should reply to reasoned opinions within a specific time
limit and the threshold to trigger a subsidiarity check should be lowered (Cyprus
Vouli
ton Antiprosopon);
the role of national Parliaments as regards CFSP and CSDP should be strengthened
(Romanian
Senatul);
the role of national Parliaments in relation to Economic Governance should be
enhanced (Cyprus
Vouli ton Antiprosopon);
national governments should be urged to include the opinion of
Parliaments/Chambers in the country's mandate for the Council, in Member State
legislative initiatives and in requests to start or end participation in enhanced
cooperation (Romanian
Camera Deputaţilor);
and
national Parliaments should be given the right to comment on the substance of
legislative initiatives in the EU (Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon).
The European Parliament commented that "future reform of the Treaties should enhance the
democratic assets that national Parliaments have" for by example institutionalising the
obligation for Member States to establish the scrutiny by national Parliaments on their
executives.
25
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0030.png
CHAPTER 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EUROPE 2020 STRATEGY
In the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy the EU Member States committed themselves
to aim to provide employment for 75% of the population aged 20-64, to ensure that the
share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of the 30-34 year olds
should have a tertiary degree, and to reduce the number of people in or at risk of poverty or
social exclusion by at least 20 million by 2020.
Chapter three examines parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of the Europe 2020
Strategy targets as well as the state of play of ongoing reforms and examine best practices
and procedures. Parliaments have been invited to share their views on whether the political
commitment to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy was properly reflected in
European and national policies and budgets. The chapter also takes a closer look at how
national Parliaments and the European Parliament can further develop their cooperation in
order to contribute to achieving the set targets. This chapter examines the extent of
parliamentary debate on the impact, especially social impact, of the austerity measures on
the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy targets at both the EU and the national
levels.
3.1. Scrutiny of Europe 2020 Strategy goals
More than two-thirds of the responding Parliaments/Chambers have debated all or most of
the referred goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Providing employment for 75% of the
population aged 20-64 and reducing the number of people in or at risk of poverty or social
exclusion were scrutinised by the vast majority - 85% and 82% respectively (29 and 28 out of
34) of the Parliaments/Chambers. A slightly lower percentage of 76% (25 out of 33) had
scrutinised the target of ensuring that the share of early school leavers should be under 10%
and ensuring that at least 40% of the 30-34 year olds should have a tertiary degree. Twelve
Parliaments/Chambers had debated other goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy.
The scrutiny procedure took place predominantly in meetings of the European Affairs
Committee and/or other competent committees. In some cases members of the government
took part in the debate or written correspondence with competent ministers was taken into
consideration and often in the context of National Reform Programme and Stabilisation
Programme (11). In fewer cases the debate took place during plenary hearings (five).
Some examples include:
The UK
House of Lords
planned to launch an inquiry on two of the 2020 Europe
Strategy goals, whereas the Croatian
Hrvatski sabor
and the Lithuanian
Seimas
had
involved academics and social partners in the discussions.
The Spanish
Cortes Generales
adopted a non-legislative motion related to providing
employment and the Italian
Camera dei Deputati
adopted a resolution on the
Economy and Finance Documents, which included targets and related measures to
achieve employment goals set out by the Europe 2020 strategy.
The Portuguese
Assembleia da Republica
addressed the goals of ensuring that the
share of early school leavers should be under 10% and ensuring that at least 40% of
26
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1300693_0031.png
the 30-34 year olds should have a tertiary degree in the context of debates on the
indicators referred to in PISA reports.
The European Parliament had discussed the issues with the participation of the
competent Commissioner. As far as the goal of providing employment was concerned,
the European Parliament's resolution of 14 June 2012 on “Towards a job-rich
recovery" highlighted the 17.6 million new jobs that had to be created in order to
meet the employment target set out in the EU 2020 Strategy. It also called for the
necessary investment in job and growth potentials in the green economy, the health
and social services sector and ICT, including investment in skills, training and higher
wages. It also welcomed the launch of the public consultation on employment in the
health and social care sectors. The European Parliament debate on the Fund for
European Aid to the most Deprived (FEAD) was directly linked to the EU2020 target to
reduce the number of people in or at-risk-of poverty or social exclusion by 20 million
before 2020.
The Luxembourg
Chambre des Députés
answered that a draft of the National Reform
Programme (NRP) was the subject of a public debate in the Chamber of Deputies
before it was presented and reviewed by a parliamentary committee.
The first draft NRP has been submitted for review to all parliamentary committees
that examined the objectives for this project. The related contributions were
submitted to the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade Department which has been
playing a coordinating role on an executive level. Before the public debate the final
version of the NRP was presented at a joint meeting involving the commission of
Economy, External Trade and Economy Solidarity, Finance and Budget Control.
Eight of the responding Parliaments/Chambers answered that equal attention was given to
all goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy, but most of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (18
out of 32) answered negatively. In most cases this was because certain goals such as the
issue of youth unemployment, predominated.
10
The implementation of the ongoing reforms or actions was often scrutinised through the
usual parliamentary procedures, in most cases during committee meetings in the presence of
competent government members and less often in plenary. Several Parliaments/Chambers
mentioned annual scrutiny of the NRP (11) as well as consideration of relevant bills. The
Swedish
Riksdag
monitored the effectiveness of agencies that had undertaken the
implementation of relevant programmes, whereas the UK
House of Lords
EU Committee used
“enhanced scrutiny” on the Governments’ actions, which included seminars with
stakeholders, written correspondence with competent ministers or launching of inquiries.
Hearings on the implementation of the ongoing reforms or actions with the participation of
social partners and external expertise were organised also by the German
Bundestag,
the
Portuguese
Assembleia da Republica
and the Austrian
Nationalrat and Bundesrat.
The
Slovenian
Državni zbor,
and the Polish
Sejm
addressed the question when on the agenda of
an upcoming Council whereas the Belgian
Chambre de représentants
met before or/and after
a European Council meeting in the context of the Federal Advisory Committee for European
Affairs. The European Parliament assessed the Commission's overview on the ongoing
10
See answers to question 41 available in the Annex to the Bi-annual Report
27
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
reforms and called for a greater role in the European Semester process to ensure legitimacy
and democratic accountability.
3.2. Cooperation on Europe 2020 Strategy goals
When asked about the tools that Parliaments/Chambers could use to cooperate in order to
achieve the goals set by the Europe 2020 Strategy, close to a third (10 out of 32 respondents)
answered that the issue had not been discussed. Particular reference to tools on a national
level was made by 11 Parliaments/Chambers, mostly mentioning scrutiny over government
work. On an EU level, most of the Parliaments/Chambers referred to the exchange of
information and best practices through existing mechanisms of interparliamentary
cooperation such as the COSAC, meetings of relevant committee Chairpersons and other
interparliamentary meetings. Special reference was made to the parliamentary week on the
European Semester by several Parliaments/Chambers (seven). The UK
House of the Lords
proposed ad hoc video conferences between relevant committees as a fruitful tool of
interparliamentary cooperation.
3.3. Political commitment to achieving goals
Only nine of the 18 responding Parliaments/Chambers said they believed that the political
commitment to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy was properly reflected in
the policy and budget formation at both the European Union and national level. Nine
answered negatively, whereas the Luxembourg
Chambre des Députés
noted that on a
national level no critiques on this issue were raised. On the issue of how this political
commitment was properly reflected in the policy and budget formation at both the European
Union and national level, nine out of the 22 responding Parliaments/Chambers answered
that the issue hadn't been discussed. The Polish
Sejm,
the Austrian
Nationalrat and
Bundesrat
and the Czech
Senat
responded that national objectives were specified in the
National Reform Programme. On a European level, the German
Bundestag
and the Hungarian
Országgyűlés
referred to provisions included in the Multiannual Financial Framework as an
opportunity to align with the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The UK
House of Lords
identified achieving the Europe 2020 Strategy as an objective of the MFF but also balancing,
at the same time, the need to fund other EU priorities such as protecting biodiversity and the
area of freedom, security and justice. The Lithuanian
Seimas,
said that there is a potential to
strengthen the commitment in the future in parallel with the recovery of the European
economy, providing more possibilities to effective implementation of these goals. The Polish
Senat,
the Italian
Camera dei Deputati
and the Czech
Senat
answered that new challenges
that had arisen led to considerable budgetary and funding constraints. The Latvian
Saeima
noted that regardless of the commitment, there were objective reasons why some countries
would not be able to achieve some quantitative goals, such as birth rate, the age structure of
society, immigration and emigration.
In terms of the deficiencies that Parliaments/Chambers saw in reflecting the political
commitment to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy in the policy and budget
formation, more than half (eight out of 14) of the responding Parliaments/Chambers
answered that the financial perspectives for the 2014-2020 MFF did not correspond to the
needs for the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Thus the budget cuts on a
European and national level would have a negative impact on its ambitious goals. Five out of
28
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
14 of the responding Parliaments/Chambers did not have an official position on the referred
issue.
3.4. Impact of austerity measures on targets
63% of the responding Parliaments/Chambers (19 out of 30) had debated the impact of the
austerity measures on the targets set in the Europe 2020 Strategy, whereas 73% (22 out of
30) had debated the social impact of the austerity measures taken at both the EU and the
national levels. The UK
House of Lords
had held a seminar on the impact of austerity in the
EU and the Italian
Camera dei Deputati
had stressed in several resolution/documents the
negative impact of the austerity measures on the implementation of the Europe 2020
Strategy. Similar comments were made by the Belgian
Chambre de représentants and the
Italian
Senato della Repubblica.
The Committee on Budgets of the European Parliament
regularly discussed the issue, primarily with regard to the ability of Member States to co-
finance EU projects, in particular within cohesion policy and called on the Commission to
work with the Member States to ensure that austerity programmes did not hinder
employment creation measures and growth-promoting policies, and did not compromise
social protection.
3.5. Youth unemployment
72% of responding Parliaments/Chambers (23 out of 32) answered that they intended to
discuss the Communication from the Commission on "Working together for Europe's young
people – A call to action on youth unemployment" dated 19 June 2013. Some
Parliaments/Chambers further commented on issues related to the Europe 2020 Strategy.
The Croatian
Hrvatski sabor
organised in cooperation with EUFORES, a workshop regarding
the Energy 2020 strategy, as a part of the Europe 2020 strategy. The Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon
did not scrutinise the Europe 2020 targets as such, but in the context of a successful
implementation of the austerity measures, during ordinary parliamentary control or
legislative work steps had been taken to address the major challenge of unemployment
(youth unemployment reached historic levels). Thus, the social impact of the austerity
measures taken at both the EU and the national levels had been on regular basis a subject of
discussion in the committees and the plenary of the Greek
Vouli ton Ellinon.
29