BEYOND THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS NEW CASTING

Following the European elections in May 2014, the EU institutions will have to rise to the dual challenge of delivering better results in a more democratic way and reconciling increased differentiation with the need for a closer Union. For several months now, the CEPS High-Level Group (HLG) on EU Institutional reform has been engaged in an intensive examination of the main inter- and intra- institutional weaknesses in the three phases of EU decision-making (namely, initiation, adoption and implementation), with a view to identifying institutional changes that – without necessitating treaty reform – would contribute to these goals. The group puts forward, among others, recommendations on how to organise the next commission and the new European Parliament, improving the impact assessments and the ordinary legislative procedure and enhancing the parliamentary dimension of EU decision-making.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HIGH-LEVEL GROUP AT A GLANCE

Recommendations on the initiation phase

1. Promote strategic planning

It is important that the adoption of new legislation responds to clear strategic objectives established in advance. At the beginning of each legislative cycle, the Commission should develop a strategic legislative plan for the five years to come, subject to the scrutiny of the EP and the Council. This would contribute to improving the efficiency, political accountability and transparency of the EU legislative process. The EP could as well take a more active role in setting priorities by means of a better use of legislative own-initiative reports and a longer-term approach regarding the legislative agenda. The annual structured dialogue with the Commission should be focused on the rolling five-year plan and look ahead to pre-legislative reviews. The Commission’s reviews of legislation should be carried out in groups of related legislation or make explicit reference to any particular interaction with existing legislation that should be taken into account.

2. Re-structure the College of Commissioners

The reduction of the number of Commissioners is politically unrealistic for the time being, especially in the terms of the current treaties. Clustering the Commissioners with related portfolios is therefore the best option to enhance collegial decision-making and improve the independence, efficiency and transparency of the Commission. Around eight clusters (e.g. external action, competitiveness, finances and economy) could be created bringing together three or four portfolios each under the leadership of a Vice-President. Clusters of Commissioners would present their common position for the College to decide. Temporary task forces reporting to the clusters could be created to deal with specific issues, such as youth unemployment or better regulation. The re-organisation of the Commission’s portfolios should respond to the strategic plan presented by the candidate for Commission President to the EP.

Internal rules should be changed to give the President more flexibility to deploy resources so as to meet the needs of priority projects.

Commissioners should be given a stronger say on their budget and personnel, as well as on the selection of the Directors General. The size of the Commissioners’ cabinets should nevertheless be reduced. The independence of the College should be further strengthened by discouraging the partisan activities of its members.

3. Reduce the number of DGs

The reorganisation of the College of Commissioners around clustered portfolios would allow for the reduction of the Directorates General. Reducing the number of DGs and re-examining the role of the Secretariat General, which at present stands out as the extended arm of the President, is essential to improve coordination within the Commission and contribute to moving from a silo to a more holistic approach in policy-making. It would also make it more difficult for vested interests to capture a specific policy. The selection of the Directors General should focus more on their managerial skills.

4. Improve the impact assessment process

The Commission’s services should be endowed with the necessary resources to carry out sound IAs and deal with substantial changes proposed by the IAB. Impact assessments should make better use of the consultation process, take better account of the challenges and costs in the implementation phase and include the evaluation of the interactions between new proposals and existing legislation, identifying possible overlaps, contradictions and negative effects. The Commission should provide an overview of all legislative initiatives (including the review of existing legislation) for which it intends to undertake an IA. A reasoned justification should be provided when an IA is not performed. For all major projects a Strategic Policy Assessment, setting out the policy options under consideration and the quantified outcomes that will be evaluated in making a final decision, should be published before the final policy choices are made. Detailed IA reports should be published earlier and the IAB comments should be included with the Executive Summary. If the IAB opinion does not provide a clear endorsement, the Commissioner responsible should provide a statement setting out the reasons for proceeding with the proposal. The composition and the rules of procedure of the IAB should be modified to fully guarantee its independence.

Substantial amendments to a legislative proposal should be accompanied by a supplementary IA so as to improve the balance between the IAs and the final legislative acts.

The Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value in the EP should be reinforced. Guidelines could be published to promote and harmonise the use of IAs across committees. The lead committee could send a warning letter to the relevant Commission unit when dealing with poor IAs or legislative proposals. The shadow of a ‘non-vote’ could be used in extreme cases. As for the Council, it could be made compulsory that its legal service provides an appraisal of the Commission’s IA – together with the legal advice that it has to prepare for the working group when discussing a legislative proposal for the first time. Member state governments should be encouraged to carry out their own impact assessments and share information among themselves.

5. Enhance the engagement of the national parliaments

In the EU, democratic legitimisation takes place at both the European and national level. It is therefore imperative to ensure the adequate engagement of the national parliaments. A common interpretation of the subsidiarity principle should be promoted. The principle of subsidiarity should focus more strongly on the real added value that the EU can provide on addressing a particular problem. The Early Warning Mechanism (EWM) should be enhanced in such a way that it becomes an effective tool for the national parliaments to control the subsidiarity principle and an incentive for their earlier engagement in EU policy-making. The participation in the EWM and the draft of the reasoned opinions across national parliaments should respond to a more homogeneous approach. The Commission should provide a better follow up of how their views are taken into account.

A strategic approach to legislative planning and legislative reviews would facilitate the involvement of national parliaments and allow them to focus on (and not neglect) their priority files. Hearings of Commissioners in plenary or committee sessions in national parliaments could contribute to a better understanding of MPs about the Commission’s annual work programme and the legislative road maps. All this would promote the parliamentary scrutiny of the national governments in relation to the most relevant proposals and, as part of a more genuine political dialogue with the Commission, would change the negative connotation that their current participation has in the EU decision-making process.

Recommendations on the negotiation and adoption phase

1. Promote the integrity of the Union and the Community method

Further integration through international treaties concluded outside the EU’s legal framework should be limited to exceptional cases, giving priority to the OLP and ECP whenever this is legally possible. Where inevitable, the inter-governmental agreements should be open to all EU members, involve the EP and set a clear target to be incorporated into EU law. All means of differentiated integration should preserve the rights and interests of those member states that might join in the future.

2. Upgrade the organisational structures of the EP

The EP’s committees should be aligned with the new clusters in the Commission. In-house expertise should be enhanced and balanced across committees. The Conference of Committee Chairs should be given delegated powers to identify the lead committee with exclusive competences. Parliament needs to cut back its overly bureaucratic rules for inter-committee cooperation and encourage more informal joint working methods and hearings. Lobbying rules in the EP should be strengthened. Public consultations on specific parts of the legislative dossiers would enable input from a wider range of stakeholders.

3. Improve the role of the Council in the legislative process

The Council should improve coordination with the EP and devote more attention to the clarity of the legislative acts. At later trilogue stages, the Presidency should have a clearer mandate from the Council. The participation of the chair of the Council’s working parties in the trilogue negotiations should not preclude the adequate involvement of the Permanent Representatives so as to ensure appropriate political accountability. The General Affairs Council should regain the ground lost to the Presidency of the European Council and its meetings with the sherpas of the heads of government by setting a compelling strategic agenda to draw in representatives at Ministerial level. GAC meetings could be chaired by the Prime Minister of the country holding the rotating Presidency. Assistance and cooperation between all the members of the trio Presidency should be strengthened on the basis of the common programme for the 18 months, which should take good account of the strategic legislative planning.

4. Enhance the democratic accountability of the European Council

The President of the European Council should address the plenary of the EP before and after European Council and Euro summits. In the framework of the so-called ‘economic dialogues’, the possibility to invite the President of the European Council to report and explain its decisions on reinforced budgetary surveillance, the coordination of economic policies, the excessive deficit procedures and macroeconomic imbalances should be promoted.

5. Reinforce inter-parliamentary cooperation between the EP and the national parliaments

Double legitimisation in the EU requires strengthening cooperation between the EP and the national parliaments. The EP can benefit from the MPs’ views and expertise, whereas MPs can improve their say in EU decision-making and their knowledge and interest in EU affairs, which would benefit their scrutiny of national governments and the implementation of EU legislation. The Inter-parliamentary Committee meetings, organised by a committee of the EP to discuss specific legislative proposals with the members of the respective standing committees at national level, should be promoted. Financial support should be provided at committee and rapporteur level on specific dossiers. The meetings should bring together the most appropriate representatives at the right time, avoiding large events that make dialogue and debate more difficult.

They could be conducted by video conference using EP interpretation facilities. The EP and the national parliaments could conclude an agreement setting the basic features of the inter-parliamentary cooperation, the rules and reciprocal commitments, as well as specific arrangements to promote the relations. Cooperation in the framework of inter-parliamentary conferences should also be upgraded and measures should be taken so as to improve their visibility, influence and attractiveness. In particular, the Commission and the Presidency should participate at the highest level possible in the recently created Inter-parliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance of the European Union envisaged in the Article 13 of the TSCG, and national parliaments should ensure the high profile of their delegations.

Recommendations on the implementation phase

1. Improve the implementation of EU law

The EP standing committees should follow up how the relevant DGs in the Commission monitors the transposition and enforcement of EU legislation in member states. This would bring additional pressure, both on the Commission to continue improving the oversight of the application of EU law and on the member states to improve transposition and ensure enforcement. A fast-track infringement procedure could be created and more information should be provided by the Commission on the quality of the transposition.

By means of an inter-institutional agreement, the Council, the EP and the Commission should agree on a clearer dividing line between implementing and delegated acts. Members of the competent committees in the EP should more often attend the expert groups consulted by the Commission in the preparation of the delegated acts.

2. Reinforce the role of the EP in the European Semester

The role of the EP in the European Semester should be enhanced through the formal arrangement of specific economic dialogues with the Commission and the Council. In particular, the Commission should appear before the relevant committee of the EP to present the Annual Growth Survey and the Alert Mechanism before a new European Semester starts, and again in May to explain the draft country-specific recommendations.

By means of an inter-institutional agreement, the Commission could commit itself to take in the views of the EP in its proposals for recommendations and decisions to the Council. The President of the Council should appear before the EP in early July to discuss the variations between the final recommendations endorsed by the European Council and adopted by the Council and those originally proposed by the Commission. In autumn, the Commission could participate in an exchange of views on the implementation of the country-specific recommendations by member states. All this would feed into the EP resolution on the European Semester cycle in October. Both the Commission and the President of the Eurogroup should appear before the competent committee of the EP to discuss the opinions on the national draft budgetary plans.

3. Engage the national parliaments in the scrutiny of the European Semester

The participation of MPs in the inter-parliamentary European week in January/February (or in the Inter-parliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance of the European Union) should enable them to debate the key findings and conclusions from the Annual Growth Survey, the Alert Mechanism and other related issues. The member governments should then be responsible for informing their respective parliaments on the draft national programmes to be submitted to the Commission. Once the Commission has examined these drafts and issued the country-specific recommendations, these could be communicated to the national parliament concerned in the framework of the political dialogue, so that national parliaments can question their respective governments before (and after) the adoption of the recommendations in the Council.

The possibility provided in Regulation 473/2013 to request the Commission to appear before a national parliament to present its opinion on the national draft budgetary plans submitted in October should be institutionalised. Then, the national minister could give account of the subsequent discussions in the Eurogroup. The Commission and the ECB should commit to participate in an economic dialogue with the parliament of a member state under enhanced surveillance upon its request.

4. Underpin the legitimacy of the individual arrangements of a contractual nature

If the European Council finally decides that the individual member states should conclude arrangements of a contractual nature in the context of the European Semester, the EP should be entitled to authorise the appropriations for the funds to compensate them for specific costly reforms. The agreements should be put to the vote of the respective national parliaments.

5. Ensure the adequate involvement of the EP in the Banking Union

The EP should make the best use of the scrutiny mechanisms established in the inter-institutional agreement with the ECB to ensure the accountability of its new supervisory powers. The new role of the ECB makes necessary a stronger oversight by the EP. In the framework of the ‘economic dialogues’, the President of the Eurogroup should report to the EP on the ESM, where appropriate. The resort to inter-governmental treaties outside the EU legal framework for issues that could be regulated following the Community method, such as the SRM, should be avoided. The decision-making of the resolution board should be simplified and the political accountability ensured. The interests of the pre-ins and opt-outs should be properly taken into account.