Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:44:56.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weak European Parliament Influence? A Study of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

David Judge  and
David Earnshaw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Case Study
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , 01 April 1994 , pp. 262 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

David Judge would like to thank the Nuffield Foundation for the award of a grant to enable the research for this article to be conducted.

References

1 Thomas, Stafford T., ‘Assessing MEP Influence on British EC Policy’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 27, No. 1, p. 5.Google Scholar

2 The official title of the Committee is the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection Committee; hereafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the Environment Committee.

3 See Judge, D., Eamshaw, D., and Cowan, N., ‘Ripples or Waves: the European Parliament and the European Community Policy Process’, Journal of European Public Polity, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1994.Google Scholar

4 Treaty on European Union, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1992.

5 Lodge, J., ‘The European Parliament’, in Lodge, J. (ed.), the European Community and the Challenge of the Future, London, Pinter, 1989, p. 59.Google Scholar

6 Before November 1993 Rules 63 and 121, Rules of Procedure, 7th edn., February 1992.

7 HL 226, European Union, House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, Session 1984–85, London, HMSO, p. 167.

8 Legislative in the sense of having a heavy legislative burden. The Environment Committee is presently the most heavily burdened Committee.

9 82/501/EEC.

10 82/884/EEC.

11 83/129/EEC.

12 84/631/EEC.

13 Com (91) 0028 final; for details of inception see PE 146.246/fin., 31 July 1991, pp. 28–9.

14 Com (91)0177 final.

15 Jacobs, F. and Corbett, R., Tht European Parliament, London, Longman, 1990, p. 106.Google Scholar

16 PE 144.135/fin., 19 December 1990.

17 Com (92) 9 final, 19 March 1992.

18 Com (91) 102 final, 23 January 1992.

19 EUR 12902 EN, 1990.

20 ibid., p. 5.

21 See for example Budd, S. A. and Jones, A., The European Community. A Guide to the Maze (3rd edn.), London, Kogan Page, 1990;Google Scholar and de Rouffignae, P. D., Presenting Your Case to Europe, London, Mercury, 1991,Google Scholar which make no mention of the EP’s informal contributions to the initiation stage of legislation.

22 Lodge, op. eit., p. 66.

23 Pinder, J., European Community: The Building of a Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 37.Google Scholar

24 Nugent, N., The Government and Politics of the European Community (2nd edn.), London, Macmillan, 1991, p. 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Interview, Brussels 21 May 1992.

26 See Jacobs, F. and Corfaett, R., The European Parliament, 2nd edn., London, Longman, 1992, pp. 178–82;Google Scholar Lodge, op. cit., pp. 65–6; Nugent, op. cit., pp. 130–1.

27 See Kirehner, E. J., and Williams, K., ‘The Legal, Political and Institutional Implications of the Isoglucose Judgments 1980’, Journal ofCommon Market Studies, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 173–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Jacobs and Corbett, op. cit., 2nd edn., p. 181.

29 ibid., p. 188.

30 See Single European Act 1986, Article 7; Fitzmaurice, J., ‘An Analysis of the EC’s Cooperation Procedure’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corbett, R., ‘Testing the New Procedures’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4.Google Scholar

31 Rule 51, EP Rules of Procedure, op. cit.

32 EP Dossiers D’Etudes et Documentation, Series 4-A, 1992.

33 OJC 290/36, 14 November 1988.

34 See Earnshaw, D., and Judge, D., ‘The European Parliament and the Sweeteners Directive: From Footnote to Inter-Institutional Conflict’, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1993, pp. 103–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 See Mazey, S., and Richardson, J. J., ‘Environmental Groups and the EC: Challenges and Opportunities’, Environmental Polities, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1992.Google Scholar

36 See Lodge, J., ‘EC Policymaking: Institutional Dynamics’, in Lodge, J. (ed.), The European Community and the Challenge of the Future, 2nd edn., London, Pinter, 1993, p. 32.Google Scholar

37 There are notable methodological difficulties in studying ‘influence’, not least of which involve the selection of case studies, the problems of assigning causality, the degree of receptivity of the Council and Commission to amendments on specific issues etc.

38 WIP 91/071/176, ‘Evaluation deapos;Impact du Parlement sur les Politiques Communautaires dans les Demiéres AnnÉes’, Luxembourg, European Parliament Directorate General for Research, 1991, p. 8.

39 Johnson, S. P. and Corcelle, G., The Environmental Policy of the European Communities, London, Graham Sc Trotman, 1989, p. 132.Google Scholar

40 See Corbett, and Jacobs, , op. cit., 2nd edn. p. 186; Arp, H. A., ‘The European Parliament in European Community Environmental Policy’, the Working Papers, No. 92/13, Florence: European University Institute, 1992, p. 31;Google Scholar Peters, B. G., ‘Bureaucratic Politics and the Institutions of the European Community’, in Sbragia, A. M. (ed.), Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policymaking in the ‘New’ European Community, Washington DC, Brookings Institution, 1992, p. 92.Google Scholar

41 1210/90, 7 May 1990. This case study draws upon Judge, D., ‘Predestined to Save The Earth: The Environment Committee of the European Parliament’, Environmental Politics, 1, 4. 1992, pp. 202–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Com (89) 303 final.

43 See OJC 96, 17 April 1990, pp. 112–3; Collins, K., ‘The European Environment Agency: The Opinion of the European Parliament’, Procttdings of tht 32nd. IPRE Symposium, Brussels, International Professional Association for Environmental Affairs, 1991, p. 3.Google Scholar

44 See Collins, K., and Eamshaw, D., ‘The Implementation and Enforcement of European Community Environment Legislation’, Eneironmmtal Polities, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1992, pp. 213–49.Google Scholar

45 OJC 96, 17 April 1990, pp. 112–3.

46 ibid.

47 See Why Industry Should Take the “Fourth Hurdle” in its Stride, Animal Pharm EuroBriefing, December 1989, pp. 6–8.

48 OJC 120, 16 May 1989, p. 360.

49 OJC 96, 17 April 1990, p. 190.

50 DEP 3–388, 13 March 1990, p. 88.

51 European Report, No. 1647, 26 January 1991, Section IV, p. 3.

52 European Report, No. 1901, 11 November 1993, Section IV, p. 2.

53 OJC 68, 14 March 1983, p. 32; OJC 94, 11 April 1988, p. 157.

54 Incorporated into the EP’s Rule of Procedure in 1990, see OJC 90, 15 October 1990, p. 85.

55 OJC 94, 11 April 1988, pp. 151–8.

56 PE 116.085/fin, 14 February 1988, p. 14.

57 DEP 3–410, 25 October 1991, p. 216.

58 OJC 326, 16 December 1991, p. 190.

59 Select Committee on European Communities, Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Legislation, HL 53 Session 1991–2, London, HMSO.

60 ibid., pp. 45–6.

61 James, Elles, ‘Comment on Assessing MEP Influence on British EC Policy’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1992, p. 21.Google Scholar