Intervento della Presidente dell'Eduskunta finlandese,  Riitta Uosukainen

 The role of national parliaments and the European Parliament in the  reform process of the European Union and in the drafting of a EU Charter  of Fundamental Rights

Under the Finnish Constitution, Parliament determines the Republic's negotiat-ing positions at Inter-Governmental Conferences. For the current IGC, this has been done by means of a comprehensive government report before the beginning of the IGC and a large number of periodic reports thereafter. The Government has submitted its tentative positions, which Parliament then approved or amended in two global reports by the responsible parliamentary committees, the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Grand Committee. In addition the two committees have regularly (about once a month) examined and authorised the government's line of action on sectoral questions.
The Parliament of Finland has taken the position that of the challenges facing the European Union, only enlargement is of truly historic significance. The current Inter-Governmental Conference must be part of a credible and effective enlargement process, as required by the Helsinki European Council. Absent the enlargement viewpoint, and there is no urgent need to reform the Union Treaties.
On the IGC's substantive issues, I refrain from comment at this stage, except to note that my Parliament's views on these are published on Parliament's website (www.eduskunta.fi).
Reform of the Treaties is the one issue in which all national parliaments, irre-spective of their constitutional environment, exercise real power. The very fact that Treaty changes must be ratified by national parliaments give these the clout to demand information and to control their respective governments during the negotiating process.
When first proposed, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights caused mixed feelings among many of us. The main reservation concerned the European Convention on Human Rights, which most feel the Union should have joined first. Having seen the outcome so far, I believe that most of our reservations may have been misplaced. The Convention establishing the Charter has delivered a comprehensive and balanced statement of the Member States' current understanding of fundamental rights.
I am particularly pleased at the inclusion in the Charter of the fundamental right to a clean environment and the recognition that the principles of good governance are in themselves fundamental rights of the citizens.
I would call for some reflection and debate on the role of the Convention pre-paring the Charter, and particularly the role of any future conventions. I mean no criticism of the Convention led by President Herzog. The Charter may well be one of the few instances in politics of ends justifying means.
For a national parliament, at least for my Parliament, the concept of a convention is problematic. We have now a constitutional arrangement, whereby Par1iament can exercise whatever amount of control over the executive it deems fit. In practice, our system gives parliament as a whole, and all its component political groups and committees, real influence on how our country acts in, e.g., an inter-governmental conference or IGC. Conventions involve a paradox: while Members of Parliaments participate, the influence of parliaments as such may be diminished. This is because individual Members, unlike governments, cannot be mandated or held responsible by their parliaments. Also, one or two or even ten individual MP's will never be fully representative of their parliament. Governments, by the very nature of parliamentary government, are obliged to reconcile the various contradictory opinions represented in any parliament. The principle of the equality of all Members of Parliament may also be difficult to reconcile with a Convention.
It has been proposed that in future, Conventions replace IGCs as a method of preparing institutional reform in the Union. Several arguments may be advanced in favour of Conventions. IGCs have become increasingly difficult to manage and increasingly unable to focus on important issues. The Charter Convention, by contrast, has proved remarkably efficient. The Convention has been admirably transparent. IGCs (perhaps because of their subject) are not.
I would hesitate to say that the Convention structure increases the legitimacy of the negotiating process, or that it strengthens the role of national parliaments. Rather, the Convention is part of the tradition of "the wise and the great" leading the Union forward, as was the case for the Maastricht Treaty, Economic and Monetary Union and, indeed, the founding of the Union itself.
Apart from the Convention, recent years have seen a proliferation of international parliamentary assemblies. Most recently it has been proposed that an assembly be attached to the World Bank. There is a risk that parliaments may actually dilute their influence by participating in too many assemblies with vaguely defined powers. The influence of a few Members of each concerned parliament sitting in such bodies may be quite illusory. At the same time, these bodies could provide an excuse to bypass real parliaments holding real powers.
Conventions and parliamentary assemblies play an important part as consultative and preparatory bodies. The Convention dealing with Fundamental Rights has shown brilliance in preparing the Charter. We must be careful, however, about how the EU Treaties are to be amended. If a Convention were successful in achieving consensus on the Treaties, the consensus would likely become the final document. This would reduce the influence of all elected bodies. A Convention structure could thus mean exchanging parliament's direct control of a sovereign negotiator for something much less accountable.