Number of subsidiarity checks performed 27 out of a possible 39 chambers performed a subsidiarity check 32 out of a possible 39 chambers performed a subsidiarity check, though not all on time Coordination with other national parliaments 17 out of 27 chambers reported cooperation, mainly through the IPEX website and permanent representatives at the EP 16 out of 32 chambers reported cooperation, mainly through the IPEX website and permanent representatives at the EP Communications sent by the EC Mostly brief and formal without a statement of assurance that further action will be taken. Does address concerns and answers questions Mostly brief and formal, though more seriously addresses suggestions and states that these will be explored further Changes made in proposals after receiving opinions from national parliaments None formally admitted, according to the permanent representatives these are hard to trace None formally admitted, but EC communications do indicate that changes can be made through Council debates Number of proposals annulled None, not yet happened in practice because of into force of relevant protocol in December 2009 None, not yet happened in practice because of entry into force of relevant protocol in December 2009 Table 4.1. Indicators: outcomes. 4.1.1. Similarities The proposals have similar impact assessments. They both consider a range of different options, including the status quo, they both explain these options and offer a reasoning why the option chosen is the best one. The subsidiarity statements flowing from these impact assessments are not too different, for they follow the same reasoning. They both argue that the scope is too big for member states to take sole action, which necessitates EU or Community action. The national parliaments or chambers scrutinizing these statements and the proposals as a whole, report in both cases an interparliamentary cooperation rate that is about the same. In the subsidiarity check for COM(2008) 818 17 out of 27 parliaments indicated that they have cooperated and for COM(2009) 338 16
check. In addition, the Barroso initiative obliges the Commission to respond, so politicians do not feel any inhibitions when asking questions during the parliamentary scrutiny procedure. Responses of the Commission were very formal in the beginning, because it did not know how to deal with the critique of national parliaments. The representative however does feel that the Commission seriously considers the opinions. The country the representative represents performs about ten subsidiarity checks a year. Many proposals are not up for discussion because their compliance with subsidiarity is not at stake from the beginning. The EC is also aware of the mechanism of subsidiarity checks, which works preventively since it considers every proposal’s compliance with the subsidiarity principle. The representative is of the opinion that subsidiarity checks are not meant to block proposals, but to raise awareness among national parliaments as to have them check proposals early on. It is not important to look at how many negative opinions are expressed. Most important is to get national parliaments to cooperate in EU matters. Therefore the eight-week deadline should not be extended, since it would only delay the policy-making process. National parliaments are quite involved in the process and the mechanism of subsidiarity checks is a good instrument, albeit probably not very effective in practice. The yellow card alone is very hard to draw. With regards to changes being made in proposals after parliamentary scrutiny, these are very hard to trace. The process is an invisible one, though there is some influence of national parliaments in the Council and the EP. National parliaments have the mandate to control their government and can have it lobby in the Council for changes. As some parliaments or chambers ask the Commission quite a lot of questions, it can take more than the eight-week deadline to receive an answer. This does not contribute to the subsidiarity check procedure because the deadline for Reasoned Opinions has to be met. So this is a weird use of the subsidiarity check. Interview B – permanent representative of a chamber of the UK to the EP The system the UK works with is much different from, for example, the Danish system. The parliament of the UK does not engage directly into a dialogue with the Commission, but involves its government in the matter. The UK has a standard scrutiny procedure in