Last update on 16 July. This page will no longer be updated.

A new Parliament with new rules

In May 2009, just before the Parliament rose for the elections, it voted a series of changes to the assembly’s rules of procedure. These changes are aimed principally at improving efficiency and creating a more representative Parliament, and will have a big impact on how the new European Parliament works.

One change - the stricter criteria for forming political Groups (at least 25 members from at least seven member states) are well known, but many more are not. Here are twelve key changes to the Parliament’s rules and the impact that they will have on the institution:

Plenary sessions

1. “When voting on any legislative proposal, whether by way of a single and/or final vote, Parliament shall vote by roll call using the electronic voting system”: as a result, there will be much more transparency on all legislative decisions and a better opportunity for Groups to ensure attendance and discipline, even when voting on less controversial legislation.

2. The constituent session of a new parliament will no longer be chaired by the oldest member but by the outgoing President (if re-elected) or a vice President from last parliament: The ‘Le Pen’ clause was a successful and controversial attempt to prevent the leader of France’s National Front from chairing the opening session of this parliament. Christian Democrats and Socialists supported this move, while Liberals warned against changing the rules for this specific purpose. The opening session of the new parliament will now be chaired by the outgoing President, Hans-Gert Poettering.

3. “Blue card” process intended to enliven debate: the President may now give the floor to MEPs who indicate, by raising a blue card, their wish to put to a question to another MEP during the course of that member’s speech. The question may be no more than 30 seconds long, and the President must be satisfied that this will not lead to a disruption of the debate. Similar mechanisms already exist in some national parliaments (the British House of Commons being a good example) and such a move is likely to partially remove the Groups’ power over speaking time and make for a more interactive debate.

4. Reports to be referred back to committee if there are more than 50 amendments and/or split/separate votes at plenary: the last Parliament saw a number of marathon votes in the plenary session - notably on the REACH chemicals legislation. The rule of referral back to committee - previously used more sparingly and only possible when there were more than 50 amendments - will now be applied when there are more than 50 votes needed (including split votes on parts of amendments). Plenary sessions should therefore become more efficient and more focused on the key political issues, while committees will gain more power, particularly over more detailed parts of legislation. Committees will also face more pressure and have more responsibility to resolve problems at that stage rather than passing them up to Group leaders and the plenary session.

Written Declarations

5. The subject of Written Declarations must now fall within the competences of the Union, not cover an issue subject to an ongoing legislative procedure, and authorisation “shall be given by the President on a case-by-case basis” : the number of Written Declarations has grown exponentially in recent years. Many Declarations are legitimate, raising concerns about issues such as health, employment rights and human rights. However, they have also been abused in recent years, and this change makes the criteria much stricter, with the aim of preventing the frivolous use of Written Declarations.

Committees and intergroups

6. Coordinators and shadow rapporteurs now specifically mentioned in the Rules for the first time, as are intergroups: coordinators and shadow rapporteurs have always been important roles in the Parliament, now recognised in the rules. The mention of coordinators could potentially lead to a more proportional split of these roles between national delegations, rather than their free selection by a Group’s members on the committee in question (which has led to a larger number of coordinators from some countries, especially Germany and the UK). Shadow rapporteurs have been increasingly involved in negotiations with the Council and Commission, and a formal mention will help them to put pressure on the rapporteur to take a collaborative approach. Finally, intergroups will now have better access to facilities, translation and interpretation, and this is likely to lead to a bigger role for political Group officials within the Parliament at the expense of outside interests that have traditionally controlled the workings of intergroups.

7. Joint committee meetings and inter-committee working parties now possible: ‘enhanced cooperation’ procedures - whereby committees share competence for legislation, and amendments from the committee giving an ‘enhanced opinion’ go directly for vote in plenary session, has had a number of difficulties in recent years. Disagreement over which committee should take the lead, and over which parts of the legislation should be the responsibility of the participating committees, has led to delays as internal wrangling takes hold. As a result, joint committee meetings will now be held, allowing a more transparent and open debate on reports. The power of committee Chairs to fight their committee’s corner - and even block the attribution of the report to another committee - will be lessened. The power of arbitration given to the Conference of Committee Chairs will also have to be used less regularly.

8. ‘Temporary committees’ become ’special’ committees’: this is principally a cosmetic change, as these committees will still be limited to a duration of twelve months. However, the re-naming better reflects the importance of these committees (such as the one on climate change in the last parliament)

9. Political Group representation on committees to be strictly proportional – where a Group does not take up its positions, the size of the committees will be reduced accordingly: at present, a number of committees have a disproportionate number of members from one Group - in the last parliament, ALDE had a quarter of the members of the foreign affairs committee, despite having only around 14% of MEPs in the Parliament as a whole. Equally, the Socialists had near parity with the EPP in terms of members of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, despite being much the smaller Group in the Parliament as a whole. Now, when a committee is less popular with a particular Group, the overall membership will be reduced in order to make it more balanced and to better reflect the political leanings of the Parliament as a whole.

Legislation

10. Specific provision for rejection at first reading under codecision: the Parliament now has specific rules on rejecting codecision dossiers at first reading, with the Commission to be asked to withdraw its proposal if it is rejected. Should it refuse to do so, then the matter will be re-examined by the relevant committee.

11. Specific reference now made to the Code of Conduct for interinstitutional negotiations under codecision: Annex XX of the Rules now give clear guidance on the conduct of negotiations under co-decision. In terms of negotiations intended to bring about early agreements with the Council and Commission (’informal trialogues’), the Annex makes clear that the Parliament’s negotiating team must be politically balanced and keep the relevant committee properly informed. There is also a reference to the fact that “As a general rule, Parliament shall make use of all possibilities offered at all stages of the codecision procedure”, reflecting some MEPs’ concerns that the two biggest Groups in the last parliament would make agreements with the Council that excluded other members and which did not allow the EP to exercise its full powers.

12. Where a committee wants to amend other parts of the text of a recast proposal it informs the Council/Commission – the latter should inform committee of position and whether it intends to withdraw its proposal: Recast proposals - whereby the Commission ‘tidies up’ legislation - should normally not include new elements. The Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) will have the responsibility of checking that this is the case, and inform the committee responsible for that dossier. If JURI believes that it is a recast proposal, but the committee responsible wants to change the legislation beyond the ‘tidying up’ process or add new elements, the Parliament must inform the Commission, which can decide to withdraw the proposal. If JURI believes that the proposal goes beyond a recast, it will recommend that the Parliament reject the Commission’s proposal. The rule is intended to make it easier for the Parliament to amend simple recast proposals - but could have the consequence of opening up legislative dossiers beyond the scope intended by the Commission.