V. HOW TO MAKE PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY MORE EFFECTIVE?
AVANDAGES AND DISAVADVANTAGES OF THE DANISH SYSTEM
Ms Lotte Rickers Olesen,
Permanent Representative of the Danish Parliament to the European Union
This contribution relates to parliamentary scrutiny of European policy in Denmark, how it works and its advantages and disadvantages.
From the outset, this control has been based on a system of mandates. In theory, it's a system that gives Parliament an important role, because - and this is very important to know - Denmark usually has minority governments. In other words, the government does not have a majority in Parliament. The Constitution says that a government cannot stay in power if there is a majority against it, but it doesn't need to have a majority.
Since 1973, Denmark has had a majority government for just 8 months. In fact, right-wing governments are often supported by the far right on national issues, and left-wing governments by the far left. Neither the far right nor the far left support the European Union, and very often oppose its legislative proposals. So the various Danish governments are always obliged to find a majority within parliament.
In 1973, just one month after Denmark joined the European Economic Community, a political crisis erupted. A Danish minister had led a negotiation at the Council in Brussels and on his return to Denmark, the results of this negotiation were not accepted by a majority of the parties in the Danish Parliament. The disagreement concerned pork prices, and pork was a very important export item for Denmark at the time.
At the Council, it is imperative that all Member State governments commit their countries to applying European legislation.
It therefore became clear that a system needed to be developed to ensure that the Danish Parliament would not reject the results of legislation negotiated by the Danish government with the other eight Member States.
The mandate system has thus been in place since 1973. It works as follows: the government (i.e. the relevant ministry) assesses each new European legislative proposal. If it is consequential, the government is obliged to inform Parliament. If it has a major impact on Denmark, the government is obliged to present its negotiating position to Parliament to ensure that there is no majority against its position: this is the mandate. If the parties do not speak out against the government's position, they agree at the same time to support the legislation (if it is a directive that takes precedence over Danish law).
In practice, the ministers before going to the next Council meetings in Brussels or Luxembourg first appear before Parliament's European affairs committee on Thursday. They brief it on proposed legislation and other items on the agenda. And if there is a proposed European law with a major impact on Denmark, the minister has to present his position in order to obtain a mandate from Parliament. It's up to the government to decide when to present its position, in any case before the Council's position is adopted, usually before Coreper has adopted its position.
The mandate is always presented orally. But the government provides notes on the proposed legislation in advance, including the government's general position.
The MPs of the European affairs Committee then put their questions to the Minister, followed by a discussion.
During the meeting, the parties indicate whether or not they agree with the minister. Meetings are open to the public, broadcast on television and streamed online. Parties are often consulted by the minister before the meeting to find out whether there is a majority for or against.
The Danish Parliament also monitors the principle of subsidiarity on around 5 to 10 proposals per year. First, the relevant parliamentary committees discuss the proposals, then it is the turn of the European affairs Committee. This exercise does not arouse much interest among MPs, as the subsidiarity procedure can only block legislation (and this is very unusual), but cannot influence its content.
There is also parliamentary scrutiny of the European Council. Before each meeting, the prime minister attends a meeting of the European affairs Committee to explain and discuss the issues on the agenda. After the meeting of the European Council, the Prime Minister returns to report on the meeting. However, the Prime Minister never asks for a mandate, as the European Council does not adopt legislation.
In theory, this system gives Parliament a great deal of power. In practice, however, it has its drawbacks:
1) Mandates are submitted too late for the European affairs Committee.
When Coreper adopts its position, the negotiations have lasted a long time, they are almost over, and it is difficult to change anything. So Parliament's influence on European affairs is limited.
2) The number of people involved in European affairs is very limited. The European affairs Committee has 29 members, but in practice there is only one person from each party who attends meetings and deals with everything, which means a lot of work, a lot of information and a lot of documents. The other parliamentary committees rarely deal with European affairs, nor do the party presidents.
3) There are other opportunities for the Parliament to get involved at European level that are not being used: political dialogue with the European Commission, for example, especially before legislative proposals are presented by the European Commission, when we have the best chance of having an influence. The Danish Parliament used to give its position on green papers, but now the European Commission uses other forms of consultation, and the Danish Parliament is no longer involved. It is also possible to influence European affairs, for example, by engaging directly with the European Parliament.
A year and a half ago, the European affairs Committee decided to set up a group of highly experienced people to come up with ideas on how to improve the way we work with European issues in the Danish Parliament.
The group included a former foreign affairs minister, a law professor, a former European commissioner, and others.
Last October, the group made a number of recommendations:
-Parliament's other committees should commit themselves and issue a general mandate 7 weeks after the presentation of a European legislative proposal.
-The government should present its positions earlier to the European affairs Committee (around 3 months after the presentation of a European bill) for a more specific mandate.
-The presidents of the political parties should discuss European issues and decide on the most important priorities for Denmark.
-We need to work more closely with organisations and civil society
-We need to set up a system with rapporteurs in Parliament's committees. A rapporteur can get involved at national level and at European level - with the European Parliament, the other national parliaments and the European Commission - very early on, even before the proposal is presented.
It is not yet known whether there is a majority in parliament in favour of these recommendations.