From 1996-1997, I had the honour of working for two different British Labour MEPs who were Rapporteurs on fisheries and air pollution legislation.
I learned a lot. The process of getting your report through, and the ideas of the EP taking up in law, is a process of consensus and constructive dialogue. Woe betide any Papporteur who blatantly pushed their national or group political line at the expense of the Committee’s will.
What’s the Role
Rule 55 of the EP’s Rules of Procedure helps:
1. The rapporteur shall be responsible for preparing the committee’s report and for presenting it to Parliament on behalf of that committee.
Please note, that it refers to the Committee’s report on behalf of the Committee. It is not on behalf of the Rapporteur, or their political group or national interests. The role is to take forward a report on behalf of the Committee.
I was working for Labour MEPs when due to the UK electoral system, the UK Labour Group has a disproportionally large number of MEPs in the S&D Group. Even then, we were not politically stupid enough to use the strength of numbers to force through votes.
This may have been a cultural attribute. Another national Group in the S&D did not feel so unminded to impose their national interests on fellow S&D members. Whilst they did so for one vote, they seemed oblivious to the lack of support they received for many years to come on other key files.
And, as the EP practices heavy delegation and hands over the determination of their will to specialist Committees, it is a heavy burden to carry. As anyone who has worked at the coal face of legislating, legislating is hard work, full of long hours, late meetings, reading dense papers, and all with little electoral upside.
The only way a Rapporteur can get their report through is by securing the majority support in the Committee. The stronger the support they have in the Committee, the stronger the support they’ll get in the plenary. And, the stronger support they have in the full Parliament, the stronger their hand is with the Council and the Commission.
As no one group has enough votes to impose their political will on a Committee, the real key to success is getting a working coalition of groups giving you a healthy majority.
If the Rapporteur forges such an alliance but backtracks on the Committee’s agreement in the plenary, they risk the inevitable likelihood that their report will be voted down. This recently happened.
It is not unknown for the Rapporteur to take a line so out of sync with the majority of the Committee that the Report adopted by the Committee is at odds with the personal position of the Rapporteur. Few do it as they realise it runs the risk that they won’t be allocated files in the future. The then talks with the Council and EP, the Rapporteur is a stranded whale, with the real talks being held with the rest of the EP’s delegations.
This piece is useful.
The greatest power
The greatest power the Rapporteur has is setting the timetable for considering the file. They exercise that with the support of the Chair of the Committee, who has the key power of scheduling where files go in the Committee’s timetable. When working with Anita Pollack MEP, the helpful scheduling of the report early on the agenda of Committee meetings by Chair, Ken Collins MEP, was valuable.
The power of the pen is important but can be struck down if the rest of the Committee votes against you.
Politics in Brussels is a consensual exercise, requiring you to win broad cross-party and cross-national support. If you don’t, you won’t taste success.