The first pieces of legislation are already in progress and the EU institutions are aiming to get them adopted before the elections: improvements to the Capital Requirements Directive (on the rules governing how much capital banks need to hold in relation to the risks they run) and measures to address conflicts of interests in credit rating agencies are two examples. 

 

But Parliament has formally requested the Commission to make proposals on a much wider range of subjects, including: to ensure that a system of capital requirements applies to all financial institutions regardless of their precise legal form – this would include hedge funds and private equity vehicles; to strengthen the status, decision making power and role of the committees of national supervisory authorities who aim to ensure European rules are applied consistently across all the EU’s financial markets; to insist that national supervisors of multinational financial companies work together in colleges to look at the group as well as its component parts.

 

 

The Commission asked former IMF Managing Director Jacques de Larosière to lead a group to come up with proposals on cross-border financial supervision.  New legislative proposals resulting from de Larosière report will be subject to co-decision approval or amendment by Parliament and Council.

 

So while the details of the individual items on the legislative agenda are not yet drawn up, it is clear there will be a range of decisions for the next Parliament to take in this area: how far should the EU go in regulating its financial markets?  Would it make sense to move towards a European financial supervisory body to deal with large companies or should supervision continue to be largely organised at national level?  How can future crises be managed or prevented?  Should there be a greater role for the European Central Bank in monitoring market developments?

 

 

The Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament will continue to be the only place where the European Central Bank President is questioned in public by elected representatives.  Four times a year, Jean-Claude Trichet spends two hours responding to MEPs, explaining and defending the ECB’s decisions.  These sessions are an important part of ensuring proper public scrutiny of the work of Europe’s independent central bank.

 

The current economic crisis will have direct consequences on employment. Parliament believes the efforts being made under the recovery plan by the EU and its Member States must be coordinated.

 

 

Several times during the 2004-2009 legislature, MEPs voted on the viability of social security systems in the European Union, a real challenge for the coming decades. The section of the European Union's population aged 15 to 64 will fall by 48 million by 2050 and the dependency ratio will double in the same period, leading to increased public expenditure in most Member States on pensions and health.

 

 

During the debate on the services directive the question arose of including services of general interest (SGI), such as education and social security. The new European Commission may propose a specific framework directive on SGI. In the current Parliament there are deep divisions over the need for such legislation.

 

 

In October 2008, the European Commission proposed a package of measures aimed at better reconciling work and family life, including a revision of EU law on maternity leave and leave for an assisting spouse. Parliament, which has joint decision-making powers on this matter, must vote on it at first reading before the European elections. However, if a compromise with the Council is not reached by then, the new Parliament will have to take up the baton.

 

 

A draft law which would facilitate patients' access to healthcare in the European Union is currently being examined by the European Parliament. The aim is to clarify entitlements to refunds and to guarantee quality and safety standards for patients who have medical care in a Member State other than their own.  Here too, Parliament has joint decision-making power and must vote at first reading before April 2009, before the elections. However, if a compromise is not reached by then, the new Parliament will resume discussions. 

 

 

A draft directive aimed a easing workers' mobility by laying down minimum standards for the acquisition of supplementary pension rights was approved by Parliament at first reading in June 2007.  The directive is now awaiting a decision from the Council.

 

 

Lastly, the new Parliament will also have to pick up the question of working hours in the EU, following negotiations between the Council and Parliament prior to the elections. At a vote in December 2008, Parliament took the position that the EU's maximum working week should stay at 48 hours and that derogations to this principle should be scrapped.

 

As the EU works towards the 2020 deadline for its 20/20/20 targets (20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 20% improvement in energy efficiency, and 20% renewables in the EU energy mix), it also faces the challenge of halving global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Parliament wants the EU and other industrialized countries to agree, as a group, to try to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40% by 2020, and at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990.

 

 

The EU is to keep on working to limit the global average temperature rise to less than 2°C over the pre-industrial level. Parliament recommended that global warming and the resulting climate change issues be tackled in all spheres and policies - from energy and tourism to health, agriculture and intelligent computer systems. But MEPs also think that citizens must be involved in tackling climate change and that this will need long-run political and educational measures.

 

 

Negotiations on the EU's next EU long-term budget, running from 2013 onwards, will determine whether there will be adequate funding to fight climate change. The issue of how to help developing countries to limit climate change - and to adapt to it - must also be addressed.

 

 

At international level, the EU will continue to take part in negotiations for a post-Kyoto climate regime (after 2012). The aim is to achieve a binding global climate agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

 

 

Increasing energy savings and the share of renewables - e.g. biomass, hydro, solar, wind, or geothermal - in the energy mix would not only help to cut greenhouse gas emissions but would also reduce the EU's dependence on energy imports.

 

The European Commission estimates that, if no action is taken, in the next twenty to thirty years the EU will have to buy around 70% of its energy from third countries - some from regions threatened by insecurity.

 

It is up to each Member State to decide whether or not to invest in nuclear energy as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation. However, because nuclear safety and security issues are of common European interest, the EU must provide common rules on the safety of nuclear power plants and the management of nuclear waste.

 

 

EU-Russia relations have been fraught with difficulties in recent years, especially over energy supplies and the conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. These issues will doubtless play a role in talks on replacing the EU-Russia partnership agreement, which expired in 2007.MEPs have already said that a continuation of the status quo in Georgia will make it hard for them to endorse such a new agreement.

 

 

In September 2008, the European Parliament backed the proposed Nabucco gas pipeline, from Turkey via Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary to Austria, as an alternative to those constructed with Russia, which "will all potentially increase the economic and political dependence of Member States on Russia". MEPs will want to ensure that sufficient budget funds are available for the Nabucco project.

 

 

China's protectionist practices, excessive bureaucracy, the undervaluing of the Renminbi, subsidies in various forms, and lack of a proper and agreed level of intellectual property rights  enforcement, are hindering full market access for many EU companies, according to the European Parliament. China’s non-tariff barriers cost EU companies an estimated €21bn in lost business opportunities each year. MEPs will keep the spotlight on these barriers until they are lifted.  Parliament is also insisting on the need to strengthen the Human Rights Clause in the negotiations for a renewed Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

 

 

MEPs will continue to work for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reminding the parties of the commitment they gave in Annapolis in November 2007 to hold negotiations with a view to concluding a peace treaty, including respect for Israel's right to live in security and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The EP Foreign Affairs Committee has adjourned its assent for increased participation by Israel in Community programmes as part of the European Neighbourhood Policy.

 

 

MEPs will closely follow the future association agreements with the South American sub-regions (Mercosur, the Andean Community and Central America) as well as the economic partnership agreement with the Caribbean, on which the European Parliament will have to give its formal assent. Parliament will monitor developments via its delegation to the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly, set up in 2006.

 

The next big date in the EU enlargement diary will be October 2009, when the European Commission publishes its annual "progress" report on Croatia, Turkey, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Kosovo.

 

 

Croatia seems to have made good progress towards membership, although MEPs say it still needs to take measures to fight organized crime, and its border dispute with Slovenia causes concern. Turkey's limited progress in 2008 prompted some MEPs to question Ankara's will to pursue reform, although others remain more positive. At the time of writing, it was not yet clear when EU membership negotiations would start with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

 

 

Western Balkan countries which have stabilization and association agreements with the EU and a long-term prospect of EU membership must make progress on judicial and police reform, enforcing the rule of law and improving administrative capacity.

 

Serbia may achieve candidate status in 2009, provided it carries out the necessary reforms. FYROM's good progress on judicial and police reform is overshadowed by shortcomings in meeting political criteria. For Montenegro, strengthening the rule of law and administrative capacity remains a challenge. Bosnia's leaders have yet to achieve the degree of political consensus that has delivered progress towards EU integration elsewhere in the region. It also needs to move EU-related reforms to the top of the agenda, says the European Commission. And for Albania, a key test will be its handling of the 2009 elections.

 

Police, judges and customs offficers from the EU were deployed in Kosovo in December 2008, with Serbia's agreement, in a drive to improve law enforcement. The EU Rule of Law (EULEX) mission is the largest civilian one yet under the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). By spring 2009, it was expected to grow to 1,900 international members and 1,100 national ones, with a €205 million budget for the first 16 months. Foreign Affairs Committee MEPs praised Serbia's constructive attitude, which, they said, was consistent with its aspirations to join the EU.

 

Any accession to the European Union needs the approval of the European Parliament.

 

Preliminary steps such as the "Blue Card" and the "return directive" have already been taken. A goal of the next legislature will be the development of a coordinated migration policy which is humane, open to legal immigration but firm on illegal immigration. If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the European Parliament will have full legislative powers in this domain.

 

 

The current Parliament having already dealt with the highly controversial "return directive", the challenge for the next Parliament will be to end the tragedies caused by illegal immigration and to promote channels for legal immigration, especially in sectors with labour shortages.

 

This in its turn raises other questions, notably how to combat undeclared work effectively.  In addition, promoting legal immigration based on the economic needs of Member States raises the issue of equal rights between workers and non-discrimination.  Lastly, what status should be given to seasonal labourers, who work mainly in farming, often for very short periods? Draft European legislation is being proposed on these matters.

 

The European Parliament is also wondering about the brain drain that could be caused by a policy of seeking to attract skilled workers from non-EU countries. How can "circular" migration be encouraged, by which workers would develop their skills in the Union and then return home, enabling their country of origin to benefit?

 

 

The next Parliament will also tackle the issue of how the European Union receives asylum seekers, and the future of the Dublin system, which is supposed to identify the Member States responsible for processing an asylum application and establish reasonable deadlines for procedures. In practice, asylum seekers often have to wait months if not years in certain Member States – in greatly differing conditions, as some countries use detention while others do not - until their application is finally processed.

 

In addition, MEPs have pointed several times to the lack of trust between Member States and the unequal burden-sharing of processing asylum-seekers applications – the southern Member States having to deal with the biggest administrative burden. The system will need to be adapted to process asylum applications more quickly and devise a tool which creates trust between Member States.  The "asylum package", unveiled in December, contains several proposals on which MEPs will be working to find answers to these questions.

 

 

Lastly, the FRONTEX agency, launched in October 2005 to facilitate operational cooperation on the EU's external borders as part of the fight against illegal immigration, needs to have a medium-term strategy, according to a parliamentary report adopted last December. MEPs believe the Agency suffers from its dependence on the goodwill of the Member States for material (planes, boats, etc.). Should it have its own resources or stay as a platform for cooperation? MEPs are considering a system of compulsory solidarity, requiring Member States to give material support to FRONTEX.

In the years following attacks on New York, Madrid and London, the Member States improved their coordination in the fight against terrorism, partly through the "cooperation platforms" provided by Europol and Eurojust. New measures to prevent acts of terrorism will be examined by MEPs in the new Parliament.  The balance between security and protection on the one hand and privacy and fundamental rights on the other will also be key issues.

 

Terrorism: the risk of the "dirty bomb"
 
During the next Parliament, the European Union will adopt a range of measures relating to the risk of nuclear, bacteriological or chemical attacks, on preventing or helping cope with any such incident.  Member States which already have a system for responding to this type of attack need to be able to share their methods with other Member States and, if necessary, provide them with help. Stricter surveillance of the substances needed to concoct a dirty bomb will also be needed.  Legislation on assistance to victims will also be examined, to bring treatment, whether physical or psychological, up to the best available standards in the EU.

 

 

The question of how far anti-terrorist measures can go without impinging on civil liberties such as the right to privacy and freedom of expression will become more pressing. In coming years the protection of personal data and of digital data in particular will be crucial.  Such data, containing a  mass of information on who we are and what we do, is processed by many public or private operators, often unknown by the public, for commercial or security purposes.

 

A majority of Members of the European Parliament has repeatedly voiced concern in the past at the casual approach of Member States to the protection of personal data. An example is the case of Passenger Name Records (PNR), covering a range of data on individual passengers, such as nationality, address, itinerary and credit card number). These are collected in several Member States in order to combat terrorism and organised crime, and a system at European level is expected to be introduced in the near future. The question is whether the fight against terrorism justifies such an intrusion into the private lives of ordinary people. This legislation will be on the next Parliament's work list, as will legislation on the protection of data used in criminal proceedings.

 

Most current decisions on the common agriculture policy (CAP) will expire in 2013. In particular, farm aid and various market regulation instruments such as dairy quotas which are due to expire will have to be reviewed. The European Union therefore has to carry out a new, wide-ranging reform during the 2009-2014 legislative period.

 

Negotiations on the EU's next long-term budget plan, covering the post-2013 period, are bound to relaunch the debate on the CAP's share of the budget and thus influence the reform. The sums to be allocated to agriculture policy will greatly depend on the scale and duration of the current economic crisis and the financial health of Member States when the talks are held.

 

In addition, the rise of food prices in 2007/2008 and the prospect of greater volatility in agricultural prices have refocused attention on the role of the CAP in world food security. Competition from non-food products such as biofuels for energy will be part of the debate.

 

Lastly, the future of rural development policy in preserving territorial cohesion and the public's expectations, notably as regards quality, respect for the environment and animal welfare, will probably be key features of the reform.

 

 

European farming must prepare for climate change and adapt.  There will be consequences for arable farming (more drought and smaller harvests in the south, an increased risk of natural disasters, etc.) and for livestock production (new diseases or mutations of existing viruses, with serious health and economic consequences). In addition, negotiations on the post-Kyoto situation will provide an opportunity to reflect on current production models and devise less polluting systems. This new reality will have to be reflected gradually in policy decisions on agriculture.

 

 

If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, codecision will apply to most decisions taken on agricultural policy, with new responsibilities for MEPs and an obligation for the Council of Ministers to negotiate with the EP, which is currently not the case.  This will help reinforce the democratic legitimacy of the CAP in the eyes of the public.

 

 

With a few exceptions, it would place the European Parliament (EP) on an equal footing as lawmaker with the Council, representing EU Member States, in areas where this has not been case so far, notably in setting the EU budget (Parliament would enjoy full parity), agriculture policy and justice and home affairs. National parliaments would gain the right to object to a proposal if they felt that a given result could be better attained at national rather than EU level.

 

A Commission President would be selected by EU heads of government on the basis of the European election results and approved by the EP. The appointment of the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs would also be subject to Parliament's consent.

 

 

Citizens' rights would also be strengthened. For example, the Treaty would make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights binding upon the EU itself, thus requiring EU institutions to respect citizens' civil, political, economic or social rights.  A new right of Citizens' Initiative would enable groups who can muster one million signatures to call upon the Commission to put forward new policy proposals, thus increasing citizens' participation in EU decision-making.

 

 

The Treaty also aims to improve the efficiency of the EU's decision-making process by increasing the use of qualified majority voting, replacing unanimity, and thus facilitating agreements in the Council of Ministers.  The new European Council President and the High Representative for foreign policy should improve the consistency of EU action.

 

 

The Lisbon Treaty would make Parliament a co-legislator with the Council in a series of new fields.  Some of these, currently dealt with only by the Council, would be handled under the co-decision procedure. Others are completely new policy areas for the EU.

 

 

Visas, asylum (some aspects, including conditions for the reception of applicants), legal immigration (including conditions of entry and residence), judicial cooperation in criminal matters, police cooperation, common financial provisions, measures necessary for the use of the Euro, structural funds, agriculture and fisheries policies.

 

 

Energy (energy internal market is already under co-decision), border checks, sport, services of general economic interest, personal data protection, immigration (combating human trafficking and promoting integration), European intellectual property rights, public health (measures setting high quality standards, but not harmonisation), space policy and tourism.