You will recall that the Environment Committee on 22 March 2016 adopted a Resolution opposing the draft Implementing act on the extension of the approval period of the active substance glyphosate.
A cross party group of objectors (Pavel Poc (S&D), Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE), Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD),Mark Demesmaeker (ECR), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), Frédérique Ries (ALDE), Kate?ina Kone?ná (GUE/NGL)) tabled a motion that was adopted by the Environment Committee with 38 votes for, 6 against (ECR), and 18 abstentions (EPP).
As is common with challenges to delegated legislation, the motion quickly moved along to the full Parliament, who considered and voted on the challenge just after the Easter recess on 13th April 2016.
Observations
Three observations in the glyphosate challenge are worth highlighting.
First, the Commission were explicit in their view that whatever the European Parliament decided would have no influence whatsoever on the Commission’s thinking. And, as this was an implementing act, the Commission were just being very honest.
Second, the full Parliament did not back the option tabled by the Environment Committee. The full Parliament also failed to reach the 376 threshold that would have been needed for a veto of a delegated act or RPS measure.
Third, the final Resolution was secured by an unusual alliance of the EPP and S&D voting together.
Debate on Monday 11th April 2016
You can find a transcript of the debate here
Commissioner V?ra Jourová, reply for the Commissioner on the Monday debate on the Resolution, offers a clear and succinct statement of the limited powers the European Parliament have when scrutinising implementing acts. It is well worth reading.
|
The Commission services have presented a draft implementing act to the standing committee in compliance with the legal framework. The Commission services are now discussing with Member States the best way forward on the renewal of the approval for glyphosate and will endeavour to find a solution which commands the widest possible support among the Member States. The current draft implementing act is therefore likely to be amended and should not be considered as a decision from the Commission. Before Members express their position on this draft resolution, I would like to recall a few important points that were raised when this was discussed in Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. The draft regulation includes a firm commitment to review the approval if the European Chemicals Agency process leads to a classification relevant for the approval. Second, the Commission has started working on co-formulants. The current draft, if adopted, would not allow the placing on the market of glyphosate-containing products containing the co-formulant tallowamine. Third, the Commission has called on the industry to publish the regulatory studies submitted by companies. I refer here to the letter that Commissioner Andriukaitis recently sent to the glyphosate taskforce. The Commission services have received the response of the applicants and are now clarifying the details with them.
|
The Commissioner is of course correct. But, it is also clear that the Environment Committee’s real target was to influence the Member State Committee who will vote on the Commission’s proposal, and the Member State Committee can veto the Commission’s proposal.
Of course, if the measure under consideration was a implementing act subject to the Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny process or a delegated act, the European Parliament would be able to veto the Commission’s proposal if the full Parliament back the challenge by 376 votes or more. Here they reached only 374 votes.
Vote on Wednesday 13th April 2016
A detailed analysis of the vote is available from EU Vote Watch (here).
The Environment Committee draft Resolution was heavily altered and the proposal to ban glyphosate was rejected. Instead, the EPP amendment to subject the re-authourisation to 7 years, rather than the standard 15 years, was adopted.
This vote goes against a trend over the last 12 months and more of the full Parliament supporting the Environment Committee’s challenges to some proposed delegated legislation.
Please see a screen shot of the EU Vote Watch analysis below.
You’ll see that the Resolution was voted through by a coalition of the EPP and the S&D.
The voting by Political Groups was different from the voting in the Environment Committee. Indeed, some MEPs on the Environment Committee who has supported a ban, voted in the plenary (full Parliament) against the ban and instead for the shorter re-authourisation.
What Changed the S&D’s Mind
The European Parliament on 13 April faced four options on the table:
1. o years – Environment Committee
2. 5 years – ALDE compromise
3. 7 years – EPP compromise
4. 15 years – ECR compromise
As things stood, the votes were so close that there was a very real risk that if none of the bigger groups compromised, the full resolution (along with it the amendments of the ban on household uses etc.) would all fall. The failure to reach the required majority (simple majority) and see any resolution fall was a very real prospect.
It is not clear exactly when the S&D switched, but it is clear that from Monday evening to the vote on Wednesday, they decided more or less on mass to back a workable compromise, in this case the 7 years tabled by the EPP.
I’ll update this blog in light of more information, and in particular whether a flurry of last minute lobbying by all sides influenced votes.
Reaction
It is well worth watching Mr La Via (EPP/Italy) Chair of the Environment Committee, press conference after the vote (here) and his considered response.
He rightly observes that if this had been a challenge to a delegated act or RPS measure, the requisite majority of 376 votes would not have been reached.
It will be interesting to see if this vote influences the upcoming vote of the Member State Committee and as to whether this marks a trend of the full Parliament not supporting the Environment Committee in their seeming more rigourous use of powers to scrutinise delegated legislation.
It seems fair from the Commission’s response, that they are not listening to the Environment Committee or the full Parliament when it comes to challenges to implementing acts. It will be interesting to see if the Commission listen more to the European Parliament when it comes to challenges on RPS measures and delegated acts, although indications to date, suggest the Commission are still very hard of hearing to reservations from the EP, although are more acute to the questions from the Member States.
This vote does show that even if voting lists late the week before indicate one outcome, the only thing that matters is the actual vote on the day.