STANDING COMMITTEE 208 SC 05 E   Original: English NAT O   Pa rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT International Secretariat     October 2005

208 SC 05 E 1 1. During  its  meeting  in  Ljubljana,  the  Standing  Committee  discussed  relations  with  the European   Parliament   (EP).      This   stemmed   from   proposals   made   to   Assembly   President Pierre Lellouche  in  a  meeting  at  the  Ljubljana  Session  by  Mr  Elmar  Brok,  Chairman  of  the  EP Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2. In  view  of  a  lack  of consensus  during  the  Standing  Committee  meeting,  the  International Secretariat was charged with summarizing the discussion and examining the issues of reciprocity and asymmetry between the EP and the Assembly. 3. The  European  Parliament  has  a  unique  status  with  the  NATO  PA.    Following  a  decision taken by the Standing Committee in Brussels in March 2000 and ratified by the full Assembly in the plenary  meeting  in  Budapest  in  May  2000,  the  EP  can  nominate  a  10-member  delegation  to participate in Assembly Sessions, and the EP delegation’s rights are almost identical to those of Associate Members: the difference is that members of the EP delegation are not entitled to submit amendments to texts. 4. Thus, the EP delegation’s rights are as follows: Full speaking rights in both committee and plenary meetings; At the invitation of Committee Chairmen, EP delegates might be given the right to present reports; Participation   in   committee   and   sub-committee   visits,   Rose-Roth   and   Mediterranean seminars; The  right  to  present  texts  (i.e.:  declarations,  resolutions,  recommendations,  orders,  and opinions); No right to present amendments to Assembly policy recommendations; No right to vote. 5. Since the 2000 Annual Session, the EP has sent a delegation to all Assembly sessions. In addition,  the  February  meetings  in  Brussels  have  frequently  included  a  meeting  with  the  EP. However, MEPs have only occasionally participated in Committee visits. 6. In  exchange,  the  Assembly  is  able  to  send  a  full  delegation  consisting  of  one  or  two members from each national delegation to selected high-level hearings of the EP.  After a period of receiving invitations to such hearings only sporadically, the Assembly is now notified systematically of EP hearings.  However, notification of the content of meetings arrives at relatively short notice – typically less than two weeks – and past experience showed that few Assembly members are able to  make  the journey  to  Brussels for  such meetings,  which  often  last  only  half  a  day.    That  said, when NATO PA members have participated in hearings, their presence has been recognized and the chair has been generous in allocating speaking to NATO PA participants. 7. During the Standing Committee meeting in Ljubljana, President Pierre Lellouche expressed his wish to increase co-operation between the Assembly and the EP. He noted that co-operation with the EP was crucial in the area of ESDP. He also highlighted the increasing contacts between the United States and the European Union. 8. The President also observed that, following the creation of the new status of Mediterranean Associate Members, these delegations now had more rights at sessions than the delegation from the EP.  Specifically, Associate Members and Mediterranean Associate Members had the right to propose  amendments to  Assembly  texts  while  Members  of  the  EP  did  not.    President  Lellouche believed that this was an anomaly which the Assembly should address. 9. The President therefore proposed that at Sessions, the delegation from the EP should have the same rights as Associate Members and Mediterranean Associate Members, namely that they should  be  able  to  present  amendments  to  Assembly  policy  recommendations.  He  also  made another   proposal,   which   he   had   discussed   with   Elmar   Brok,   Chairman   of   the   European

208 SC 05 E 2 Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee: as the EP had a 10-person delegation to the NATO PA, the  Assembly  should  also  appoint  a  delegation  or  special  group  which  would  meet  twice  a  year with the EP.  The President finally remarked that he and Mr Brok agreed that the two organisations should look for opportunities for conducting joint activities. 10. A majority of members, while commenting on the need for the Assembly’s relationship with the EP, did not feel the need to enhance its status in the Assembly.  The main objections were: Granting  the  EP  the  right  to  submit  amendments  would  give  too  much  influence  in Assembly  decisions,  and  in  some  cases  EP  delegates  were  seen  already  as  being disproportionately dominant in Committee discussions; The   fact   that   many   EP   represented   an   organization   rather   than   a   state,   and   that amendments should remain the prerogative of national representatives.  Also, the mandates of MEPs and national MPs were quite different; In  view  of  the  questionable  value  of  meetings  with  the  EP  which  had  taken  place  in  the context  of  the  February  meetings  in  Brussels,  some  members  were  unenthusiastic  about additional meetings with the EP; It  was  also  suggested  that  contacts  with  the  EP  should  be  managed  through  existing Assembly bodies – such as a Committee – rather than by creating a new body. 11. As noted earlier, it was decided that the Standing Committee would look again at the issues discussed during its Ljubljana meeting, and the International Secretariat was asked to see if ways could be found to address the questions of reciprocity and asymmetry between the Assembly and the EP.  However, the reality is that as a directly elected body, the European Parliament is very different from the Assembly in terms of membership, mandate and working practices.  This basic asymmetry makes direct reciprocity impossible to achieve. 12. While  institutionalizing  deeper  cooperation  may  be  important  for  political  or  "symbolic" reasons,  the  above  mentioned  asymmetry  makes  it  difficult  to  identify  arrangements  that  would represent   a   practical   gain,   beyond   the   exchange   of   views   that   is  achieved   under   existing arrangements  between  the  EP  and  the  Assembly.  Current  institutional  arrangements  allow  for further  cooperation  on  a  pragmatic  case-by-case  basis  when  the  circumstances  are  deemed  to require  it.  Institutionalising  additional  meetings,  which  to  date,  members  have  shown  no  great enthusiasm to attend, risks creating extra activities for little perceptible gain. 13. In  the  light  of  the  above  considerations,  the  Standing  Committee  could  consider  the following options: (a) Should  the  EP  delegation  be  given  the  right  to  submit  amendments  to  Assembly texts? 14. While it might seem anomalous that all Associate and Mediterranean Associate members can submit amendments but members of the EP cannot, it could equally be argued that there is no reason  why  those  nations  who  happen  to  be  in  the  European  Union  should  have  an  additional vehicle for submitting amendments.  Furthermore, the Assembly does not have the right to submit amendments to EP texts so there is certainly no reciprocity. (b) Should the Assembly and the EP delegation create a joint group which would meet twice  a  year  to  discuss  issues  of  common  interest  such  as  ESDP,  transatlantic  relations, the Mediterranean, relations with Russia etc.? 15. The  Standing  Committee  should  decide  whether  to  create  such  a  group.    However,  it should be noted that under existing arrangements, Assembly members are invited to meetings of the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee, but it has proved difficult to secure members' participation on a regular basis.  This would also mean adding another special group to an already intensive agenda.

208 SC 05 E 3 (c) Should  one  of  the  Assembly’s  Committees  –   or  Sub-Committees  –   be  tasked  with holding regular meeting with the EP? This could be a compromise. 16. The joint Committee meetings each February in Brussels have included a meeting with the EP on several occasions.  This arrangement could be made systematic, provide the dates do not coincide with a period when the EP is meeting in Strasbourg.  Alternatively, or even in addition, a Sub-Committee could undertake a regular meeting with the EP, or make a specific point of inviting EP members when a visit is deemed to be of particular interest.  This type of arrangement would require the agreement of the Committee and Sub-Committee concerned, and would not impose an extra burden on the Assembly schedule or resources. This option could produce more systematic cooperation without creating new structures and adding to activities. (d) Should the Assembly’s members participate more frequently in EP hearings? 17. The   International   Secretariat   could   circulate   notifications   of   all   EP   Foreign   Affairs Committee meetings to delegations, and if any member wishes to participate, could notify the EP accordingly.  There are typically two meetings of one and half days each month in Brussels.  The dates for meetings are set months in advance but the agendas are usually distributed about two weeks before each meeting.  However, in view of the fact that the Assembly itself holds meetings almost  every  week  of  the  working  year,  the  dates  of  EP  hearings frequently  clash  –  or  are  very close  to  –  the  dates  of  Assembly  activities.    In  other  words,  should  the  Assembly  be  making additional demands on its members’ time and competing against itself in offering meetings to its members?