TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Role of parliaments - European and national - in reforming the European Union  and establishing a charter of fundamental rights of the European Union

Fischer Heinz, President Nationalrat (Austria)
Kaklamanis Apostolos, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece),
Mancino Nicola, President Senate of the Republic (Italy)
Lord Tordorff Geoffrey Johnson, Chairman of the Special Commission for the European Union, House of Lords (United Kingdom)

 Conclusions of the working group on the quality of legislation

Dahl Birgitta, President Riksdag (Sweden),
De Decker Armand, President Sénat (Belgium)
Hansen Ivar, President Folketinget (Denmark),
Mancino Nicola, President Senate of the Republic (Italy)
Palacio Vallelersundi Ana, President Juridical Committee, European Parliament
Lord Tordorff Geoffrey Johnson, Chairman of the Special Commission for the European Union, House of Lords (United Kingdom)
Uosukainen Riitta, President Eduskunta (Finland),
Van Der Hoeven Maria, Vice-President Tweede Kamer (Holland)
Violante Luciano, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy)

 PRESIDENCY OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN SENATE,  NICOLA MANCINO

 Continuation of the discussion on the role of parliaments - the European and the  national parliaments - in the process of reforming the European Union and the  creation of a charter of fundamental rights of the European Union.

NICOLA MANCINO, President of the Senate of the Republic (Italy), recommenced the examination of the first item on the agenda of the conference for the day, recalling that the debate had begun the previous day, after the introductory report.

LORD GEOFFREY JOHNSON TORDOFF, Chairman of the Special Committee for the European Union, House of Lords (United Kingdom), in expressing his thanks to the Presidents of the Senate of the Republic and the Chamber of Deputies for the hospitality received, recalled the lively debate that had taken place on the charter of the rights of man and the role of the parliaments and took up the arguments of the President of the delegation for the European Union of the French Senate and the President of the Eerste Kamer of Holland with regard to the level of representativeness of the convention. The members that belong to it were appointed without consulting parliament at least as concerns the United Kingdom. He wondered if the same thing had taken place in other European countries, if a vote had been taken or if the choice had been agreed upon among the parties. He held that the representatives to the convention did not know the positions of their respective parliaments. The safeguarding of the citizen vis à vis the institutions of the European Union (for example Europol) could be reinforced by the charter of fundamental rights. In this respect the views of the parliaments should be sought without making do with only the declarations of the governments. The adhesion of the European Union to the ECHR had, moreover, still to be ratified. The political will to submit the institutions to the control of the Court of Strasburg was necessary. In this respect the Commission had appealed to the governments to put the adhesion to the ECHR on the agenda for the intergovernmental conference. Although he held that the representatives appointed to the convention had worked well, he underlined the problems related to the level of democracy of the body. First and foremost, parliaments should be represented, not governments. If the instrument of the convention were to serve as a model, there should be a serious reflection on its composition, consulting the parliaments before not a posteriori.

HEINZ FISCHER, President Nationalrat (Austria), in associating himself with the expression of thanks to the Presidents of the Italian Senate and Chamber for their hospitality, recalled that in the past the function of national parliaments in the framework of the integration process had been discussed from an institutional standpoint in order to identify initiatives aimed at improving their role. He observed that the European population was increasingly more worried and perplexed about the integration process, and also as regards its aims. The attempt at defining the configuration of the European Union could, perhaps, have reduced the flexibility necessary to answer these worries. There was also the risk of plebiscitary countervailing forces: a referendum, for example, on the process of enlargement of the European Union in all members states would mean giving each country the powers to express itself also on the future of other countries. He considered that the idea of the charter of rights was valid and held that the convention had worked well. The full participation of representatives had been recorded in this body, if it was considered that there were only two for each parliament, in addition to the delegations of the European parliament and the governments. It was to have participated in the drawing up of the final draft of the text but the future steps were not clear as a plurality of ideas on the level of cogency and the meaning of the charter had been encountered, as also on the solutions for making it effective. It would be an error to be divided on these questions. It would be preferable to proceed with gradualism before arriving at the definition of a text that could become fully binding. In this manner the charter would remain on the agenda and successive actions to be taken could be ascertained. He was sceptical about the suggestion of a referendum on the enlargement of the European Union and more inclined towards a referendum on the implementation of the charter into the European legal system. He observed, in conclusion, that where risk was deemed to exist of citizens being excluded from the decision-making process, the role of the national parliament could not be compressed or reduced until democratic correctives had been identified. If it were true that it was impossible to forego the use of the referendum, it should not be used incorrectly, and hoped that in this respect a more thoroughgoing reflection on this question be conducted.

APOSTOLOS KAKLAMANIS, President Voulì ton Ellìnon (Greece), declared that the brilliant paper delivered the previous day by the President Mancino had clarified the challenges in store for the European Union which made even important by the possibility that in future the number of member states will be almost doubled. He believed that the foreseen enlargement would not alter the objectives, the institutional profile and the federal prospects of the European Union. Otherwise, the European Union could run the risk of dangerous hegemonic tendencies and of estranging European citizens from the common path. The institutional changes must, therefore, take place in a context of parity between the states, with a correct equilibrium among the organs of the European Union and in the weighting of the votes, based on transparent and democratic criteria. It is necessary to respect equilibriums and maintain the principle of unanimity in constitutional questions, especially as regards reinforced cooperation, also for purposes of avoiding useless risks of contraposition. However, there are other common policies that influence the power of the states, for example those regarding the euro, security and defence. In remembering that the European Council that Helsinki had posed severe conditions per accession to the European Union of Turkey and Cyprus, he held that in this manner the capacity of adhering to fundamental principles was demonstrated. The Cypriot question and the other premises for the accession of Turkey had to be viewed in the framework of a partnership agreement between the European Union and Turkey, on which negotiations were about to begin. As concerns the question of Kosovo, the European Union had, on the other hand, adopted a different approach: it had been unable to resist external, extra-European pressures. Therefore, he urged that similar errors not be made again as they could be harbingers of consequences that would not only damage the populations but also the prestige of the European Union. With reference to the charter of rights, he declared that the Greek parliament fervidly sustained the idea. He also stressed the need that the text include, in addition to civil and personal rights, economic and social rights that had a binding character. In conclusion, he hoped that the parliaments would known how to make good the gap represented by the deficit of protection for the European citizen vis à vis the institutions.

NICOLA MANCINO, President Senate of the Republic (Italy), as there remained no other persons scheduled to speak, he declared that the discussion on the first item of the agenda of conference was concluded. While aware of the fact that different points of view remained as concerns the juridical value to assign to the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, on the extension of the agenda of the intergovernmental conference to questions other than "left-overs" and on the possibility of reorganising the treaties into a kind of constitutional text, he considered that the need for a more effective involvement of the parliaments in the decision-making processes of the European Union was widely recognised, and that it should be obtained mainly by exercising the powers provided for by the respective parliamentary systems - for example the ratification of institutional and international agreements and measures jointly taken by the Council and the European Parliament. Although experience had shown the limits to which national parliaments could intervene in ratifying and implementing the directives of the European Union, their participation could be also take the form of laying down guidelines for their respective executives for the so-called ascendant phase and by means of their capacity to exercise influence through the network of inter-parliamentary relations. In this phase not only had intervention become more decisive for the question of formulating the European Union's laws but by virtue of contacts and exchanges with other parliaments, there had emerged the capacity of each parliamentary assembly to evaluate laws in terms of the common interest and not egoistic nationalisms. Moreover, the prospect of constructing a Europe based upon values seemed to be a shared vision, even though some delegates saw an advantage in accelerating the integration schedule as well as those who perceived the need for a more prudent course. However, public opinion did not seem inclined to sustain a process based wholly upon shared economic and commercial interests. The model offered by the convention - albeit with the necessary adjustments, gradualism and in full respect of the role specific to governments - appeared useful for purposes of an institutional involvement of parliaments in the definition of the fundamental choices of the European Union. Similarly, there emerged the utility of an exchange of views between the presidents of the parliaments of the European Union as regards the stances taken by the various assemblies on institutional issues. In conclusion, he expressed his thanks for the impassioned and expert contributions to the debate, which were fitting form of participation to the formation of the tools that would shape the future order of the European Union.

 Conclusions of the working group on the quality of legislation

NICOLA MANCINO, President Senate of the Republic (Italy) gave the floor to the president of the Finnish Eduskunta for her paper.

RIITTA UOSUKAINEN, President Eduskunta (Finland), after recalling that the decision to create a working group with the remit of examining the problems related to the quantitative growth of legislation had been taken during the conference of the presidents of the European Union that took place in Helsinki in 1997 at the suggestion of President Violante to whom she expressed the gratitude of all members of the conference, illustrated the contents of the Memorandum. Paragraph a) set out the type of information that the governments should provide to parliaments in detail so that the latter could ensure transparency and responsibility. An adequate preparation, a careful work of comparison and appropriate information on public opinion were the essential elements for good legislative work. The parliaments were the artificers of legislation: they, therefore, had to accept responsibility for any dissatisfaction with the quality of the laws they themselves produced. In order to improve the decision-making process within parliament, the latter should deploy the appropriate means in order to concentrate upon shortcomings in the legislative process. Paragraph b) expressed the convergence of views among the parliaments that participated in the work for the preparation of the Memorandum. A similar unanimity was found in the arrangements for the enlargement of the role of the national deputies. First of all, mention was made of the information and research services, an appropriate division of labour inside parliament as well as procedures to make the parliamentary processes more visible. One of the tasks that the conference of the presidents set itself was to promote the role of national parliaments by sustaining the research work associated with this role. Paragraph c) regarded the initiatives that the European Union could undertake in order to achieve improvements, the implementation of the protocol attached to the treaty as well as the simplification of community legislation. There was also consensus on the fact that the Memorandum could only express itself in general terms and the view that the protocol attached to the Amsterdam Treaty and regarding national parliaments ought to be implemented was also commonly held. The protocol, on the other hand, did not diminish the responsibility of the national governments towards their respective parliaments. Paragraph d) mentioned the need for parliaments to avail themselves of research centre services in a more profitable manner. The problem consisted of the gap separating parliamentary research work from its primary objective and the need to discover a method for gathering the information acquired. The Memorandum, moreover, contained the proposal to give a new lease of life to the ECPRD, which could act as a connecting structure, also considering the future telematics revolution, as well as performing the function of the inter-parliamentary union. Paragraph e) dealt with the practical aspects of parliamentary cooperation. The proposals contained in the Memorandum referring to electronic communication techniques, were well detailed and technically feasible. In the final part of the Memorandum it emerged that the parliaments favoured an appropriate level of cooperation. She associated herself with the eulogies for the work conducted by the OSCE and the European University Institute of Florence but without indicating any commitment for subsequent organisers of the conference of the presidents. In conclusion she asked that the Memorandum be included in the report for this conference.

IVAR HANSEN, President Folketinget (Denmark), expressed appreciation for the splendid hospitality received and thanked President Violante, in particular, for his commitment as guide and promoter of the project coming to fruition, as well as all the other persons who had contributed to it. He recalled that interesting initiatives regarding the quality of legislation had been adopted - though not always without difficulty - in Denmark, some of which were cited in the OSCE report attached to the Memorandum. However, there had been a constructive cooperation whose first results had already appeared. The work of the single countries for the improvement in the quality of their legislation was also appreciable as well as the manner in which the directives and the other community acts had been implemented. As concerns future cooperation it would be hoped that all countries identified a method appropriate for the acquisition of reciprocal information. It would be similarly useful if each state could avail itself of the information held by foreign parliaments facing similar problems. In this regard, direct personal contact and cooperation, rather than the mere transmission of data, acquired particular importance, as demonstrated by the forms of cooperation taking place among north European countries that could be extended throughout Europe. While appreciation the exceptional contribution proved by OSCE and the European University Institute towards the working group on the quality of legislation, he did not believe it was necessary to foresee the contribution of other bodies in order to avoid excessive bureaucratisation. He thus confirmed the value of the cooperation between the presidents of the parliaments and the importance of a direct personal dialogue. The activities in progress were very important for the presidents of European parliaments because improving the quality of legislation did not only mean reducing the proliferation of laws and accelerating the time-scale of the legislative process, but more importantly making the language of the laws comprehensible to citizens, thus permitting an authentic collaboration between parliaments, governments and the public opinion in order that the results of the laws be accepted by citizens. It followed from this that there should be major involvement - that had to be as immediate as possible -of the national parliaments in international legislative activities. In conclusion he expressed the hope that the present national parliaments would be remembered in future for having made a real contribution to the improvement in legislative quality as well as for giving added impetus to democracy and parliamentarianism.

MARIA VAN DER HOEVEN, Vice-President Tweede Kamer (Holland), after congratulating the presidents of the Italian Senate and Camera for the excellent hospitality received, expressed her appreciation for the paper presented by the president of Eduskunta and stated, in particular, that she had been impressed by the statement that parliaments are primarily responsible for the quality of legislation. In Holland the legislative activity of parliament had great importance with respect to other activities. Therefore there were questions concerning the quality of legislation that could not be ignored such as the logic and coherence of the legislation as also the impact that it had on citizens. In Holland a body had been specially set up to ascertain this impact. As concerns the indirect effects, in particular of European legislation, it would be necessary to reach agreement on timescales so that the latter were as close as possible to one another and thus guarantee citizens the certainly of law. Moreover, the principle of transparency must also apply for juridical procedures at an international level. In conclusion, she held that the participation of citizens in legislative initiatives was important and recalled that the preceding week it had been decided to publish all the parliamentary acts and minutes of the sittings in Holland over the internet in order to guarantee parliamentary information to the citizens.

ARMAND DE DECKER, President Sénat (Belgium), in thanking the presidents of the Italian Senate and Chamber for the splendid hospitality received, congratulated President Uosukainen for the excellent paper on the Memorandum proposal that was characterised by a sometimes critical but always constructive analysis. He also recalled that in the recent forum of the senates in the world, organised by the French Senate, questions referring to the choice of bicameral systems were dealt with, although the positions taken were not free from criticism. However, the renewed vitality of bicameralism was linked to the fact that this system seemed to guarantee greater efficacy in terms of the quality of the legislative product. The recent experience that had transformed Belgium into a federal state determined a redefinition of the role of parliament. In particular, the senate, called upon to control the quality of legislation, intervenes downstream and upstream in the legislative process, that is in the course of the preparatory phase and the verification of the effects of the legislation. In the context of its specific role as a chamber of reflection, the Belgium senate therefore assumed specific tasks with regard to the quality of legislation. Noting that the legislator tended to wield ever fewer discretional powers, he recalled that in Belgium this kind of desecration of legislation had taken form with the setting up an arbitration court with powers to annul laws. The legislative activities had, therefore, to comply with a minimum standard of methodological rationality. The legislator had to define the objectives of the legislative measure and the arrangements for analysing the impact of legislation, by attempting to coordinate all the information on the effects that the law directly or indirectly produced. However, the numerous and precious sources of information available to the legislator were often not used to the full as they lacked a systematic nature. In conclusion, he recalled that the Belgium senate had decided to give a structural and permanent character to its task of scrutinising the laws, also through the institution of a special service. The latter were initiatives that made it possible to simplify legislative activity: all of this represented not only a challenge for the legislation but also for democracy.

NICOLA MANCINO, President Senate of the Republic (Italy) observed that President De Decker had introduced a question that was parallel to that of the quality of the legislation - the role of the second chamber.

ANA PALACIO VALLELERSUNDI, President Juridical Committee, European Parliament, stressed that the problem of the quality of legislation constituted a constant preoccupation for the European parliament, both as regards its new legislative functions and for the difficulties that it encountered in passing laws in eleven languages, with fifteen legal systems that refer to at least three major juridical traditions. Therefore, concern about the quality of laws had acquired a particular pitch of attention in the European parliament. The working group on the quality of legislation had noticed the need to create a greater bond with the citizens, a need that was particularly keenly felt by the European Parliament, which on account of its history and location at the top of a pyramid of institutions appeared far removed from the citizens. In the name of the European Parliament, she held it was perfectly acceptable to accept the conclusions of the Memorandum. As regards the quality of the laws there was a technical appearance that masked a fundamentally political question: the dimension of the bond with citizens who asked for greater access to bills and that these texts were understandable and contained juridical certainties. With reference to the work of single parliamentarians, she could fully subscribe to paragraph b) of the Memorandum, stressing the enormous importance of the exchange of information that had to be selective because if it were excessive it would lead to the total absence of information. It was important to operation together with institutions of research such as the OSCE, the University Institute of Florence and others, and to make correct use of modern technology that had made it possible to legislate more effectively and with greater rigour. It was necessary to make the preparatory work available to citizens as the European Parliament by publishing it over a Web page. She pointed out that on behalf of the European Parliament, she had presented an amendment proposal regarding the basic concepts of point c) in the Memorandum project, which took account of an actual fact: that this conference had already obtained the important result represented by the inter-institutional agreement among the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the quality of laws. This amendment proposal foresaw, inter alia, the inclusion in the text of a reference to article 55 of the regulations of the European Parliament and to the activities of codification of community laws in which the European institutions were engaged.

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), expressed her appreciation for the work undertaken, which had improved the quality of the legislation; and as a result all the national parliaments were anxious to exchange views on the question. The national parliaments, which played an important role in the European context, in particular for their ties with the citizens, could participate in the improvement of the quality of the national and European legislation, by achieving in this manner the common goal of creating a modern legislation, comprehensible to citizens. She, therefore, manifested appreciation for the initiative undertaken by the Italian parliament and President Violante, applauding his personal commitment and capacity. She also congratulated President Uosukainen for her paper. Observing that the national parliaments had to be involved in the "preliminary" phase of the community legislation procedure, she considered the reciprocal exchange of experiences was important. For this purpose it was necessary to sustain the activities of the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation. In conclusion, she mentioned the conference on European legislation to be organised by the Swedish Riksdag in conjunction with the ministry of justice from 10 to 11 June next year in Sweden, during the Swedish presidency. It was foreseen that there would be about one thousand participants among whom the president of the European Parliament, Ms Fontaine and hoped that President Violante, who could speak about the role of national parliaments, would also be present.

LORD GEOFFREY JOHNSON TORDOFF, Chairman of the Special Committee for the European Union, House of Lords (United Kingdom), while agreeing with the statements of President Uosukainen, held that it was necessary to proceed with caution. First of all, the process absorbed considerable resources, as shown by the British experience: notwithstanding that fact that the committee of the House of Lords with competence for the European Union was made up of 70 member with 6 sub-committees, each with its own secretariat, the scrutiny carried out had not been able to go beyond the surface of European legislation. As regards the question of secondary legislation, at the origin of many of the problems that concern citizens, the difficulty derived not so much from the primary legislation as rather from laws implemented at national level, as this occasion was used to introduce new laws. It was, therefore, important to ask parliamentarians to assume responsibility for this sector and, however, meritorious the activity, in reality it was not always possible to make the laws comprehensible for citizens.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), thanked all his colleagues who for three years had participated in the working group and with the OSCE, which for the first time had worked with the parliaments. The experience represented an important change in working strategy and one which he held could also apply to the future. In addition, he thanked the European University Institute of Florence and President Uosukainen for her paper. He expressed his appreciation for the work conducted, which was important for the content of the Memorandum and for the method followed. It had been shown that through informal groups it was possible to exchange information, involving external bodies and constructing a set of proposals, which did not take the form of binding and directly operative documents but that of "cultural deposits". The complexity, in particular, of the regulations emerged, which was the outcome of social complexity. But it was no longer appropriate to look back with nostalgia to the nineteenth century laws, as this model was inadequate for today's world. There was a limit to the work of simplification, which was dictated by the reality of the present day. The quality of legislation was a good result but quality in the overall system itself was also necessary. Excellent laws with poor judges and a bad public administration would frustrate the work of the parliaments. As concerns the proposals advanced by the European Parliament, while abiding by the decisions of President Uosukainen, he observed that the Memorandum did not have a binding character. It would be possible to attach the text of the proposal and everybody could use it as he saw fit. A text cannot be modified but a proposal can be added. As concerns the Chamber of Deputies, in his capacity as president, he held a useful purpose was served by unifying in a single dossier all the work of the conference including those of the working group, OSCE and the European University Institute, in order to make them available to whoever was interested in consulting them. A form of reinforced cooperation could be set in motion between the presidents of parliaments that expressed the desire for cooperation. He announced the intention of proposing to parliaments interested in studying the necessary arrangements, the designation of a specific section of their respective webs to an exchange, in a summary form, of information on their respective activities. He suggested putting competent bodies, in the various parliaments, in contact with one another on the question of legislative quality in order to arrive at a definition, where possible, of reinforced forms of cooperation. For example, in the context of COSAC it might be possible to commence discussion on the European legislation. He believed that the ECPRD, mentioned by President Uosukainen, was a service that was directly functional to the service of the bodies of the various parliaments. In conclusion, he observed that the Memorandum could be regarded as the terminal point of the work conducted, which each would be able to use in the manner he or she felt fit. The parliaments interested in proceeding informally through forms of reinforced cooperation could reach understandings on subjects of reciprocal information in order to facilitate not only their operations - to the degree possible - but also the life of citizens. RIITTA UOSUKAINEN, President Eduskunta (Finland), expressed her gratitude to Presidents Mancino and Violante for the excellent organisation of the conference. She noted that the text under examination was definitive, even if work would continue in Stockholm. She did not believe it was appropriate to amend it with the proposal that had just been advanced, although she held the latter was valid. For the moment it would be necessary to wait for those activities that, on the base of the document presented, would make it possible translate the objectives of the Memorandum into practice. The text being scrutinised offered a framework for the development of the quality of legislation at a national level. Each parliament is committed in this sense, albeit in different ways. In the Finnish parliament for example a commission for the examination of future scenarios was at work and complex evaluation was undertaken on every parliamentary bill, with the involvement of various bodies. The knowledge that a complex world cannot be regulated by simple laws had to induce all national parliament to continue to maintain a high level of attention on the problems of legislative quality. In this regard the parliaments had to cooperate directly, by "putting themselves on the net". She also hoped that cooperation with the European Parliament could continue in a valid manner.

NICOLA MANCINO, President Senate of the Republic (Italy) considered that the observations of President Uosukainen could serve as conclusions for the debate and that, in the absence of other speakers, the conference would be adjourned to the following morning.

BIRGITTA DAHL, President Riksdag (Sweden), considered that the conclusions reached by the work group were excellent. They represented a basis of good working practice to be consolidated for future work. It was not appropriate to introduce procedural formalisms, such as a solemn vote on a document that, amongst other things, had been presented during the meeting without even preparing a translation. Any new proposals could be prepared before the meetings in order to guarantee the maximum of democratic procedures.

ANA PALACIO VALLELERSUNDI, President Juridical Committee, European Parliament, stated that the European Parliament had presented a document to stimulate reflection for some work still in progress. It contained interesting data concerning constructive results obtained on the quality of laws and was related to the work of the working group. It must be clear that the European Parliament had never proposed the need for a formal supplement to the Memorandum and the text in question represented a further contribution as well as a signal of the commitment of the European Parliament to continue the work in question.

NICOLA MANCINO, President Senate of the Republic (Italy) observed that there was no contradiction between the addresses of President Uosukainen and that of the colleague Dahl. The document prepared by the European Parliament, produced to stimulate reflection, could be evaluated together with the Memorandum.

LUCIANO VIOLANTE, President Chamber of Deputies (Italy), gave his assurance that both the Memorandum and the document of the European Parliament would be part of the documentation to be sent to all members of the conference.

NICOLA MANCINO, President Senate of the Republic (Italy) declared that the day's proceedings were concluded.