Europarlementariërs vrezen gebrek aan transparantie in de snelle EU wetgeving (en)
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - MEPs looking into how to overhaul the workings of the European Parliament have raised concerns about the number of quick deals that are reached on EU laws, saying they risk resulting in poor quality legislation and that the process is not sufficiently transparent.
A working document drawn up for the reform-minded deputies notes that the "enormous pressure" faced by each six-month EU presidency to wrap up a piece of legislation under their watch comes at the expense of "open political debate."
The paper notes that 64 percent of the EU laws agreed between MEPs and member states during the current legislative period (data is available from July 2004 to July 2007) were done at first reading; 28 percent at second reading and eight percent at third reading.
During the previous parliamentary term - 1999 to 2004 - the figures were starkly different. For that time, the figures were 28 percent, 50 percent and 22 percent respectively.
Recent years have also seen a trend in "early second-reading agreements" whereby council and parliament speed up the process by cutting out the step wherein the outcome of informal negotiations are included in the first reading.
Instead, parliament just agrees to adopt them as a whole in an early second reading procedure, meaning the bulk of MEPs have little chance to scrutinise what they are agreeing to.
First readings and these fast-track second readings account for almost 80 percent of the laws agreed by the two sides since 2004.
The paper points to "serious concerns" about the "potential lack of transparency and democratic legitimacy" inherent in these backroom deals between just a few MEPs and their counterparts in the council and the commission.
"A pre-negotiated agreement reached at informal meetings between a small number of representatives of the three institutions (_) does not increase parliament's visibility in the public and the media," reads the report.
It notes that lacklustre coverage of the parliament in national media is due to the lack of confrontation between MEPs among clear political lines.
Instead, onlookers are treated to "a flat, technocratic debate," where those in the know "congratulate each other on the good work done."
The findings are especially relevant as the coming into force of the EU's new treaty - expected next year - will significantly increase the incidence of co-decision, where MEPs co-legislate along with member states.
The parliament's jurisdiction for co-decision will rise from the current 44 policy areas to reach some 90 different topics.
The parliament's reform group is tasked with changing the assembly's internal rules to to make the house more democratic, more lively and more relevant to topical debates.
It counts among its major victories a loosening of the speaking rotas - where MEPs now have a chance, on certain occasions, to speak on a 'catch-the-eye' system lending plenary debates a glimmer of spontaneity.
It has also seen to it that when the commission unveils major legislative proposals - such its far-reaching environment package last month - then the commissioners responsible head directly to parliament to debate the laws with MEPs.
At the moment, the group is considering whether to introduce a 'preliminary' reading of laws giving all MEPs a chance to look at draft legislation before it starts being modified.