I am going to go down through the items as listed in the draft contribution. Item No. 1 reads: new members: COSAC welcomes each of the ten new member states of the European Union. Is there any problem with this? The Netherlands has a difficulty.
Draft Constitution Contributions.
Mr. René van der Linden
I would like the following to be added: "This is a challenge for the European Union as a whole". Too many of the old member states see it as a potential problem. We have to see it as a challenge, or an opportunity.
They are just words of welcome. We may leave it as it is. Are there any strong feelings about this? People are nodding in agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 2 reads: Intergovernmental Conference: COSAC takes note of the information from the President in office on progress in negotiating a new constitutional treaty for the European Union. It calls on all parties concerned to conclude the Intergovernmental Conference by the next European Council in June. Are there any comments? Yes, from Finland.
Mr. Kimmo Kiljunen
I do not particularly like the euphemism used, "constitutional treaty". I would prefer the term used by the Convention, "treaty establishing a Constitution". I propose that we change the first sentence to read: "COSAC takes note of the information from the President in office on progress in negotiating a treaty on a constitution for the European Union". That is the correct formula to which we are accustomed instead of this euphemism. Is anyone opposed to this? Is it agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Christian Philip
As I said this morning, I am sure we can all agree on the wish to agree to the adoption of the constitution. However, we have to know the constitution at which we will finally be looking. It seems we should go beyond what is proposed. I would like to add something along the lines of the following: "The agreement shall not revisit the main principles and balance emerging from the Convention".
What is the German view?
Mr. Kurt Bodewig
I explicitly support and endorse that view. It seems the Convention achieved a result which probably would not have come about through the Council of Ministers. I do not believe it would have ever achieved it. That is why we should refer to the excellent work done by the members of the Convention. I fully endorse the proposal made by the representative from France.
Just before I call the representative from Italy, could that be given in writing, please?
Mr. Giacomo Stucchi
We should also emphasise the question of quality, in other words, the content of the draft treaty. I do not think we can accept just any content. We accepted and supported a set of articles which we believed were appropriate. We should reiterate today that this is the avenue we wish to pursue and that the work of the Convention cannot be overturned. On the contrary, it should be confirmed in the form of the treaty.
I call Mr. Jensen from Denmark.
Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen
We should keep the text as it stands because if we start interpretation, it will be a question of what we had actually put. The Convention may have done a good piece of work which forms a core. It is not as if all national parliaments carry a mandate from home. Therefore, the Intergovernmental Conference will be the second part of the democratic process where the national parliaments will participate. Therefore, I cannot support this additional proposal.
What is the view of the representative from Poland?
Mr. Jerzy Czepulkowski
I support the opinion expressed that it would be better to leave the text as it stands because the discussion of the interpretation of what were the main achievements or the balances struck in the text as drafted by the Convention could take two days here. The change of name is acceptable but I say no to the other additions.
Mr. Tommy Waidelich
I, too, wish to emphasise what the two previous speakers said. It would be erroneous to start making lots of additions to this text. Instead, let us keep the proposal as it is. The most important point is that we want the Council of Ministers to come to a conclusion and finalise business. If we start adding left, right and centre, we run the risk of opening a Pandora's box.
Mr. René van der Linden
The best solution is that we refer to the resolution adopted at the previous COSAC meeting. There is a positive affirmation of the outcome of the Convention. If we make reference in this paragraph to that resolution, I believe of 17 October 2003, it would be a good compromise.
Mr. Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Lithuania supports the proposals made by France and Germany. The text prepared by the Convention bears the signatures of the representatives of national parliaments as well as representatives of government and the European Commission. We have discussed this many times at the national parliament. Otherwise I propose to make a reference to the previous resolution of COSAC because one way or another we have to say we need a strong constitution.
The European Parliament would like to agree with the Dutch that we should make some reference to the work of the Convention. One of the simplest formulations might be to add the words, "on the basis of the text adopted by the Convention", to the end of the paragraph, the formula with which we have always gone along. The Dutch have mentioned that this is what we said last October. It does not make any qualitative or quantitative assessment of what should be taken from the Convention, it simply states that should be the basis for the agreement.
Mr. Guntars Krasts
In our previous proposals COSAC expressed support for the document produced by the Convention. Given that the Intergovernmental Conference has worked for quite a long time, we have created essential compromises in many areas. Mentioning the Convention product would interfere with reaching a successful result in June. Therefore, I support the proposals of my colleagues from Denmark and approve the text in the form it is in today.
We have three proposals: first, the proposal in writing from the Presidency; second, the suggestion from the French that we should add the words, "This agreement should not call into question the principles and balance of the text of the Convention"; and, third, the wording from Mr. David Martin that we should add the words, "on the basis of the text adopted by the Convention". If one uses the wording, "on the basis of the text adopted...", it does not mean exactly what is stated in the text, it only confirms that matters are being discussed on the basis of the text. It would be a good halfway house. There seems to be agreement on the amendment proposed by Mr. Martin. Is it agreed that we add those words? Agreed.
On the counter-terrorism co-ordinator: COSAC welcomes the appointment of a counter-terrorism co-ordinator to co-ordinate the work of the Council in combating terrorism and to maintain an overview of the instruments at the European Union's disposal. It notes the progress reported by the co-ordinator and welcomes being kept informed of future developments.
Mr. Denis Badré
With a view to efficacy and precision, our objective is that the co-ordinator should come along and report on progress. We suggest the following wordidng: "COSAC takes note of progress and wishes to be kept informed of future developments by the co-ordinator at its upcoming meeting", or at its next meeting, to be quite precise.
Lord Grenfell
I am a little worried. The co-ordinator will be an extremely busy man. I think we ought to leave it open to him to keep us informed by whatever means he believes is most appropriate, whether it be written reports or orally if he is able to come. I would be reluctant to pin him down to frequent appearances before COSAC.
Mr. Kimmo Kiljunen
In paragraph No. 2, it was agreed, as nobody opposed it, to use the correct name.
We accepted that.
Mr. Kimmo Kiljunen
In regard to the last sentence in paragraph 3, I would like the major issue for parliamentarians to be put very clearly. It would read as follows: "It notes the progress reported by the co-ordinator and welcomes being kept informed of future developments in order to improve parliamentary co-operation and scrutiny of the decisions which often affect the citizen's rights".
Is that agreed?
Mr. Sotirios Hatzigakis
We agree with the content of the amendment and believe it would serve a good purpose but would like to add to it because we believe it is impossible to fight terrorism using the means mentioned only. We also need preventive measures and ought to add words to that effect as we know what the causes of terrorism are — poverty, unemployment and so on. I will read out our proposal: "COSAC calls for better co-ordination of EU measures consisting of preventive measures aimed at the elimination of poverty and unemployment and social injustice."
Mr. Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
I support the French proposal as far as paragraph 3 is concerned but perhaps we should say we should receive this information in writing. On the other hand, maybe we could also mention that we should exchange information on what is happening in national parliaments
Mrs. Sharon Dijksma
I propose that we leave it as it is. First, it is not up to COSAC to dictate the agenda of the new co-ordinator and, second, it needs more discussion on the content of the work of the co-ordinator in order to draw conclusions. I think the proposals from the Finns and the Greeks come too early.
Mr. Carl B. Hamilton
I support the United Kingdom's suggestion that the co-ordinator should not necessarily have to come to COSAC meetings to inform but to inform in a suitable way.
We have a number of proposals and I suggest that we deal with them in the following way. The last sentence reads: "It notes the progress reported by the co-ordinator and...", to which we should add the words, "wishes to be informed of progress by the co-ordinator at future meetings". We are expressing a wish but not committing to the next meeting, nor are we saying it should be in writing or in person. We are just expressing a wish that we wish to be informed at future meetings. That sounds like a reasonable compromise on what we have heard thus far. Are we agreed? Agreed.
Item No. 4 deals with the European Court of Auditors: COSAC calls for closer co-ordination between the parliaments concerning scrutiny of the general budget of the European Union, wishes that the competence committees of the national parliaments and of the European Parliament establish a network in the area of implementation of the EU budget, and proposes to hold an annual meeting within the network in order to discuss the findings of the European Court of Auditors and exchange views on parliamentary scrutiny. COSAC takes note of the report tabled by the Presidency on the role of the European Court of Auditors and complements its authors on this work. The report is a valuable source of information on ideas, the organisation and work of the court and has provided the basis for a stimulating debate on the subject at today's plenary meeting of COSAC. COSAC notes that some of the recommendations in the report fall within the competence of the Intergovernmental Conference. It also notes that this body has recently considered the court in its work on the drafting of a European constitution. COSAC will forward a copy of the report to the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors for their consideration. COSAC notes that some of the recommendations in the report fall within the competence of the Intergovernmental Conference. Is this agreed to? Agreed.
Mrs. Sharon Dijksma
I propose that the first paragraph be skipped and will not repeat my arguments about bureaucracy, travel and so on. I have not seen a new text but maybe others have suggestions. We do not like the text as it stands.
Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen
I agree with my Dutch colleague. What is important is that having created COSAC, we should not have to establish new networks. Therefore, we could underline the fact that COSAC is intensifying its work. That is the same message proposed by our Belgian colleagues. If we need to create a new network every time we have a problem, why does COSAC exist? We must try to focus on what is important for the national parliaments in the co-ordinating body for them, that is, COSAC.
Mr. Kurt Bodewig
It seems there is a little disproportionality between the different parts of the text. We have one sentence welcoming the new members in the Intergovernmental Conference and four paragraphs on this issue which perhaps is not quite as important. That does not seem proportionate to me. I suggest that we just take the first paragraph of item No. 4 which we could perhaps amend and delete the other paragraphs. In the general European context, this is not that important or weighty.
In the first paragraph I would like to make an amendment. Rather than establish a network, we should establish a list of contact persons. In all of our parliaments we have committees for budgetary control, or committees in charge of auditing and so on. These committees have responsible people who could meet once a year at a European level. This would not be problematic or too costly and it would allow us to have a good exchange of information and experience. It would be simple and effective.
I would add to the sentence on interparliamentary scrutiny. I would add the words, "on the EU budget in general". This would make it clear that we were talking about budgetary matters. It is budgetary issues that are subject to scrutiny here. We could focus on this topic by adding those few words. This would be a good approach, would be in line with Irish concerns and would conform with the debate we are having today. I will submit this in writing to the Chairman.
Mr. Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
I support my colleagues when they speak about attempts to establish a new network. The speakers' conference of the Athens group of eight yesterday approved the guidelines for an interparliamentary information exchange, or IPEX. Maybe we could exchange information through IPEX without having to set up a new network, and we would have the same result. In principle, I support the idea that we should have an exchange of opinions through IPEX.
Mr. Giacomo Stucchi
What has been said by colleagues gives us food for thought. We have to find the best possible solution concerning the final content of this segment. It might be timely to reiterate that it is right to have co-operation but talk of a network might be overdoing it. Perhaps we could accept a few concepts but not all. I do not think establishing a network is appropriate at this time.
Mr. Jerzy Czepulkowski
We would like comment on what has been said by our colleagues from the Netherlands and Denmark. The first paragraph should be deleted. As the Belgian delegation mentioned, the network should be under the aegis of COSAC.
We have a proposed wording from our German colleague which states the title should be replaced as follows: "Parliamentary control on EU budget implementation". It also states the first paragraph should be replaced as follows: "COSAC would welcome closer co-ordination between the parliaments concerning scrutiny of the general budget of the European Union, wishes that the competence committees of the national parliaments and of the European Parliament establish a list of contact persons in the area of implementation and control of the EU budget and, in this context, would welcome an annual meeting in order to discuss the findings of the European Court of Auditors and exchange views on parliamentary scrutiny of the EU budget in general."
Mrs. Sharon Dijksma
I do not want to spoil this meeting but my question is: what is the difference between a list of participants and a network? They are more or less the same. What we do not want is all of these new organisations, whether they are called networks, informal networks or whatever. It is a matter of principle. The European Union is concerned about its budget. That is the task of the European Parliament. National parliaments should also do their job and co-operate. I suggest we make a new proposal, that we only take the first sentence of the first paragraph: "COSAC calls for closer co-ordination between the parliaments concerning scrutiny of the general budget of the European Union".
We thank the Presidency for putting this issue on the agenda and being prepared to take our suggestions. We have listened very carefully to the debate and want to make it clear that the European Parliament did not want to create a new bureaucracy or network. We were very happy with the Italian-German proposal but, having listened to our Dutch colleague, I do not have a problem with that suggestion either. The main point is that the EU budget often escapes proper scrutiny and it is the job of both the European Parliament and national parliaments to provide for that scrutiny. In essence, this is taken up in the first sentence. We would be happy to live with that compromise.
Are we happy to conclude at the end of the fifth sentence? Agreed.
We have a power of referral to the other institutions which we have never used but it is time we did. It is very much shrouded in the words: COSAC notes that some of the recommendations in the report would fall within the competence of the Intergovernmental Conference. COSAC will forward a copy of the report to the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors for their consideration. We are not pre-empting what anybody will do but ask them to consider our deliberations in the sense that these are our ideas and that we would like them to consider them. Is that agreed? Agreed.
On item No. 5 — scrutiny of EU business in accordance with the protocol in the Amsterdam treaty on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, I will not read out the five points as members have a copy of the note before them.
Mr. Giacomo Stucchi
On paragraph 2, we have presented an amendment. The idea was to delete the reference to a burdening of the conference of the COSAC secretariat but this would conflict with the decision taken concerning the secretariat in Rome. We believe this would require an amendment of that document. Moreover, another important point that needs to be emphasised is the assessment of the work of the IGC and the proposed monitoring. This has political ramifications which we cannot accept because it is not consistent with the administrative nature of the secretariat.
Does Mr. Stucchi have a written amendment?
Mr. Giacomo Stucchi
Yes, we have submitted two proposals for amendments. I wish to make a second point concerning paragraph 5. We should delete it because it is not appropriate at this stage to launch an initiative concerning the early warning mechanism prior to adopting the constitution.
What is the view of the representative from Finland?
Mr. Kimmo Kiljunen
It is important that we welcome the biannual report on the scrutiny system. It is a very important document and we can praise the secretary. On paragraph 2, I suggest that we add one further point. We are saying the secretariat should evaluate the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference and monitor the procedures followed by the European institutions etc. We need one more point as follows: "evaluate the progress made in improving parliamentary scrutiny under the European legislative process".
On paragraph 5, if it is to be preserved, the Italian proposal will have to be deleted. If we keep it and establish a small working group, we would be assessing the implications for the national parliaments and, particularly, co-operation among them. I would like to add two words: "COSAC proposes that a working group, composed of chairpersons, be established to assess the implications for national parliaments and for their co-operation in implementing the early warning provision". Those are my two proposals.
What is the view of the representative from the Netherlands?
Mr. René van der Linden
I support the proposal of the Italian delegation concerning the deletion of paragraph 2. We do not need to await the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference as it affects the role of national parliaments, about which there is no discussion. It will be taken over as provided for in the draft constitution on the table.
I support the deletion of paragraph 5. The Dutch delegation intends to come up with a document which is being worked on by the Dutch Assembly and the Dutch Parliament in order that we can work on the basis of best practice in the future. We should scrutinise the legislative process in the European Union in the future on the basis of best practice.
What is the view of the representative from Denmark?
Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen
I support my Finnish colleague in seeking a new text and on the remark, through the intervention of Italy and Holland, that it should not be important to look at the subsidiarity principle. I disagree completely because with other national parliaments we are looking at how we can evaluate this principle and create the mechanism. Knowing that in the future we will have to co-ordinate with other national parliaments, it would be crazy not to try to find a mechanism in the next six weeks. The fact that parliaments are dealing with this issue should lead to a common proposal in solving joint problems. It will be necessary to meet before the next COSAC meeting to start on this work in the working group in order that we will be well prepared.
What is the Belgian view?
Mr. Jacques Gerveaux
I am chairman of the Belgian Senate. We wanted to put a text before the committee, which we issued outside the meeting. I do not want to repeat the discussion of this morning but to restrict myself to the proposal, the brief text, that perhaps could be added as an extra point to paragraph 5. The text is before the committee for members to read.
Mr. Kurt Bodewig
The German delegation supports the Italian proposal, in other words, that paragraph 2 be deleted. I do not believe we can make a political evaluation through a technical bureau or office. At most that would be the task of a Troika. We agree to the deletion of paragraph 2. However, we could support paragraph 3.
The German delegation is in favour of the deletion of paragraph 5 for two reasons, the first of which is the fact that the item will still be before us in the future. We also have two chambers of parliament with different compositions in part. I suggest that we delete paragraph 5 but, at the same time, the subject should be a core issue on the next COSAC agenda. With due respect to Denmark, those countries which have to operate on a bicameral basis would have to work into this. We could work on the best pattern of organising work on subsidiarity. We should not include it in our conclusions but put it on the next agenda.
I will allow one minute each for the remaining four speakers. The Presidency will try to come up with a new draft on this point for discussion tomorrow morning.
Mr. René van der Linden
I have the same proposal as my German colleague. We have a two chamber system and are currently making a proposal for our own Parliament. We want to pick up on this proposal as an example during our Presidency and have it as a discussion point at the COSAC meeting in November.
Mr. Nicos Cleanthous
I hope I will not complicate the task even further. I took the floor earlier during the general discussion to discuss paragraph 5 and we said that in paragraph 3, 4 or 5 we could add our proposal concerning documents. We would like these documents to be sent directly to the national parliaments for practical reasons, particularly for the benefit of the new member states. The information takes a long time to reach us because the mechanisms are not yet operating adequately.
Lord Grenfell
We are in favour of the deletion of paragraph 2, largely on the grounds that the secretariat's function is to be descriptive, not necessarily analytical, and certainly not to provide solutions. If it is purely descriptive, it is, therefore, well within the existing terms of reference.
We are also in favour of the deletion of paragraph 5. We believe this is a matter of local subsidiarity, best left to each parliament to decide how it wants to proceed. We cannot co-ordinate but can exchange best practice.
Mr. Tommy Waidelich
As far as the Swedish delegation is concerned, we support the Danish and Finnish proposals with regard to paragraph 5. It is good to get started and this work off the ground. If we were to wait until the next COSAC meeting, we would be losing time and behind schedule. We should, therefore, maintain this idea, with a direct reference, as indicated by our Finnish colleagues, to establishing such a group.
I propose to return to item No. 5 in the morning with a new draft. We have dealt with items Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive. We are left with items Nos. 5 and 6. Item No. 6 is fairly innocuous. We will circulate a new wording for item No. 5 tomorrow morning. That concludes business.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 20 May 2004.