Debate: Reform of the general principles of comitology
Date: WEDNESDAY, 15 JANUARY 2020
Speaker: Maroš Šefčovič
Language: EN

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced the differentiation between delegated and implementing acts and, on this basis, the co—legislator adopted the Comitology Regulation. It lays down the mechanisms for control by Member States over the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. The regulation also provides for the right of Parliament and the Council to be fully informed of the draft implementing acts submitted by the Commission to the committees of Member States. It also provides for a scrutiny right to address situations in which the Commission may have exceeded its implementing powers.  I think that it’s fair to say that the regulation is fulfilling its purpose. Why? Because, in 2018, the committees provided opinions on 1 633 draft implementing acts. There was no negative opinion and there were 32 so—called ‘no opinion’ cases in 2018. This ‘no opinion’ means that there is no qualified majority in favour or against draft implementing acts in the committee because of either the contrasting positions of the Member States or abstentions. In specific cases, the Appeal Committee must be consulted in such no—opinion scenarios. In 2018, this was the case for 12 draft implementing acts in the areas of health and consumer policy. In all of these 12 cases, the Appeal Committee also delivered a no, or lack of, opinion. It is precisely this very limited number of cases that have led to discussions, mainly because they have so far occurred in the politically sensitive areas of the authorisation of genetically modified food and feed and, to a lesser extent, in relation to the approval of active substances for plant protection products. When the Appeal Committee also delivers no opinion, the Commission may adopt the implementing act proposed. Indeed, the logic of the Comitology Regulation is only blocked from adopting an act if there is opinion in the Committee against it. This has been a guiding principle in comitology from the very beginning and ensures efficient implementation. As regards the 12 implementing acts in the areas of health and consumer policy, the respective substantive legal framework, not the Comitology Regulation, actually obliges the Commission to take the decision based on the procedural requirements and solid evidence gathered. In these cases of a lack of qualified majority in the Committee, the Commission has therefore been legally bound to take, at times, very unpopular decisions. The Juncker Commission therefore decided to propose, as a priority, to change these rules and put forward targeted amendments on the functioning of the Appeal Committee, with the objective of allowing for greater accountability on the part of the Member States in the decision—making process. The proposed amendments were the following: first, to calculate the qualified majority out of Member States which are present or represented and which do not abstain – and that means not all of the Member States; second, to provide for the possibility for a second referral to the Appeal Committee at ministerial level to address the problematic issues a second time; and, third, to make individual Member States’ representatives’ votes at Appeal Committee level public – this is what we discussed a few minutes ago – and to provide for the possibility to refer the matter to the Council for a non-binding opinion and overall political guidance.  Where do we stand with this proposal? Overall, there was practically no progress over the last close to three years. On the Council side, there has been no support whatsoever for this proposal. On the Parliament side, the lead Committee on Legal Affairs has not yet presented a draft report and only some opinion—giving committees supported the proposal. I therefore welcome today’s debate because it gives us the opportunity to collectively take stock of the situation. We have, however, to be realistic and frank. Unless there is a bold move that would help unblock this file, it is unlikely that progress will be made any time soon. The new Commission will factor this and your views today into ultimately deciding on how to proceed in the framework of the assessment of all pending proposals, ahead of the adoption of the Commission 2020 work programme. In any case, the Commission intends to continue to use all existing means to encourage Member States to take on their responsibility in the comitology process and to come to the solutions with Member States that find the widest possible support in the committee. Let me also refer to some concrete steps we are taking to improve the transparency of comitology, which I believe are also very important for this House. I will soon launch a new, modernised comitology register. The new public register will not only provide access to all draft implementing acts, but will also allow more user—friendly access to information on committees and their meetings. I will also work jointly with you and the Council to make sure that the non—binding delineation criteria between delegating and implementing acts that we agreed on last year will actually facilitate negotiations and bring benefits.  The Commission is fully committed to respecting the criteria when preparing legislative proposals and during legislative negotiations. In parallel, we must also jointly advance negotiations on the outstanding alignment of acts that still make reference to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. We were very successful here in agreeing on the first package last year, but work needs to continue on the remaining parts of the package. I’m looking forward to hearing your views on this file because I believe it would help us in finalising the work on the Commission work programme for this year.