Item No. 8 relates to the final contributions, which have been circulated. The chairpersons met yesterday and agreed a redrafting of Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. We did not get as far as Nos. 5 and 6. We also have a new proposal on No. 7, which has been circulated. I propose to start with No. 5 because the Presidency was asked to redraft——
Draft Constitution Contributions.
Mr. Herman De Croo
I wish to raise a point of order. Are we now debating the three page text on the draft Constitution? Are we discussing No. 5?
No. Point 5 should read, "Scrutiny of EU business in accordance with the protocol on the role of national parliaments in the EU in the Amsterdam Treaty". Having listened to the discussion yesterday, we circulated a new point 5. There were a number of different proposals. We should consider the issues relating to this matter.
Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen
Yesterday when we discussed it we suggested a working group on point 5, which some saw as having standardised rules in all parliaments without using the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. That was not the idea. We thought it might be a good idea to teach each other how we set things up in individual parliaments and also to make sure that the way we co-ordinate ensures that we can comply with the six-week rule and the yellow cards in connection with the new constitutional treaty. We should ask the speakers to prepare COSAC for such a discussion at the next meeting. Only time will tell whether we can conclude but we should have the best possible starting point for discussing the inputs of the national parliaments. I request that the Presidents ensure that the text becomes clearer for the next COSAC meeting in order that we know how to act in common.
Mr. Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Let us consider item 3 of point 5. I support my Danish colleagues in this regard. The introduction of further clarification is necessary and perhaps we should insert: "of COSAC with political representatives". The present wording of point 5 as a whole is acceptable to us.
Mr. Herman de Croo
Regarding the last paragraph of point 5, I was active in Strasbourg and we had at least two additional meetings of the ten signing members. Twenty-five delegations and the Chairmen were present. We had a very important exchange of opinion, which we discussed yesterday at the speakers' meeting. We considered how we could work towards co-operation and how we could inform each other of our points of view on subsidiarity. We had various points of view and these should not be forced. First, we must approve the convention and if we come up with too many new points, it may delay the process.
Second, there are also people who say COSAC should have a reduced role. I do not believe this is correct. Our institution is becoming more important within the European consultation structures of the national parliaments. COSAC has a quiet room in respect of the treaties. It is essential, therefore, that we consider our future. There could be a working group of Chairmen, but it should have a more specific programme. The English text refers to the common implication for national parliaments on early warning. I would like a broader view to be taken on this.
Early warning cannot only be a list of information. What will happen in practice? A national parliament, as part of subsidiarity, may decide to evoke the rule of subsidiarity. Automatically, if only because the official will contact other parliaments to hear their reaction and ask what they are going to do, we will not wait until five minutes to midnight on the 59th day to find out whether another national parliament will invoke subsidiarity. Therefore, we need a practical solution. It does not have to be institutionalised. We could spell out the mission of the working group a bit more, as envisaged in point 5.5.
Mr. Kurt Bodewig
I am somewhat surprised that a proposal was produced yesterday evening which is just being presented to us now. When one is involved in a procedure designed to achieve consensus, this is not the best possible way of going about it. Parts 2 and 5 of yesterday's proposal were to be deleted. We now find they are back in a new variant. I refer to Rule 10.5 and move that we take a vote during plenary session on each of these paragraphs. Will the Chairman go ahead with this?
We should not overburden COSAC. It is an instrument for national parliaments. We should not end up with a plethora of working groups and subgroups to try thrash out European policy without linking back to our national parliaments. COSAC should be restricted to the activity for which it was created and we should think long and hard about whether we wish to keep paragraphs 2 and 5.
I still regret that we deal with the entry and arrival of our ten new member states with a very lapidary mention while we have an extensive point 4. This point should be taken again in plenary session.
The conclusions must be reached by this body as a whole. They say a camel is a horse designed by a committee. The Chair has to put these proposals. The meeting of Chairpersons did not conclude on them yesterday. We received four different proposals and I said we would put together a composite redraft of point 5 for consideration today, and that is all we can do. If COSAC wishes to vote on them individually, it is quite entitled to do so. That is what it is for. However, it requires three quarters of the delegates present to vote in favour. It must be at least half of all those present. This is not a simple process of reducing everybody's views to one or two paragraphs.
Mrs. Sharon Dijksma
We have serious problems with items 2 and 5 of point 5. It is not necessary to repeat the arguments made by my German colleague. For us, it is not a good idea to give the secretariat more work than is necessary. I really cannot understand why this matter is on this agenda.
We propose that subsidiarity be a significant issue at the COSAC meeting in November. However, why is it necessary to discuss it further in a working group, maybe even for one hour, as it is already possible to put it on the agenda in November and have a good discussion thereon? We have the Danish proposal, our own proposal and perhaps proposals from other countries. The European Parliament report is also available. I propose that we delete items 2 and 5 of point 5.
Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen
When we changed the rules for COSAC's work, we placed a great deal of emphasis on the need to hold Chairmen's meetings before the COSAC meetings to ensure that things were prepared properly. As we have more and better discussions than previously, it is very important for the Chairmen to meet before the full COSAC meeting to ensure that everybody has been asked beforehand to bring their contributions from national parliaments to provide a starting point for discussions. We must ensure that agreed rules of procedure are applied.
This is not something the Presidency invented. Yesterday at the meeting of Chairmen, we had draft contributions. Some members present suggested a number of alternative proposals. As it was impossible to get agreement on those proposals, the Presidency undertook to develop a draft which we could debate here today. That is what the Chairmen agreed and we are simply implementing it. I wish it to be very clear where that came from.
Ms Maria Eduarda Azevedo
While I am not sure I should contribute further to this lively debate, the Portuguese delegation suggests that another paragraph should be added to the Presidency's contribution. As delegates know, COSAC carried out a serious examination of a whole range of important issues relating to the Lisbon strategy. We are now at the final contributions, yet when it comes to the strategy there is total silence. The silence could be misinterpreted. It does not provide an accurate impression. If we fail to say something about the strategy, it will imply that we feel it is not important. Obviously, that is not the case on the basis of the discussion of the Lisbon strategy yesterday.
It is very important for the citizens of Europe to be made aware of the second phase of the Lisbon strategy on which we are now embarking. We have all agreed its objectives and would like to fulfil them. It is therefore important for COSAC to express its views on the strategy.
While we had an active and lively discussion of the subject, there should be a further paragraph in the contribution to explain what we discussed. This addition will ensure that we fulfil our task. We have prepared a proposed text which is quite simple and I am sure will meet with the approval of delegates. It reads to the effect that COSAC welcomes the document presented by the Presidency and reaffirms its commitment to the Lisbon strategy during the implementation of its second phase in the European Union.
If the Portuguese delegation provides us with a copy of the proposed text, we will include it as point 8.
Mr. Michael Roth
There is some uncertainty in this room. We are not absolutely clear about the purpose of a conclusion. It is a document to be presented to the public to inform it of what COSAC has been doing. Perhaps it has not been possible for the Presidency to ensure that everything which was said yesterday is reflected in this document, even after yesterday evening's discussions with the Chairmen.
I agree with our Portuguese colleague. Reference should be made to the central topic of the Lisbon Agenda. While I am grateful the Chairman placed it on the agenda, it has unfortunately not been included in the conclusion, despite the fact that national parliaments have been dealing with the matter very intensively.
I cannot understand why it has been left out. It is a key topic for the European Union, as is the debate on the draft constitutional treaty. The European Parliament and national parliaments have achieved extraordinary success in drawing up the treaty, yet in the text of the conclusion it is the subject of only one sentence. We have practically reached the end of the Intergovernmental Conference and the governments are acting rather self-interestedly. They are not necessarily referring to the opinions expressed by national parliaments, which is a great shame and pity. I am very disappointed by what is happening there.
Parliamentary scrutiny of budgetary and auditing matters was also dealt with in great depth by COSAC, but this is referred to in a very summary fashion in the conclusion. I understand a proposal on the rules of procedure has been submitted by one of the delegations. Why is this simply glossed over? I do not understand and I am not satisfied. My hope is that at the 11th hour we will be able to resolve all these problems.
Mr. Kimmo Kiljunen
The Chairman has made quite a good summary of the meeting of Chairmen. I agree in principle on the text. Point 5.5 refers to the proposal to establish a working group to investigate how to organise scrutiny of the early warning system on subsidiarity. The working group is necessary to prepare our debate for the plenary session to be organised later.
I agree with the Danish, Lithuanian and, in particular, Danish representatives' argument that the working group should not only investigate what we must do domestically in terms of the early warning system, but what we should do together. It is a joint process. I would like to add to the text which proposes that the group should "consider the common implications for national parliaments" the words "and for their co-operation on the early warning system etc." This clearly indicates the importance of sharing opinions on how to organise co-operation among national parliaments on the system.
Lord Grenfell
We could usefully drop the last sentence of point 2 which reads, "The secretariat should submit an outline structure of this report at the next chairpersons' meeting for approval." The secretariat has already shown in the preparation of its first report that it is quite capable of producing a useful document. I am not sure that we need to discuss an outline of it in COSAC before the full report has been produced.
It would be better if the sentence in point 3 which reads, "Given the importance of these actions for scrutiny, to invite future Presidencies in office to place on their COSAC agendas an exchange of views on these documents with political representatives of the Commission" were to stop there. The dates of publication of these documents will not necessarily coincide closely with COSAC meetings. It would be better not to refer to the occasion of the publication of both documents. Otherwise there will be a proliferation of the number of meetings we are obliged to have.
On No. 5, I sympathise with our Danish colleagues in their intentions, but since the Dutch have indicated that during their Presidency they intend to place this for discussion in the plenary session, if the secretariat could provide a factual document to inform that debate, the matter could be dealt with in that manner and the establishment of a special working group might not be necessary.
Mr. Carl B. Hamilton
I will try to focus on point 5.5. Along the lines of the Danish and Finnish proposals, I suggest that instead of saying that COSAC "proposes" we should say that COSAC "agrees" or "decides". Otherwise the question arises of to whom we propose this. It is more clear and precise to say that COSAC "agrees".
On the second line from the end, after "for national parliaments" we should insert "for their co-operation" in order that it states: "implications for national parliaments and for their co-operation in implementing the early warning provision". That is in line with the Finnish suggestion.
Mr. Andrea Manzella
We agree with what has been put forward by our Dutch and German colleagues concerning the deletion of points 2 and 5. We suggest the deletion of point 2 because ascribing a further task to the secretariat would be tantamount to creating a superstructure which seems to us to be redundant. The impact of European legislation and the need for better and more effective legislation is already the subject of constant dialogue between the Commission, the European Parliament and national parliaments. We perceive no need for the secretariat to be further tasked with this activity. Acting as an intermediary by way of creating a superstructure is something we do not think is necessary.
As regards point 5.5, what is being sought? The point of a treaty is to constitutionalise the principle of subsidiarity. Of course each national parliament is autonomous and may denounce any breaches of the principle of subsidiarity. Therefore, what is the role of the secretariat therein? Would it be collating information? Would it be overarching above the national parliaments? For these reasons, point 5 is also redundant.
As I do not wish to take the floor again, I will make one more point. Picking up on what was said by my Portuguese colleague, Ms Azevedo, about point 8 of the Lisbon strategy, as we said yesterday, we must do away with the idea that national parliaments only act on the defensive. We would like national parliaments to enjoy powers of proposal and active participation. That may be pursued adequately if the national parliaments are able to join up with the Lisbon strategy.
Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen
I am sorry I must take the floor again. This is a rather strange discussion about point 5.5. The Dutch are saying that they wish, at the next COSAC meeting under the Dutch Presidency, to discuss how to handle the subsidiarity principle. What we are proposing under point 5 is that when the Chairpersons, under the rules of procedure, meet beforehand, it would be a good idea to prepare the COSAC meeting on which this discussion is to be led. Should we call a meeting of Chairpersons or not? According to Rule 2.3 of the rules of procedure, the Chairpersons of European affairs committees and the representative of the European Parliament have a preparatory meeting before the COSAC meeting after they have agreed this with the Troika. This meeting should be held.
I propose that we insert under point 5 an amendment to the effect that at the next COSAC meeting during the Dutch Presidency we will discuss the question of subsidiarity and that the meeting of Chairpersons prepare the discussion. Then we can solve the problem because we will be preparing it in the right form. This way we can overcome the difficulties and misunderstandings.
Mr. Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
I support the proposal of Portugal concerning point 5.8 of the Lisbon strategy. As far as the work of the secretariat is concerned, we agree to delete this point, although its wording is quite good. As far as point 5.5 is concerned, I support my Danish colleagues. I understand that this is normal for a statute. Perhaps somebody is concerned by the name of a working group, but in principle we need preparatory meetings. Therefore point 5, as a statute, should remain in place.
Mr. Herman De Croo
Perhaps for point 5 we could say "note with interest the intention at the next COSAC meeting in the Netherlands to take up the question of subsidiarity and asks a working party to prepare for this discussion." This is very close to the suggestion of our Dutch friends, who want to discuss this. I thank them for their suggestion. In order for this discussion to be as effective as possible, it must be well prepared and it will be.
There are two elements. Our Dutch friends have offered to discuss the principle of subsidiarity at the plenary session of the next COSAC meeting. Our Finnish friends also made a very interesting proposal, together with our Danish and Swedish friends, that we should prepare properly. There is no technical difficulty at all.
Have you given us something in writing on that?
Mr. Herman De Croo
I could give something in writing if the Chairman wishes.
It is difficult to keep up with all these proposals.
Mr. Herman De Croo
I will try to formulate it in English: "note with interest the Dutch proposal to discuss at the next COSAC meeting the problems of subsidiarity and ask a working group to prepare for this effectively." It is a short sentence. We can write it down.
I have so many proposed amendments that I will need to see something in writing.
Mrs. Sharon Dijksma
Perhaps, since we are to arrange this meeting, I can say something about it. We will gladly organise a COSAC plenary meeting at which subsidiarity is high on the agenda. Of course, it would also be good to have a chairpersons' meeting. We are already intending to discuss the regional parliaments and we will also discuss the language issue. We are also willing to discuss with the Chairpersons — not a working group — the agenda for the plenary session and to organise that with them together. I do not know what the problem is and I hope people trust us to do that. I hope my Danish colleague has heard my last words.
Not only do we trust you, we wish you well.
I have a number of proposals. I need the attention of the members for this — it is difficult because there are many proposals and paragraphs. We have various proposals before us to do with item No. 5, including the deletion of paragraphs 2 and 5 and the amendment of paragraphs 3 and 5. There is also a proposal from Mr. Larsen-Jensen to replace all of this with a shorter wording:
At the COSAC meeting in the second half of 2004, COSAC will discuss the models of subsidiarity. The Chairpersons will prepare for this debate.
If we were to accept that, we could leave the rest of No. 5 aside. That is agreed by acclamation.
Item No. 6 is straightforward.
Mr. Kurt Bodewig
I assume that point 2 has gone because the whole thing has now been replaced. Is that the case?
Yes.
Mr. Kurt Bodewig
That is fine.
The whole of item No. 5 has been replaced by this wording.
Mr. Kurt Bodewig
What about No. 5.2?
Perhaps Mr. Larsen-Jensen might assist us. Was it his suggestion that we should replace the whole of item No. 5 with the new wording?
Mr. Claus Larsen-Jensen
No, just point 5.5.
All right. We must now go through the paragraphs individually. We have proposals to amend No. 5.3 also. I will put the proposals individually. There does not appear to be any difficulty with No. 5.1. Is it agreed to? Agreed. It is proposed to delete No. 5.2. Is that agreed? Agreed. It has been proposed by Lord Grenfell that we change the wording of No. 5.3 in order that the second paragraph reads: "Given the importance of these actions for scrutiny it invites future Presidencies in Office to arrange to place on the COSAC agenda an exchange of views of political representatives of the Commission." Is the amendment agreed to? Agreed. There seems to be agreement on No. 5.4. Is that agreed? Agreed? Is the new wording for No. 5.5 agreed to? Agreed.
We now move on to item No. 6, the European Parliament.
Mr. Claude Estier
I hope the discussion on No. 6 will be simpler and more straightforward than that on No. 5. On behalf of my delegation, I would like to make two comments, one of substance and one of form. We all agree that the upcoming elections to the European Parliament, which are happening just after enlargement, will be of paramount importance. Therefore, it stands to reason that COSAC should appeal to European voters to go out and vote. Having said that, the text of the proposal — just four or five lines — seems weak to us. There is no good argument advanced here. If we want to encourage European citizens to go out and vote, we must explain why this is important.
Therefore, we suggest something on the basis of the proposal of our German colleague, an appeal to vote for the European Parliament at these elections. We should refer to that because that document advances reasons — it tells us why we should turn out for the vote. Instead of the four or five lines we have at present, I would like to see instead the text of the German proposal that was distributed yesterday.
If there are to be paragraphs 7 and 8, we would like the appeal concerning the European Parliament elections to come right at the end, because we would like to see it as a conclusion to all our comments and proposals. If it is situated somewhere in the middle of the text, it will not have the same kind of impact. Whatever the form and whatever we might decide on the text itself, we should make sure this point is the last point mentioned in the document.
Mr. Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis
Lithuania supports the view of our French colleagues. We could leave a brief point 6 in our contribution but also adopt a separate appeal as suggested by our colleagues from the Bundestag. This would be significant. It would be our appeal to European voters to take part in the election. The text should be somewhat longer. Perhaps the Chairman, as a representative of the Presidency, could consider the wording of the appeal in order that we can proclaim it among the nations of Europe.
There is agreement on amending point 6 to include the additional wording, which is as follows:
Twenty-five years have passed since the first direct elections to the European Parliament. As the only directly elected EU body, the European Parliament contributes to strengthening democratic decision making in the enlarged European Union, which, since 1 May 2004, encompasses 25 member states and 450 million citizens. All those who call for more democracy, more transparency and greater closeness to the citizens of the European Union are urged to cast their vote in the 2004 European election.
Is that wording agreed to? Agreed. It is also agreed that it will be the last point.
Mr. Yasar Yakis
The beginning of paragraph 6 differs from the wording of the others. In all other articles we refer to COSAC simply as COSAC, while in this paragraph it is written in different words. We may wish to change the words "the XXXI Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments in the European Union" to say simply "COSAC".
The wording as it is may mean more to the voters, and I propose to stick to this wording. Is that agreed? Agreed. That becomes the last point, not No. 6. For item No. 7, we have two people offering.
Mr. Jimmy Hood
Item No. 7 is a major issue and COSAC has not had a chance to go into the implications of it. We are very surprised to see this appended to the end of the conclusion, because I am assured it was not discussed yesterday. I am particularly worried about it because on the table during the coffee break I noticed a four-page document, unattributed to anyone, which referred to strengthening provisions concerning the role of national parliaments, the draft constitutional treaty and protocols etc. I suspect that this is something on which we do not wish to embark in COSAC.
There are those who think that COSAC should be seen as a process of empire building. That has worried us for some time. I reiterate my point that COSAC should concentrate on the roles of national parliaments. That is what it is good and successful at doing, rather than building large empires to satisfy some person's political ambition, regardless of the status of the institution concerned.
Our Belgian colleagues circulated this at the meeting of the Chairpersons yesterday and we were to introduce a point 7. Our Belgian colleague might like to explain this.
Mr. Herman De Croo
There is an important reason for this proposal. It is true that there are degrees of subsidiarity and, on a scale of one to ten, foreign policy, defence and security are considered by all parliaments as falling within the remit of national sovereignty, to be resolved by a bilateral or multilateral approach. Clearly, as the treaty is not burdened with those issues and points they are the property of the national parliaments, which decide the budgets for their defence and regulate security. The only thing we do at European level is come together for multilateral sovereign decisions.
At a certain point consultation must happen between those national sovereign competencies and the idea was to see whether it would be possible to use COSAC for such an exchange of views. Would it be sacrilege for this existing, unstructured consultation group, which is nevertheless important to consider such matters? Recalling what was said yesterday evening, there are many European committees in the national parliaments comprising Members of Parliament who often also sit on the foreign affairs or defence committees and sometimes on home affairs committees. If one took a straw poll in this room and asked which of us, in addition to sitting on a European affairs committee, also sits on home or foreign affairs or defence committees in our own parliaments, one might find that half would answer yes.
In response to Mr. Hood, we are not going to build a new pyramid, or change COSAC. If I have something available and in my hand, I try to use it better. If I have a pen, I will not use it to rewrite a constitution but will use it in a pragmatic way and it is in a spirit of pragmatism that I make these points. I am not trying to introduce a new structure by the back door. If that was misunderstood, I wish to set the record straight.
Mr. Carl B. Hamilton
If I understood correctly, this issue or proposal was also raised within the Convention and was dismissed at the time so it seems to me that we can now lay it to rest and perhaps do not need to have this discussion. Perhaps it is no longer topical. It would be unfortunate to suggest that COSAC must be given certain topics and themes to address, perhaps once a year, relying on different rules. It is more appropriate for us to choose topical themes that preoccupy our Members of Parliament and discuss those. Why is CFSP or CDSP or any specific area selected in this way? After all, we are interested in general politics; some of us are members of foreign affairs committees or defence committees but not everyone is. Therefore, it does not have to be the rule. Perhaps behind all this one would find some hidden agenda or purpose. In view of this, it would not be appropriate for us to go along with it at this stage and in this way.
Finally, what do we mean by "executive bodies"? Again, to sum up, I suggest that we simply delete paragraph 7.
Mrs. Sharon Dijksma
Mr. De Croo is right in that there is a problem with the security policy of the European Union and the parliamentary control on it. The question is whether COSAC is the right organisation to solve this problem. I agree with those who say that we should delete this paragraph because we did not discuss it during the plenary session yesterday. Therefore, it would be very strange to have this new paragraph come out of the hat when we have not discussed it.
I apologise to Mr. Kiljunen, I passed over him.
Mr. Kimmo Kiljunen
It does not matter because my point follows the same line as previous speakers. I understand the Belgian argument. It is very important to consider how we organise the interparliamentary co-operation and debates on common foreign and security policy, as well as ESDP. Practically, however, it is rather premature to put these issues on our agenda now and commit COSAC to the format that our Belgian colleagues have presented.
We should not make any proposals to the IGC at this point, as we already agreed that we should work on the basis of the proposals already made in the Convention while it is running. Let us not add anything to that. It is more important for us to recognise that security policy issues in Europe are being discussed on the interparliamentary level at the WEU parliamentary assembly and the regular meetings of the Chairmen of foreign affairs committees and defence committees. The question is how in future we can organise that part of the debate in a more co-ordinated way. In order for COSAC to take the initiative in this area, we should have a well-prepared debate beforehand. We cannot state it as already accomplished fact. I will not ask the Dutch delegation to include this issue on the agenda for the meeting next autumn but, sooner or later, we should discuss whether we should co-ordinate these matters in the COSAC framework. For now the formulation is premature. I also agree that we should delete paragraph 7.
Mr. Herman De Croo
I would not like our proposal to sink. I would prefer to withdraw paragraph 7 rather than have it defeated by a vote. We can consider it again in the future when we will see what happens.
Is everyone happy to withdraw point 7? Agreed. We have a new point 8, which will become point 7, and it is proposed by Portugal. The wording states: "COSAC welcomes the document presented by and reaffirms its commitment to the Lisbon strategy and the second phase of the implementation of this strategic goal of the European Union".
Lord Grenfell
We need to ensure that the current paragraph 6 on European elections has the maximum impact in this document. It would be best if it came as the final item in the document, and the Lisbon Agenda became No. 6.
We have agreed on that.
Mr. Giacomo Stucchi
I have taken the floor to mention a point which has not yet been put to colleagues, but with which the Chairman is familiar. An amendment was submitted by our delegation yesterday. It covered part of what the Chairman said yesterday. I understand that it might not be appropriate to include in the COSAC final draft a reference to an item that might be included in the agenda for the next COSAC meeting. However, it is appropriate to emphasise that among the various items COSAC must discuss, we should also consider a discussion on cultural issues. Cultural diversity within the European Union should be discussed. This relates to languages. We share common roots and we must safeguard this situation. Each nation has its own individual identity, of which we are proud. This is something which could be safeguarded through COSAC discussions.
Mr. Sotirios Hatzigakis
I, too, would like to indicate my assent to the Portuguese proposal. We should refer to the Lisbon strategy. We must ensure that information is circulated to and within national parliaments, which should carry out political scrutiny within the Union. We discussed the issue at length and we believe national parliaments have a key role to perform if we are to be successful. I would like the Lisbon strategy to be covered.
It is agreed that will be the second last point, based on the Portuguese wording. It will be a new point and the European Parliament wording will be the second point.
On items 1 to 4, which the Chairpersons agreed yesterday, Mr. Martin has asked that the first sentence in No. 4 should be amended to include the words "and implementation". It would then read, "COSAC calls for a closer co-ordination between the Parliaments concerning scrutiny and implementation of the general budget of the European Union."
That concludes the 31st COSAC meeting. I thank members for their assistance. It has been a privilege to preside over this important meeting, particularly as it was the first meeting of the enlarged COSAC of 25 members. The continued development of COSAC will be essential if national parliaments are to play a serious role in the future of Europe's political administration. I offer my best wishes to our Dutch colleagues who will assume the Presidency of the European Union in July and who will also assume the chairmanship of COSAC. The new Presidency will be particularly important for COSAC as it will be charged with the implementation of the new arrangement for enhanced parliamentary co-operation which we have worked so hard to achieve.
I thank the special guests who contributed to this meeting over the last two days, in particular, Mr. De Vries. Finally, I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, and all the delegates for their co-operation in our first meeting as a full membership of 25.
Mrs. Sharon Dijksma
On behalf of all the delegations, we are very grateful for the perfect organisation of the 31st COSAC meeting. It has been a difficult task but, given your diplomacy and political understanding, it was a very good meeting. We received a warm welcome in Dublin with beautiful music and lovely dinners. It will be very difficult to continue this quality of meeting in The Hague. Thank you for everything.
The joint committee meeting adjourned at 12.10 p.m.