Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 12 November 2001 - Strasbourg

6. Membership of interparliamentary delegations and joint parliamentary committees

  President. – The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0346/2000) by Mr Carnero González, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the amendment of the Rules of Procedure as regards the setting-up of interparliamentary delegations and joint parliamentary committees.

  Carnero González (PSE), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, until this current parliamentary term, the standing committees, the interparliamentary delegations and the delegations of the joint parliamentary committees of this House were set up using a uniform procedure: Plenary, at the proposal of the Conference of Presidents, appointed Members, and these, at the inaugural meeting, elected the bureau for each of these bodies. The reform of the rules introduced as a result of the decision made by this House in plenary at the end of the last parliamentary term changed this situation with regard to the interparliamentary delegations and the delegations in joint parliamentary committees. From that point on, both were elected and set up in a different way from the standing committees: their bureaux were approved by this House, at the proposal of the Conference of Presidents, which appointed the remainder of its Members.

Proceeding in this fashion, at the start of this fifth parliamentary term, it was noticed that there was a contradiction in Rule 170. This Rule stated that the delegations of joint parliamentary committees would be set up in the same way as the standing committees, and, at the same time, it was stated that this would be carried out in accordance with Rule 168, that had already been amended in the way I previously mentioned. This gave rise to a contradiction, no doubt caused by an error in this House, which had adopted an oral amendment by simple majority without having removed the reference to the former procedures from the text of the Rules of Procedure.

In order to resolve this contradiction, the Conference of Presidents asked the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to look into the matter. The report we are debating today is the result of the work carried out by this committee. It approved this report exactly one year ago, almost unanimously. I would point out that, for one year, this text has been ‘sleeping the sleep of the just’. The reasons for this escape me.

In any case it is clear that, during this time, the chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Mr Napolitano, and several coordinators, insisted that it should be included on the agenda of this plenary sitting. I have the report right here. The most important thing is that during this period there was time to be able to reflect upon the following: in the first instance, we have to remove the current contradiction in the Rules of Procedure; this is absolutely crucial if we want to prevent the same doubts we had in July 1999 arising next January.

At the same time, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs proposed in its report to return to a uniform procedure with regard to the standing committees, the interparliamentary delegations and the delegations of joint parliamentary committees. It seems that this time used in ‘sleeping the sleep of the just’ with regard to this report has been of use for the parliamentary groups to consider that, although it is absolutely necessary to amend the Rules of Procedure to remove this contradiction in Rule 170, doubts still remain about the need to once again standardise the constitutional procedures of the three bodies in this Parliament that I mentioned at the start of my speech.

I am clear on several points: when dealing with a reform of the Rules of Procedure, two principles should be given priority; firstly, consensus and secondly, efficiency. And, whilst we are talking about consensus, it is clear that your rapporteur understands the opinion of the political groups and, therefore, considers that tomorrow we should proceed to remove this contradiction in Rule 170 and leave the procedure for the setting up of interparliamentary delegations and the delegations of joint parliamentary committees as it stands at present.

The second issue is efficiency. In January we will, once again, have to deal with a new process for setting up these bodies. This should take place quickly, so that they can continue to function as well as they have up until now. Whilst we are on this subject, I would also like to congratulate, personally, and on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, these interparliamentary delegations and the delegations of joint parliamentary committees.

I would like, if you will allow me, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and its representatives, to insist on a third principle, coherence, which is also always of fundamental importance.

Lastly, Mr President, I would like to remind you of that old proverb which says: ‘a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’. Let us resolve this contradiction, which is the most important thing for us to do today.

  Wuermeling (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Carnero, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, am glad that the history of this legal contradiction will, it is to be hoped, come to its end for the time being when we adopt Mr Carnero's report tomorrow. Thank you very much, Mr Carnero, for the good work you have done, and, also, for finding your way through this apparently very technical material and bringing out the political dimension to the decision we are to take.

In political terms, of course, it is a matter of some significance whether the chairpersons of the joint parliamentary committees and of the interparliamentary delegations are appointed en bloc by this, albeit rather thinned-out, House or whether every single candidate in every single joint parliamentary committee or every single interparliamentary delegation has to be elected or appointed as an individual. It is, of course, clear that the Rules of Procedure have to provide for a process ensuring political balance in the composition of the delegations and the joint parliamentary committees. It is likewise clear that the results of that process also have to be implemented and that this, too, can be safeguarded by the Rules of Procedure. It is also evident, on the other hand, that these important decisions about personnel cannot be completely removed from the plenary.

We must, then, be clear in our own minds that the joint committees and interparliamentary delegations perform duties of a distinctly sensitive nature with respect to our partner countries, and also that the appointment of certain persons to chair these committees can become a political issue, may be seen as discourteous or even taken to be provocative. It must therefore be possible for this plenary to retain control over who is actually appointed to the offices in question.

We cannot, then, have the situation in which Parliament gives, as it were, carte blanche for the appointment to specific positions, only for the individual groups, or even national delegations within them, to decide at the end of the day who is to be appointed. Parliament must hold on to its supremacy in this respect. I believe this also means that it must be ensured that, when we reassemble in January, we at least know the names of the people involved before proceeding to the ballot. This was not in fact the case at the start of this Parliamentary term.

In the medium term, though, I think we must consider handing over the responsibility to the joint committees and delegations. That is where the Members sit who know the relationships with the partner countries and their sensitive aspects. In the long term too, they should also bear responsibility for deciding who should preside over them.

  Corbett (PSE). – Mr President, this proposed set of amendments to our Rules of Procedure that has been so ably drafted by our rapporteur is intended to resolve a contradiction. In one sense it is a very simple matter: we either resolve it one way or we resolve it the other way. In the view of myself and many in my group, it is not absolutely crucial whether it be resolved this way or that. There are arguments in favour of either solution. Some of these arguments have been put with great clarity in this short debate. But resolved it must be, one way or the other.

As is so often the case when things are relatively simple, everybody has an opinion and these opinions do not entirely coincide. Some people have a preference for the solution that has been put forward by the committee. Others prefer the solution that has been tabled in an amendment signed by several political groups.

The vote tomorrow will determine which way we go. Either way, it is crucial that we settle this tomorrow. It needs to be sorted out before the constituent sitting in January. I concur with our rapporteur that it is somewhat of a scandal that this report has been sat on for over a year since it was adopted in the committee and is only coming now, almost at the last minute, to plenary to be settled. It should have been settled a long time ago. I congratulate the rapporteur on his patience. I am glad he was still able to remember the crucial arguments underpinning his report a whole year after he steered it through the committee.

  President. – Thank you, Mr Corbett.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.