Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 23 May 2012 - Strasbourg

6. European Parliament’s right of inquiry (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by David Martin, on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry and repealing Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (2009/2212(INI)) (A7-0352/2011).

  David Martin, rapporteur. – Mr President, I shall begin with some ‘thank yous’, firstly to the secretariat of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO), and, in particular, Tamás Lukácsi, for his assistance in drafting this report. I would also like to thank Commissioner Šefčovič and Minister Wammen from the Danish Presidency for their willingness to engage at an early stage in this process. Their contributions in the AFCO committee and to me personally have been very welcome, and I look forward to working further with both of them in order to reach an agreement which is satisfactory to all the European institutions. I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups for the very cooperative atmosphere in which we have negotiated this report.

This is an ambitious report and a very timely one since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Back in 1995, when I was the rapporteur for this Parliament on the Maastricht Treaty, we successfully advocated elevating Parliament’s ability to hold a committee of inquiry to a Treaty-based function. Since then, the powers of the committee have not changed. Committees of inquiry are a tool for Parliament to investigate allegations of maladministration in the implementation of EU law. In their investigations, committees can speak to individuals involved and request documents to see if there have been any breaches of law or elements of corruption in the administration of the law.

I would like firstly to outline the importance of this role for Parliament in exercising its supervisory powers, before getting to the substance of the report and to the procedure. There have been three committees of inquiry in the history of this Parliament: one on the Community Transit Regime, one on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and, more recently, one on Equitable Life, the UK life assurance company. The Equitable Life inquiry concluded that Parliament lacked the ability to get to the truth because we could not speak to the people involved, we could not ensure access to documents and there were no consequences for false testimony. It is perhaps not surprising that the last inquiry committee struggled to uncover the truth.

We have gained significant new powers in the European Parliament over the last two decades, but our role in democratic scrutiny now needs to be brought into the 21st century. Since the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament is on an equal footing with the Council in its role as a legislator, and has significant powers of budgetary control, but in the area of democratic scrutiny, we lack the tools to uncover the truth.

In the same way that most national parliaments have the tools at their disposal to uncover fraudulent implementation of national law, it is the European Parliament’s responsibility to investigate maladministration of EU law on behalf of European citizens. Fundamentally, a committee of inquiry tries to uncover the truth about the past. As that great philosopher Bob Dylan said: ‘Truth is an arrow and the gate is narrow that it passes through’.

It is not an easy task to inquire into the past and uncover the truth and, without the ability to access documents and individuals, Parliament cannot perform this democratic duty effectively. It is a role which Parliament takes seriously and has not used frivolously. With only three committees in the lifetime of the Parliament, there should be no concerns that this tool will be overused.

So why are we reforming the rules now? Firstly, because a much-needed update to the rules has been pending since the conclusion of the Equitable Life inquiry and the recommendations that it made. Secondly, because the Lisbon Treaty has elevated the rules on committees of inquiry into a regulation. In fact, under Article 226 of the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament has the unusual role of policy initiator. We are acting here in what is usually the Commission’s role, and my report is the policy proposal to which the Council and Commission must give their consent.

There are three important elements of a European Parliament committee of inquiry which are addressed in my proposed reforms. The first is the ability to speak directly to the individuals involved in the issue. A major problem identified in the Equitable Life inquiry was the inability to request specific individuals. Instead, in many cases, the institutions in question would send a spokesman. I think it is vital that, when we are looking into decisions which were taken, we are able to speak directly to those who were involved, or to the experts on a particular issue.

The second issue is access to documents and the ability of a committee of inquiry to see documents which are directly related to the inquiry. Thirdly, the ability of a committee of inquiry to visit the Member State and to see for itself the context of the investigation is vital.

Now we know from past inquiries that without any form of sanction for refusal to testify, for false testimony or for bribery, the committee lacks teeth and can lack legitimacy. What we are proposing in this report is to give the European Parliament the same basis for sanctions that exists in many Member States, and my report was based on very detailed studies of national parliaments’ committees of inquiry.

I think it is also important to note that, of course, Parliament is not a court. Any sanctions for false testimony or bribery would have to be enacted by the Member States under an agreement reached in this reform.

With regard to the final conclusions of a committee of inquiry, however, the remit is simple: to uncover the truth. We do not hand down sanctions, we do not hand down sentences, we do not take any legal action. That would be for others, based on our recommendations.

I look forward to working with the other institutions and with my colleagues in finding a satisfactory conclusion to this report and I am optimistic that the three institutions can agree.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, the right of inquiry is an important feature of the European Parliament’s supervisory powers, allowing it to set up committees of inquiry to investigate alleged maladministration in the implementation of Union law.

Whilst the Lisbon Treaty has not materially changed the specific subject matter covered by Parliament’s right of inquiry, it has introduced changes in the procedure for establishing the detailed provisions governing the exercise of that right. Such provisions shall now be determined by Parliament, acting on its own initiative after obtaining the consent of the Council and the Commission. The Presidency fully respects Parliament’s right of initiative on this matter and has therefore closely followed the work of Mr Martin’s report.

Likewise, the Presidency has worked hard within the Council to be ready to begin formal trialogue negotiations with Parliament. During the exchange of views I had on this topic with the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) in January, I indicated that, coming from a country with a tradition of transparency and strong parliamentary scrutiny, I will approach this matter with an open mind and a willingness to find a reasonable compromise.

The contacts that have taken place between the rapporteur and the Presidency following the vote in AFCO on the Martin report have provided an excellent opportunity to discuss the matter further and to improve our respective understanding of each other’s viewpoint. I would like to thank Mr Martin for his willingness to listen to the Council’s concerns and for the constructive dialogue which he entered into with the Presidency. There is no reason to hide the fact that this matter is sensitive for all the institutions concerned. However, I am confident that the contacts which the Presidency had with Mr Martin will provide a good basis for further interinstitutional contacts.

Without entering into much detail on the draft report, I would like to highlight two points which are of particular importance to the Council. Firstly, the Council believes that the fundamentally political nature of Parliament’s right of inquiry should be reflected in the proposed new rules. This is crucial in order to avoid any interference with court proceedings. It also means that committees of inquiry cannot be vested with prerogatives of a quasi-judicial nature.

Secondly, the principle of attribution of competences, which is also enshrined in the Treaties, has to be fully respected. This implies that, in the framework of their investigations, the committees of inquiry should avoid any overlap with the competences of other institutions or of Member States.

Mr President, honourable Members, Vice-President of the Commission, I look forward to further contact with Mr Martin and with Parliament’s negotiating team on this issue, and let me assure you that the Presidency will do its utmost to reach a compromise which will be acceptable to all three institutions and will allow Parliament to exercise its right of inquiry in the most efficient possible way.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, the Lisbon Treaty included many innovations for the European Parliament, one of which is Parliament’s new right of initiative to set the ground rules for committees of inquiry. This clearly puts democracy in the driving seat and we should all applaud that.

It is now our joint responsibility to implement this new provision as soon as possible, in constructive cooperation between the three institutions, with common sense and in full respect of the letter and the spirit of Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The Commission has always defended the need for strong parliamentary oversight. Therefore, nearly a year ago, we engaged in the first discussions on Mr Martin’s draft report. I very much appreciated his cooperative spirit and good collaboration with the Presidency and Minister Wammen. At that time, we drew your rapporteur’s attention to some of the problematic elements of the initial draft, but only a few of our concerns have been reflected in the outcome of the final vote in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Likewise, the Hungarian Presidency and now the Danish Presidency have also expressed certain concerns and I very much welcome your rapporteur’s openness to taking some of these on board.

We welcome Parliament’s readiness to seek a constructive solution, which is clearly reflected by the set of compromise amendments Mr Martin tabled with a view to today’s vote, which try to accommodate some of the main concerns previously expressed by the Council and the Commission. But it is probably no secret that there are still some key elements to be discussed before the necessary consent of the Commission, foreseen by Article 226, can be given.

Let me mention some of the important elements for the Commission. We believe that the scope of the future regulation should remain the same as in the current decision. Indeed, as Article 226 states, the European Parliament may only set up committees of inquiry in the course of its duties and, pursuant to Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union, it shall act within the limits conferred on it in the Treaties. The Commission explicitly welcomes your compromise amendments in this regard.

We should also not forget that changes in Article 226 concern only the procedure and the type of act, not the mandate of a committee of inquiry, and that committees of inquiry are a fundamentally political rather than legal tool, at Parliament’s disposal for the exercise of political control. This is why I believe further discussions will be necessary also on the investigative tools proposed in the Parliament draft, which still appear rather excessive.

Last but not least, let me also mention Article 17 of the draft regulation, which concerns the hearing of officials and other servants of the EU and of Member States. Your compromise amendments address some of our key concerns as regards the issue of ‘freedom to testify’ and we can accept the inclusion of a ‘comply or explain’ procedure, but a certain perplexity still remains on our side as regards the different treatment of national and EU officials that you propose, which in our view, cannot be objectively justified.

Against this background, the Commission welcomes your intention to vote today only on the report, including some additional amendments, but not on the legislative resolution. This gives the three institutions the chance to engage in constructive trilateral discussions after the vote, so as to agree on a text to which the Council and Commission could easily give their consent according to Article 226, after Parliament has voted on the legislative resolution.

I very much look forward to working with you and with the Council in order to achieve an early and successful conclusion on this important file.

  Rainer Wieland, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, a body that is responsible for legislation must also be responsible for the implementation of the law. It cannot just be about the acquis communautaire; it must also be about the application communautaire, the application of the law, and, in this respect, there are some considerable problems within the Union. The work of the committee of inquiry into the Equitable Life Assurance Society crisis brought to light some surprising substantive facts, but it also showed that the instrument we have can definitely be improved. That is why this dossier is an important step forward.

Allow me to mention very briefly the five points that my group feels are important. Firstly, we understand that the Commission and the Council have concerns if there is reason, because of well-understood interests, for officials and ministers not to testify. The decision on this cannot be taken in an autocratic manner, however; it must be justified and declared.

Secondly, it cannot be left to the discretion of the person being heard to decide whether to appear in public or in camera. Thirdly, anyone who gives evidence must, of course, tell the truth. Fourthly, we expect the Member States to impose sanctions on those who do not tell the truth that are at least as severe as those imposed on people who do not tell the truth before equivalent national institutions.

Fifthly, and this is what my group’s Amendment 31 is concerned with, it is important that at the end of the work of a committee of inquiry, a minority conclusion must also stand. I very much regret that this has been declared inadmissible by the President or his administration, and I do not consider this decision to be correct.

One final word: both the Council and the Commission have expressed their pleasure at Parliament’s readiness to compromise. I would be pleased if, at the end of the day, this pleasure at a readiness to compromise could be shared by all sides.

  Roberto Gualtieri, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Martin’s report paves the way to the full implementation of the Treaties’ provision governing the right of inquiry, essential for carrying out one of Parliament’s fundamental duties: political control.

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced a special legislative procedure, and we therefore hope that during negotiations, both the institutions – Council and Commission – will uphold the spirit of this rule which explicitly entrusts the power of initiative and regulatory power to Parliament, and limits the role of the Council and Commission to a mere expression of consent.

Mr Martin’s report draws on the previous experiences of temporary committees of inquiry which have shown the limitations of this instrument, and proposes significant innovations. Informal talks with the Danish Presidency and with the Commission have resulted in satisfactory compromise proposals which meet some of the requests of the Member States and the Commission, but which do not limit Parliament’s right to hold to account EU and national institutions for the correct implementation of EU legislation, and to identify possible instances of maladministration.

Certain wording could be better clarified, but it is vital not to compromise on one point: the committees of inquiry must have access to documents and persons. This has nothing to do with judicial duties but, precisely, it concerns the full implementation of the political right clearly enshrined in the Treaties: the right of political control.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Martin for his excellent levels of cooperation.

The EU needs good governance, and transparent and democratic administration. That means Parliament having a right of access to documents relating to legislation. This is what is being negotiated right now, and things do not look good, because the Commission and the Council oppose it.

Now, however, we are considering another aspect of the matter, which is what powers Parliament has to supervise administration by means of the committee of inquiry. This is about political scrutiny, not judicial scrutiny, and that difference needs to be kept in mind, but Parliament must definitely have the right to undertake political scrutiny of this kind. I do not think that this means that national and EU civil servants have to be accorded equal status, which is the view that was taken by the Commissioner. I am not in favour of national civil servants having the same role here in Parliament that you commissioners do, for example. However, nor do you go along to national parliaments to be questioned by committees of inquiry in the same way that national civil servants do. That is the small difference to which I am referring.

It is nevertheless important that Parliament has a robust role in the supervision of the various institutions. Only in this way can we strengthen people’s confidence in the work of this European Union, and there is a lot to do in that area. As this committee of inquiry now exists and its role is being strengthened, I nevertheless hope that it will be used rarely, as has been the case hitherto, and with discretion, and only in very important cases.

  Gerald Häfner, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, democracy needs procedures, and procedures can only work as well as the rules on which they are based. In the case of the right of inquiry, these rules are completely inadequate, as experience to date has shown – in the case of the committee of inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, for example. That is why we need once and for all a functioning right of inquiry. Where there are grievances, misconduct and scandals, we need to investigate these, to bring matters into the light. We must replace cheap sensationalism and suspicion with clarity and truth; likewise, where there is concealment and obfuscation. That is our task, and we do it in the interests of and on behalf of our citizens. We need to have sight of all the relevant documents. We need to be able to hear all the relevant witnesses and persons concerned, including on the spot, and any failure to appear or refusal to testify or false testimony must have serious and effective consequences.

I would like to touch on one more point that unfortunately is not being voted on today. Experience has shown that, in a committee of inquiry, not all parties are always equally keen to shed light on matters. That is regrettable, because in fact, whatever national interests or considerations or party political interests or considerations may be at stake, everyone should be equally keen to bring matters to light. Experience shows, however, that occasionally, a minority is much more ready and much more clearly prepared to reveal the facts than the majority. That is why it is compellingly necessary to have the option of minority conclusions in committees of inquiry.

  Ashley Fox, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, scrutiny by this Parliament is important. Our job is not only to pass legislation – something which we do rather too much of – but also to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, both by the Commission and by the Member States. My predecessor in the South-West of England was Neil Parish, now the Member of Parliament for Tiverton and Honiton. He was instrumental in setting up the parliamentary inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak in the UK in 2001. That inquiry revealed how incompetently the last Labour Government handled that crisis.

This reform shows how inquiries should be undertaken. It contains some good parts but goes too far in granting powers to this Parliament. For example, it grants Parliament the power to summons individuals and the power to sanction those who refuse to attend. The Treaties do not grant us these powers and, in my view, we would be overreaching ourselves by approving this report.

I do not support the provisions relating to officials of national governments. Civil servants have a duty to provide their best advice to ministers and, having done so, to carry out those ministerial decisions. This proposal risks undermining that trust and subverting ministerial accountability, which is rightly judged by national parliaments.

If these proposals are to achieve anything, it should be to introduce greater accountability to the European institutions. It is here that Parliament should concentrate its efforts by bringing the bureaucrats in Brussels under democratic oversight and control.

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when our citizens are increasingly losing confidence in the European Union and the application of the law practised by its policies in many areas, Mr Martin’s own-initiative report can only be welcomed, and I would like to expressly lend my group’s support to this own-initiative report. It concerns taking further practical steps to assert the right explicitly laid down in Article 14 of the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Parliament’s task of exercising political control. I therefore do not agree with the previous speaker that we should not expand the right of inquiry or the rights of the European Parliament in this way, for how can and should Article 226 intervene in practice, in concrete terms, if it becomes necessary to set up temporary committees of inquiry in order to uncover and put a stop to, and I quote:

‘alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Union law’.

(DE) We need a permanent inquiry procedure that functions in real terms, is transparent and creates transparency.

Inquiry proceedings do indeed have an important role to play in a parliamentary democracy. They allow parliaments to examine the facts independently and autonomously where they consider this necessary in order to perform their constitutional task of representing citizens. I believe this to be urgently necessary, particularly in the situation which the European Union finds itself at present.

One final thought to close: I agree with those Members who have said that minority conclusions are urgently needed.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, inquiring into executives should be one of the central functions of any parliament. However, it is implicit that each parliament’s right should relate to its own executive and not somebody else’s. The European Parliament should indeed have the right to question EU officials, from the humblest right up to people like Mr Barroso who are not famed for their humility.

However, there is no reason for this right of inquiry to extend to Member States. That is, and should be, the function of Member States’ parliaments. The committee would be able to call specific civil servants from Member States to give evidence and even obtain judicial assistance. Civil servants must at least have the right conferred by the rapporteur’s own Amendment 18 to withhold information that they would be able to withhold from their own Member State’s inquiries. Furthermore, civil servants must be protected from the dilemma of being given contradictory instructions about whether they should conceal or reveal information.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE). – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Martin for his excellent work and also to thank the shadow rapporteurs.

Very limited powers were given to committees of inquiry under the Maastricht Treaty, and they were not commensurate with the stature of the European Parliament. With the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament was endowed with political control.

When it comes to democratic scrutiny, we simply have to give teeth to our procedures. Investigators on the spot request documents; here, officials from EU institutions and Member States ask national authorities for assistance – and, yes, there are sanctions. These are not, Mr Fox, European Union sanctions; they are applied in accordance with national procedures by national authorities.

We are not dogmatic. For example, in the course of negotiations, we dropped language which would have given the impression that committees of inquiry behave like a court. We recognise the possibility of authorisation for a given official to appear before the committee being denied by his superior, but in such cases, the official should come before the committee and explain the reasons. We are flexible and open to compromise, but we will defend the prerogatives of this House commensurate with its elevated political status and its stature. We have to strengthen the democratic scrutiny by Parliament of the EU process.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Martin, for the work he has done, and the Danish Presidency for its willingness to move forward at every stage of this report.

We are well aware of the three very specific competences of traditional parliaments. They have a legislative function, a budgetary function and a control function, and one other that is more general but very important: political guidance.

The control function enables parliaments to scrutinise and oversee the actions of the government and administration, to demand accountability and, lastly, to put political responsibility into practice, if need be, through both light mechanisms and more powerful mechanisms.

The right to control includes committees of inquiry; therefore, the work we are currently trying to carry out amplifies the functions of this House, which has made a great deal of progress in the legislative sphere and in terms of legislative and budgetary competences, but which is lagging behind when it comes to supervision.

Therefore, as we still have to go through a negotiating process after the vote, I would call on the Council and the Commission to join the rapporteur and Parliament in granting this House powers of inquiry.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Mr President, I agree that Parliament does not need or seek quasi-judicial powers, but we need for all that a serious capacity to be inquisitive about complex political controversies.

I look forward to the trialogue. We need to address the unequal treatment that the draft places on Commission and national officials, but we should also seek to reach an agreement on meaningful remedies for the conclusions drawn by an inquiry.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the right of inquiry is one of the standard rights of the various democratic parliaments around the world. The concern that legislators should obtain a true picture of the situation arises from the need for a proper legislative response to the social reality. The scope of the right of inquiry naturally relates to the political significance of the parliament in question and the European Parliament will gradually mature, a process to which the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty contributed significantly. Thanks to this right, the European Union has become more democratic as the institutional balance has shifted towards the European Parliament which directly represents the rights of European Union citizens. In my opinion, the expected draft regulation therefore seems appropriate in view of the new status of the European Parliament and the rights arising from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I want to support the comments of our rapporteur and thank him for them. I rise as the chair of the committee of inquiry into Equitable Life so I have some experience of the limitations of that committee. Having said that, we did achieve results and I think it is important to understand that the reason for that inquiry was that over a million citizens lobbied us to carry out our work, which we did.

I would also ask that the Parliament look at follow-up to committees of inquiry. We still have not got the full outcome of the work we did on Equitable Life, and I would like the UK authorities to clarify whether all citizens affected will be paid and when they will be paid. I think we should, in this report, look not just at our procedures, which are important and where I support change, but also at the follow-up to the work of the various committees of inquiry, because citizens will judge us not on the report but on the action.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to some of the remarks that have been made. I think it is quite important for the regulation to be legally watertight. For instance, it is crucial to avoid the possibility of the authority of the committee being challenged in the middle of the inquiry. For this reason, we need to work together to make sure that all the provisions are legally justified and completely valid. I believe that it is in all our interests.

Ms Jäätteenmäki and several other speakers referred to the issue of the disclosure of confidential information. I believe that this is one topic on which we need to work further to find a good solution for all three institutions. I also very much appreciate Mr Häfner’s comment. He clearly highlighted the importance of having clear rules with regard to such sensitive areas as committees of inquiry. I would very much like to reiterate the point made by Mr Duff, who highlighted the importance of overcoming the issue of unequal treatment between national and European civil servants. I hope that with a good cooperative approach to this issue, we will find a solution that is acceptable to all three institutions.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, may I first and foremost express my thanks for a really good debate and for the opportunity to discuss this matter with the European Parliament today. I know that it is a matter that is very important to Parliament, and therefore I would like to reiterate that the Council and the Danish Presidency fully respects Parliament’s right of initiative in this matter. I am looking forward to the European Parliament’s vote on Mr Martin’s report. The Danish Presidency will examine the European Parliament’s proposal very carefully and we will do our best to create a results-oriented process in the forthcoming negotiations between the institutions. The Presidency will work purposefully to find compromises that are considered satisfactory by Parliament, the Commission and the Council. In this connection, I would like to thank Mr Martin for his excellent cooperation and his constructive approach to the negotiations. The Danish Presidency very much appreciates the flexibility and willingness to negotiate that Mr Martin has demonstrated.

I am convinced that, in cooperation with Commissioner Šefčovič as well, we will be able to find a solution and agree on a legal basis for the work of the committees of inquiry. It is important that, on the one hand, we allow the committees of inquiry to work as effectively as possible, but, on the other, that we also ensure that Parliament’s committee of inquiry works in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty and respects the roles of the institutions. On this basis, I look forward to our continued cooperation with this Parliament, with the Commission and in the Council.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President