Parliamentary questions are considered a key aspect within the democratic management course of, a fast and straightforward technique of forcing political leaders and the businesses beneath their management to account for his or her actions, of defending residents’ rights, and as a prepared supply of data for residents and media on what occurs behind closed doorways. Lately there was a concerted effort to scale back using parliamentary questions within the European Parliament. These efforts have been strikingly profitable, writes former Irish Minister for EU Affairs Dick Roche.
Regular Development and Fast decline
Between 1995 and 2005 the variety of written parliamentary questions tabled within the EU Parliament grew steadily. In 1995 just below 3500 PQs had been tabled. That rose to six,284 in 2005. In 2015 that quantity peaked at just below 15,500.
Since then, the variety of questions has dropped dramatically. In 2016 the variety of written PQs fell to 9,465, a 40 % drop. By 2020 the quantity was down greater than 50 %. In 2023 solely 3,703 questions had been processed, lower than 1 / 4 of the questions taken in 2015.
The best of MEPs to submit written questions is tightly constrained. An MEP could submit a most of twenty questions over a rolling three-month interval. Moreover, draft PQs should be permitted by the President earlier than being forwarded to the Fee for response.
The place related questions have already been tabled, MEPs are ‘inspired’ to not proceed and to both seek advice from a solution that has already been given or, to await the reply to a query that’s in course of.
Whereas guidelines governing the content material of parliamentary questions exist in all parliaments the willingness of MEPs to submit themselves to the ‘self-censorship’ exercised within the EU Parliament is difficult to envisage elsewhere.
The method of ‘encouraging’ MEPs to chorus from submitting authentic questions has vital downsides. Along with its chilling impact on the pursuit of points that MEPs regard as vital, the apply implies that the extent of concern current on a difficulty, or the geographical vary of that concern shouldn’t be mirrored within the Parliamentary document.
The strategy additionally presumes that the reply utilized to at least one MEP satisfies the considerations of different Members. It’s a handy ‘let loose’ for the Fee discouraging ongoing important interrogation of points.
Oral Questions and Query Time
The EU Parliament’s guidelines on Oral Parliamentary Questions and Query Time are terribly restrictive.
Questions for ‘oral reply with debate’ should be submitted to the Parliament’s President who refers them to the Convention of Presidents which decides the questions that make it to the Parliament’s agenda. The questions which are to go on the agenda should be given to the Fee no less than one week earlier than the sitting of the Parliament on which they’re to be taken. Within the case of inquiries to the Council, the discover interval is three weeks. Solely 57 oral questions had been taken within the EU Parliament in 2023.
Query time, so usually the main focus of public consideration in nationwide Parliaments is a tightly restrained affair within the EU Parliament. Query Time could also be held at every part-session for a period of as much as 90 minutes on a number of particular horizontal themes to be determined upon by the Convention of Presidents one month upfront of the part-session.’
MEPs chosen to take part in query time, have one minute to place their questions. The Commissioner has two minutes to answer. The MEP has 30 seconds for a supplementary query, and the Commissioner has two minutes to reply.
Sluggish and Slipshod Responses
The effectiveness of the PQ system within the EU Parliament is additional undermined by gradual response instances and terribly slipshod replies.
Replies to “precedence questions” are required to be answered inside three weeks. Different questions should be answered inside six weeks. These time targets are breached extra usually than they’re noticed.
There’s additionally widescale criticism concerning the standard of responses from the Fee. Replies are criticized as dodging the problems raised, as incomplete, deceptive, dismissive, not sometimes bordering on disrespectful, and infrequently merely false.
All these weaknesses had been demonstrated lately within the dealing with of Parliamentary Questions regarding a report produced in March 2023 by the European Insurance coverage and Occupational Pensions Authority, EIOPA. [ https://www.eureporter.co/world/romania/2024/01/25/keeping-the-european-parliament-in-the-dark-about-eiopa/ ]
Between March 2023 and February 2024, the Fee answered twelve questions associated to EIOPA. Many of the responses failed to satisfy the six-week deadline. Replies given had been defensive, evasive, or each.
All responses might be fairly described as insufficient. Hyperlinks cited by the Fee in a few of the PQ replies led to paperwork that had been both ‘entry denied’ or had key paragraphs redacted. Entry to the EIOPA report itself was denied.
Having fielded questions over plenty of months, the Fee confessed that it had not seen the EIOPA report. Replying to a query as to the way it referenced considerations expressed in a report, that it had not seen, the Fee steered that “it might be inferred that EIOPA” had considerations within the case.
In a number of responses, the Fee acknowledged that it had “not acquired any proof of irregularities associated to the preparation or content material of the EIOPA report.” Irregularities weren’t alleged in any of the questions the place this line was put ahead within the Fee’s solutions. Fairly why the Fee felt it wanted to disclaim an allegation that was not put is unclear.
It appears truthful to remark that the tenor and content material of the PQ responses wouldn’t be tolerated in any nationwide parliament.
Rendering the EU Parliament toothless.
The parliamentary query system within the EU Parliament is weak. The drive to curb the European Parliament’s capability to carry the Fee and different businesses to account via parliamentary questions has not, as one would possibly count on, come fully from the Fee: it had robust assist inside the parliament.
That was demonstrated in 2015 in a Parliamentary Query submitted by the shadow rapporteur on the 2016 funds from the S&D group [ https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-8-2015-006180_EN.html ].
The MEP submitting the query referred to “the flood of written questions (that) should be an enormous burden for the Fee” and claimed credit score for persuading “the primary political teams to succeed in a consensus on the matter” of reversing the expansion in PQs enabling MEPs to “give attention to their precept process – legislative work.”
Assist for weakening the PQ system from inside the Parliament was seen once more in a be aware produced in 2014 by a senior staffer of the parliament which careworn the necessity to “cut back entry” to some MEP actions, together with the submission of written questions.
The passivity with which MEPs have accepted the efforts to suppress using PQs is hanging. It’s arduous to think about members of nationwide parliaments accepting, not to mention advocating for the suppression of PQs.
By permitting the PQ system to be weakened, with out requiring that an equally versatile and highly effective different be put as an alternative, MEPs have allowed the European Parliament to turn into a toothless guardian.
When the brand new Parliament varieties after the June elections there will probably be a chance for the incoming Members to contemplate strengthening the PQ preparations that apply within the Tenth Parliament. It is going to be attention-grabbing to see if the ‘class of 2024’ steps as much as the problem.
Dick Roche is a former Irish Minister for EU Affairs and a former Minister for the EU Parliament. He served in Dail Eireann and Seanad Eireann between 1987 and 2011
Share this text: