role of the european parliament in the european semester · governance and the european semester -...

THE OUTCOME OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE ROLE OF NATIONAL

PARLIAMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN SEMESTER CYCLE

K. Hagelstam, W. Lehofer

European Parliament - Directorate of Internal Policies

Economic Governance Support Unit (EGOV)

9 July 2018

QUESTIONS TO ALL EU28 MEMBER STATES’ PARLIAMENTS

• Answers: 28 Member States, 33 Chambers (max: 15 unicameral + 13 bicameral = 41 chambers)

All EU28, of which: BE 3 chambers, DE 2 chambers, ES 2 chambers, IE 2 chambers.

• Period of the survey: 30 Jan 2018 - 08 Feb 2018

• Survey in 5 parts on the role of National Parliaments/Chambers in the:

1. Adoption by the European Council of the annual guidelines (“priorities”) of the forthcoming Semester Cycle

2. Role of the Parliament/Chamber in the government’s adoption process of the annual national reform programme (NRP) and

stability/convergence programme (SCP)

3. Role of the Parliament/Chamber in the Council’s adoption process of the annual country specific recommendations (CSRs)

4. Role of the Parliament/Chamber in the government’s adoption process of the Draft Budgetary Plans (DBPs) (only Euro Area)

5. General Questions

(Questions 1-4 were contact details, the first question was Q5)

© European Parliament - Economic Governance Support Unit (EGOV) 2

SOME GENERAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE SURVEY

- Most parliaments seem to be well informed on the priorities of the forthcoming Semester

Cycle, while only a third of them adopt an opinion on this issue

- Around a third of the parliaments are only informed by the government about the substance of

the national reform programme after its submission at EU level, and very few parliaments

adopt an opinion on it. The same conclusion may be drawn for the Stability and Convergence

Programmes, while the degree of involvement is slightly higher as regards the adoption of the

Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs)

- A clear majority of national parliaments seems to be well informed of the Commission’s

assessments of the CSRs adopted in the course of the previous Semester Cycle.

- As regards the adoption of the DBPs by the government, many parliaments were only

informed after their submission at EU level or were not informed at all

- The involvement of the independent national fiscal councils and national productivity

boards in the parliamentary debate seems to be quite limited

- Drawing a clear link between the degree of national parliamentary involvement and the

CSRs’ implementation rate seems to more difficult


17

6

10

Q5: When were the priorities of the forthcoming Semester Cycle presented to you by the government?

before adoption by the European Council in early spring

after adoption by the European Council in early spring

no answer

PART 1: ADOPTION BY THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF THE ANNUAL GUIDELINES (“PRIORITIES”)

OF THE FORTHCOMING SEMESTER CYCLE


PART 1: ADOPTION BY THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL OF THE ANNUAL GUIDELINES (“PRIORITIES”)

OF THE FORTHCOMING SEMESTER CYCLE

11

16

22

17

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Q6: opinion Q7: discussion of Commission's previous semesterassessments

The National Parliaments provided:

Yes No

Q6: Did you provide an opinion/mandate to the governments on the annual properties of the forthcoming Semester Cycle?

Q7: Did you discuss the Commission assessments on the progress made in the implementation of the priorities of the previous Semester Cycle?


8

13

8

4

The NRP-programme was presented to you by the Government:

Before the adoption by the Government

After the adoption by the Government, but before the submission tothe Commission

After the submission to the Commission

no answer

PART 2: ROLE OF THE PARLIAMENT/CHAMBER IN THE GOVERNMENT’S ADOPTION

PROCESS OF THE ANNUAL NATIONAL REFORM PROGRAMME (NRP)


Q8: Was the NRP-programme presented to you by the government?

PART 2: ROLE OF THE PARLIAMENT/CHAMBER IN THE GOVERNMENT’S ADOPTION PROCESS

OF THE ANNUAL NATIONAL REFORM PROGRAMME (NRP)

8 7

3

2426

3330

1

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

Q9: Opinion Q10: Hearing with the socialpartners, experts, etc.

Q11: Hearing with the NationalProductivity Boards

Q12: Hearing with the NationalFiscal Council


Yes No no answer

Q9: Did you provide an opinion on the NRP-programme in question?

Q10: Did you organise a hearing with stakeholders (e.g. social partners, experts etc.) as part of the adoption of the NRP-programme?

Q11: Did you organise a hearing with the national productivity board as part of the adoption of the NRP-programme?

Q12: Did you organise a hearing with the independent national fiscal council as part of the adoption of the NRP-programme?


5

17

9

2

The SCP-programme was presented to you by the Government:


After the adoption by the Government, but before the submission tothe Commission

After submission to the Commission

no answer


PROCESS OF THE STABILITY/CONVERGENCE PROGRAMME (SCP)


Q13: Was the SCP-programme presented to you by the government?


OF THE STABILITY/CONVERGENCE PROGRAMME (SCP)

86 5

2527

33

28

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

Q14: Opinion Q15: Hearing with the socialpartners, experts, etc.

Q16: Hearing with the NationalProductivity Boards



Yes No

Q14: Did you provide an opinion on the SCP-programme in question?

Q15: Did you organise a hearing with stakeholders (e.g. social partners, experts etc.) as part of the adoption of the SCP-programme?

Q16: Did you organise a hearing with the national competitiveness board as part of the adoption of the SCP-programme?

Q17: Did you organise a hearing with the independent national fiscal council as part of the adoption of the SCP-programme?


19

5

9

The Country Specific Recommendations were presented to you by the Government:

Before the approval/adoption of the CSRs by the Council in June/July

After he approval/adoption of the CSRs by the Council in June/July

no answer

PART 3: ROLE OF THE PARLIAMENT/CHAMBER IN THE COUNCIL’S ADOPTION PROCESS

OF THE ANNUAL COUNTRY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS (CSRS)


Q18. Were the Country Specific Recommendations presented to you by the government?

PART 3: ROLE OF THE PARLIAMENT/CHAMBER IN THE COUNCIL’S ADOPTION PROCESS OF THE

ANNUAL COUNTRY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS (CSRS)

12

2021

12

1

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Q19: opinion Q20: discussion of Commission's previous semesterassessments


Yes No no answer

Q19: Did you provide an opinion/mandate to the governments on the CSRs before their approval/adoption in the Council in June/July?

Q20: Did you discuss the Commission assessments on the progress made in the implementation of the previous year’s CSRs?


4

6

6

8

Was the DBP presented to you by the Government:


After the adoption by the Government, but before the submission tothe Commission and/or Eurogroup

After submission to the Commission and/or Eurogroup

no answer


PROCESS OF THE DRAFT BUDGETARY PLANS (DBPS) EURO AREA ONLY(Answers from 19 Euro Area Member States, 24 Chambers)


Q21: Was the DBP presented to you by the government?


OF THE DRAFT BUDGETARY PLANS (DBPS) ONLY FOR EURO AREA

57 6

2

1816

14

20

1 14

2

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Q22: Hearing with the socialpartners, experts, etc.


Q24: Did the Governmentpresented the Commission'sopinion to the Parliament?

Q25: Did you invite theCommission to present its

opinion of the DBPs?


Yes No No answer

Q22: Did you organise a hearing with stakeholders (e.g. social partners, experts etc.) as part of the adoption of the DBP?

Q23: Did you organise a hearing with the independent national fiscal council as part of the adoption of the programme?

Q24: Did the government present the Commission opinion on the DBP to the Parliament?

Q25: Did you invite the Commission to present its opinion of the DBPs (if so when)?


PART 5: GENERAL QUESTIONS: WHICH DEDICATED COMMITTEES ARE IN LEAD ON THE

SEMESTER PROCESS IN YOUR NATIONAL PARLIAMENT:

Q26: Which dedicated Committees are in lead on the Semester process?

• Lead: Committee on EU Affairs or Finance and Budget Committees

• Other responsible Committees (Commerce, Labour, Social Affairs, Agriculture, Transport, Energy, etc.)

Federal States involve Regional/High Chambers


PART 5: GENERAL QUESTIONS

• Q27: Do you have a dedicated person at staff level in your national parliament coordinating the Semester process?

• Only BE, MT, NL, DE. Others shared the workload across different persons and committees.

• Q28: Would you see it as useful to establish a closer link between national parliamentary administrative bodies dealing with the

procedural aspects of the Semester in order to exchange information, including with the respective administrative bodies at the EU-level,

with the aim to learn from “best practises” in the context of the Semester process?

• Yes: 20; No: 9; No answer: 4 (Best practises, workshops, exchange of ideas, exchange of info through an online platform)

• Q29: Has your Parliament/Chamber taken a recent position on the European Semester process that includes suggestions on how to

improve it?

• Only DE: Bundestag: “Strengthening, better implementing and further developing the European Semester” (Drucksache 18/4426);

Bundesrat: “Opinion on the Commission’s reflection papers” (Drucksache 543/17 - Beschluss)

• Q30: Have you established specific arrangements in relation to the regional level as part of dealing with the European Semester

process?

• Only BE: “The Belgian system involves the regional parliaments as chambers of the national parliament - Flemish Reform

Programme is part of the Belgian NRP”

• Federal states have shared competencies and involve the respective Chamber of the Regions/States


http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/18/044/1804426.pdf

https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/drucksachen/2017/0501-0600/543-17(B).pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2

AVERAGE NP’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE EU SEMESTER


IDEAS FOR POTENTIAL COOPERATION WITH NP ON THE EUROPEAN SEMESTER (I)


Organisation of a “Summer Seminar” at the European Parliament on economic

governance and the European Semester - first one could be organised in July 2018, this

could take place as a seminar targeting dedicated staff in national parliaments dealing

with the semester process (speakers from national parliaments, European Parliament,

the Commission).

Possible joint side event with European Parliament/National Parliament

administrations in the margin of the Art 13 conference/ European Parliament Week

As follow-up to these events make a publication – explaining in more detail the role of

parliaments in European Semester and to enhance quality of the parliamentary scrutiny

process at the EU level.

IDEAS FOR POTENTIAL COOPERATION WITH NP ON THE EUROPEAN SEMESTER ( II)


Dedicated mailing list / intranet side to exchange between European

Parliament/National Parliament administrations

Based on the mailing list/intranet, establish a peer group (EP/NP) on the technical

level during the cycle of the European Semester process.

METHODOLOGY 1/2

Two groups of questions, assessing:

Group 1: existence of minimal NP’s involvement requirement, with a presentation of the government to NPs of EU

priorities, NRPs, SCPs, CSRs, DBPs (questions 5, 8, 13, 18, 21): equally-spaced score between 0 and 1.

Group 2: active NP’s involvement, with the organization of hearings, debates, discussions, opinions, etc. (questions:

6-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-20, 22-25): binary score of 0 and ½.


Question 8: Was the NRP-programme presented to you by the government ? Score

Before adoption by the government 1

After adoption by the government, but before submission to the EU institution 2/3

After submission to the EU institution 1/3

No answer 0

Question 6: Did you provide an opinion/mandate to the governments on the annual properties of the forthcoming Semester Cycle? Score

Yes 1/2

No 0

METHODOLOGY 2/2

Average NP’s involvement score: sum of all involvements’ scores, normalized to the total maximum involvement

• NP’s Involvement range: 0 -1

• non-Euro Area Member States had only 16 questions (21 questions for EA)

Note: the ‘active’ NP involvement extends the minimal requirement of having received a presentation of the subject:

that’s why the scale of questions related to the active organization of events by NPs ranges from 0 to ½ (vs. 0 – 1)

Caveat: very different traditions and practices of NP’s involvements.


THANK YOU!

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European

Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and

sent a copy. © European Union, 2018

ANNEX: SURVEY’S QUESTIONS

Q1,2,3,4: Name, Contact Point, Committee.

Q5. When were the priorities of the forthcoming Semester Cycle presented to you by the government?

Q6. Did you provide an opinion/mandate to the governments on the annual properties of the forthcoming Semester Cycle?

Q7. Did you discuss the Commission assessments on the progress made in the implementation of the priorities of the previous Semester Cycle?

Q8. Was the NRP-programme presented to you by the government?

Q9. Did you provide an opinion on the NRP-programme in question?

Q10. Did you organise a hearing with stakeholders (e.g. social partners, experts etc.) as part of the adoption of the NRP-programme?

Q11. Did you organise a hearing with the national productivity board as part of the adoption of the NRP-programme?

Q12. Did you organise a hearing with the independent national fiscal council as part of the adoption of the NRP-programme?

Q13. Was the SCP-programme presented to you by the government?

Q14. Did you provide an opinion on the SCP-programme in question?

Q15. Did you organise a hearing with stakeholders (e.g. social partners, experts etc.) as part of the adoption of the SCP-programme?

Q16. Did you organise a hearing with the national competitiveness board as part of the adoption of the SCP-programme?

Q17. Did you organise a hearing with the independent national fiscal council as part of the adoption of the SCP-programme?

Q18. Were the Country Specific Recommendations presented to you by the government?

Q19. Did you provide an opinion/mandate to the governments on the CSRs before their approval/adoption in the Council in June/July?

Q20. Did you discuss the Commission assessments on the progress made in the implementation of the previous year’s CSRs?

Q21. Was the DBP presented to you by the government?

Q22. Did you organise a hearing with stakeholders (e.g. social partners, experts etc.) as part of the adoption of the DBP?

Q23. Did you organise a hearing with the independent national fiscal council as part of the adoption of the programme?

Q24. Did the government present the Commission opinion on the DBP to the Parliament?

Q25. Did you invite the Commission to present its opinion of the DBPs (if so when)?

Q26. Please specify which dedicated committees are in lead on the Semester process in your national parliament:

Q27. Please specify if you have a dedicated person in your national parliament coordinating the Semester process: If yes, could you please specify his/her role?

Q28. Would you see it as useful to establish a closer link between national parliamentary administrative bodies dealing with the procedural aspects of the

Semester in order to exchange information, including with the respective administrative bodies at the EU-level, with the aim to learn from “best practises” in

the context of the Semester process?

Q29. Has your Parliament/Chamber taken a recent position on the European Semester process that includes suggestions on how to improve it?

Q30. Have you established specific arrangements in relation to the regional level as part of dealing with the European Semester process?


role of the european parliament in the european semester · governance and the european semester -...

Documents