Report by the Speaker of Finland's Eduskunta,
Ms Riitta Uosukainen
The Memorandum of the Working Group on the Legislation
1. At the 1997 Conference of Speakers, in Helsinki, it was decided to set up a working group to examine the problem of legislative proliferation and to report to the Lisbon Conference. The initiative was to a great extent that of our colleague, Mr. Luciano Violante, Speaker of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. Mr. Violante subsequently led the working group through its several phases to its conclusion in the Memorandum that we now have before us.
In the interest of brevity, I shall not repeat the various stages of the Working Group's activity. I would instead refer to the summary that has been attached to the Memorandum.
2. I know I speak for all the members of this Conference when I thank and congratulate Speaker Violante for his initiative and his contributions over three years. Luciano Violante's input was clearly decisive for the successful outcome. Thanks are also owed to the Secretary General of the OECD, Mr. Donald Johnston and his staff at the OECD's Public Management Programme as well as to Professor Yves Meny of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute and Professor Thomas Burns of Upsala University and to the numerous others who have made a solid contribution to the study and development of parliamentary practice.
3. The Memorandum submitted by the Working Group is admirably clear and specific, and there is little I have to add to its substance. I believe that the Memorandum, and its preparatory works, illustrate how the objectives and procedures of the Conferences themselves can be applied to practical necessities.
4. In paragraph a), the Memorandum details the types of information that governments should provide to parliaments so that parliaments can ensure transparency and accountability. I am sure that all EU parliaments agree that proper pre-legislative evaluation, thorough comparative examination, impact assessment and diffusion to the public are essential. No doubt all are also surprised to learn how often these elements are absent, even though they are meant to be the norm.
I would personally have used somewhat stronger language than the memorandum. Parliaments do not "contribute to the quality of legislation". Parliaments make the laws. Where parliaments are dissatisfied with the quality of legislation, they need only look to themselves. What changes are needed in Parliament's procedures? Governments are subordinate to parliaments; thus parliaments have the means to address any failings.
5. In paragraph b) also, the Memorandum expresses the consensus of participating parliaments on how the role of individual Members of parliaments can be enhanced. I would like to add that, although this is a consensus opinion, it is not self-evident. In all parliaments, the measures in paragraph b) are ideals not the reality. Also, the great difference in parliamentary procedures and traditions naturally requires that these measures be stated in a simplified form.
6. The job of the Speakers' Conference is "promoting the role of Parliaments" and "promotion of research activities" related to this role. As such the Memorandum fits well with the Conference's objectives. The Memorandum demonstrates that there is a consensus on the requirements for good legislation and that all participating parliaments believe they fall short of the ideal.
7. In paragraph c), the Memorandum deals with initiatives to be undertaken in relation to the European Union. Again, the Memorandum expresses a consensus opinion that is necessarily reduced to its essential elements. Obviously, we all agree that the Amsterdam Treaty's Protocol on the role of national parliaments needs - finally - to be implemented. The protocol must not, however, detract from the duty of national governments towards their respective parliaments. While there is full agreement that the highest standards of legislative drafting should be upheld, this refers to issues like consistency and comprehensibility. We surely are not prepared to discuss a harmonisation of the various legal drafting techniques in use. The Memorandum does not mention the relationship between national parliaments and national governments. By extension, the Memorandum thus fails to identify national parliaments' influence on the EU Council. Governments, acting in the Council, are the prime law-maker in the Union. Governments are also subject to the will of parliaments. This is where change can be brought about by national parliaments acting in cooperation. Experience from the Nordic Member States illustrates that parliamentary EU Committees are capable of concerted action, with a real influence on the Council.
8. In paragraph d), the Memorandum notes the need for parliaments to make better use of international organisations and research institutes. This, too, is a consensus view. I might add, however, that relations between parliaments and international organisations and research establishments are by no means new. Actually, projects of this nature have been going on for as long as the eldest of my Parliament's officials can remember. We may be surprised at the amount of scholarly interest directed at parliaments and how they work. The problem seems to be that, at some stage, parliamentary studies become divorced from their subject. It is desirable that some way be found to collect and draw on this body of research.
I believe it should be said that, where the Memorandum speaks of international organisations, reference is made to the research and other support organisations of these organisations. Actual relations between international organisations and their Member States is, obviously, a different matter.
I should also like to underline the Memorandum's reference to revitalising the ECPRD. I note that the ECPRD actually continues to provide a network for the various parliamentary documentation and research departments. Nonetheless, I believe that ECPRD's potential has been neglected in recent years. Given a more vigorous approach, ECPRD might be the logical focal point for the next step in parliaments' information technology revolution: the application of knowledge management techniques to the flood of information surrounding European legislation. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is also mentioned advisedly: this organisation collects large quantities of primary information from its members. It would be nice, if the IPU puts this material to use.
9. In paragraph e), the Memorandum addresses concrete forms of cooperation among parliaments. The proposals, which all relate to information technology and electronic communication are useful, limited in scope, and technically feasible. It should be stressed that the proposal is not for a formalised exchange of information between parliaments - which we know to be impractical. Instead, we should look at the technical feasibility of accessing information that is already being produced and stored by all our parliaments. I might add that projects of this nature are already being discussed by the IT sections of many parliaments. The winds of technological progress sem to be blowing our way.
The proposed forms of cooperation agrees well with the Conference's objectives and working procedures. In effect, we are proposing to strengthen the tools of inter-parliamentary cooperation simply by agreeing to coordinate work that is in any case being done by all.
10. In its final section, the Memorandum sets out to describe the tasks of the Conference. This section should be understood in the way intended by the Conference's Rules of Procedure, as a simple statement of the feeling of the meeting. The participating Speakers do support continued cooperation - at the appropriate levels - on the subject of the memorandum, as on the many other subjects on which parliaments cooperate as a matter of course.
I am also glad to endorse the Memorandum's support for next year's European Law Conference. Our Swedish colleague should be congratulated on the Riksdag's decision to mark Sweden's Presidency in such a productive and demanding manner.
I also join in the praise of the work done by the OECD's Public Management Programme and the European University Institute of Florence. These bodies will understand that, in urging them to continue their good work, we make neither a commitment for our successors at future Conferences nor an attempt to undermine the autonomy of scholarly research. We simply wish to say that their work has been useful and well executed.
11. I have the honour to propose that the Memorandum on the Quality of Legislation is included in the record of this Conference together with our profound thanks to Speaker Luciano Violante for his efforts in bringing this subject to a satisfactory conclusion.
