European Parliamentary Research Service Blog

Written by Katarzyna Sochacka and Clare Ferguson,

© European Union 2019 – Source : EP

Highlights of the January I plenary session included the latest debate on the future of Europe, with Pedro Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, Spain’s prime minister, and a debate on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Members also debated the reform of EU asylum and migration policy, reviewed the Austrian Council Presidency and discussed the incoming Romanian Presidency’s programme. Among the subjects debated and voted, Parliament adopted positions on 12 more of the three dozen funding programmes proposed for the 2021-2027 period, enabling negotiations with the Council to be launched on each proposal as and when the latter has agreed its position.

Use of vehicles hired without drivers

Following the Commission proposal to update the 25-year-old rules on the use of vehicles hired without drivers, Parliament adopted its position at first reading based on the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) report. Freight operators could reduce their environmental impact by hiring vehicles in other EU Member States to reduce journey distances, and newer model rental vehicles could potentially be better for the environment. However, negotiations in Council seem unlikely to proceed rapidly, as some EU Member States disagree with the proposals, fearing a loss of revenue from vehicle taxes and registration.

Authorisation procedure for pesticides

Parliament adopted, by a very large majority, recommendations on authorisation procedures for pesticides from its special committee on pesticide authorisation (PEST). This committee was set up to examine EU pesticide authorisation procedures, following the controversial 2017 renewal of the licence for glyphosate. It recommended reinforcing the EU’s capacity for independent, objective and transparent assessment; fast-track approvals for biological pesticides; and greater monitoring of their impact on the environment.

Gender mainstreaming in the EU: State of play

Parliament debated a report from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) on gender mainstreaming in the EU. While gender may not at first glance be a central consideration in policy on trade or the environment, neglecting this aspect can perpetuate inequalities between women and men. For this reason, the EU has put in place a strategic engagement for gender equality for the 2016-2019 period. However, the FEMM committee report highlights that there is still some way to go to improve the current gender balance in Parliament itself, particularly in political and administrative posts.

Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2017

Members debated a report from the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU in 2017. The report draws on six main areas where the decline in rights in 2017 was most significant, namely the rule of law, migration, women’s rights, freedom of the press, racism and hate speech, as well as the mandate of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. Despite the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights, this was also the year that saw the first formal EU action following up on criticisms of the rule of law in EU Member States, including over moves to reduce women’s rights, curtail freedom of expression or judicial independence, and to discriminate against minorities.

Opening of trilogue negotiations

Thirteen committees’ decisions (from JURI, ECON, LIBE, PECH, TRAN and ITRE) to enter into interinstitutional (trilogue) negotiations were confirmed. Only two votes were held, with both mandates being approved.

Read this ‘At a glance’ note on ‘Plenary round-up – Strasbourg, January 2019‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Carmen-Cristina Cirlig (1st edition),

© Andrey Popov / Fotolia

On 17 April 2018, the European Commission adopted a proposal for a directive intended to facilitate law enforcement authorities’ access to and use of financial information held in other jurisdictions within the EU for investigations related to terrorism and other serious crime. In this sense, the proposed directive would grant competent authorities direct access to bank account information contained in centralised registries set up in each Member State, according to the provisions of the Fifth Anti-Money-Laundering Directive. The proposal also aims to strengthen domestic and cross-border exchange of information between EU Member States’ competent authorities, including law enforcement authorities and financial intelligence units, as well as with Europol. Following the Council’s adoption of its negotiating position in November 2018, on 3 December 2018, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties adopted its report and mandate in view of interinstitutional negotiations. This mandate was confirmed in plenary in December 2018.

Versions

• January 2019: Use of financial data for preventing and combatting serious crime (1st edition)

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA Committee responsible: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) COM(2018) 213 final of 17.4.2018 Rapporteur: Emil Radev (EPP, Bulgaria) 2018/0212(COD) Shadow rapporteurs: Caterina Chinnici (S&D, Italy)
Helga Stevens (ECR, Belgium)
Morten Helveg Petersen (ALDE, Denmark)
Kostas Chrysogonos (GUE/NGL, Greece)
Eva Joly (Greens/EFA, France)
Ignazio Corrao (EFDD, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Trilogue negotiations

© Tomasz Zajda / Fotolia

The idea behind the Commission’s proposed European Investment Stabilisation Function is to use dedicated financial means from the EU budget to help Member States stabilise their economies in the event of a major asymmetric shock. The Commission would borrow on the financial markets and then lend to the country concerned, which would use the money to finance public investment. Once the crisis was over, the Member State would reimburse the debt. The Commission hopes the other Member States would agree to subsidise the interest payments incurred. The function would be limited to euro-area countries, but those that have entered the exchange rate mechanism II (ERM II) might also benefit. The lending would be quasi automatic once statistical data showed an exceptional and steep rise in unemployment. The dossier has met with considerable opposition at Council level.

Versions

• January 2018: ‘European Investment Stabilisation Function (EISF)‘ (1st edition)

Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a European Investment Stabilisation Function Committees responsible: Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) and Budgets (BUDG) (jointly under Rule 55) COM(2018) 387 31.5.2018Rapporteur: Pervenche Berès (S&D, France) and Reimer Böge (EPP, Germany) 2018/0212(COD)Shadow rapporteurs: Manuel dos Santos (S&D, Portugal)
Bernd Kölmel (ECR, Germany)
Bernd Lucke (ECR, Germany)
Urmas Paet (ALDE, Estonia)
Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE, Spain)
Liadh Ní Riada (GUE/NGL, Ireland)
Martin Schirdewan (GUE/NGL, Germany)
Philippe Lamberts (Greens/EFA, Belgium)
Jordi Solé (Greens/EFA, Spain)
Marco Valli (EFDD, Italy)
Marco Zanni (ENF, Italy) Ordinary legislative procedure (COD) (Parliament and Council on equal footing – formerly ‘co-decision’) Next steps expected: Vote in committee

The COP24 climate change conference, held in Katowice, Poland, from 3 to 15 December 2018, agreed detailed rules for the implementation of the Paris Agreement, with the exception of rules on market mechanisms, a subject on which international negotiations will continue throughout 2019.

Background © cop24.gov.pl – official logo

In December 2018, three years after the conclusion of the Paris Agreement, the 24th conference of the parties (COP) to the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in Katowice -– the third COP hosted by Poland. In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had released a special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees, as requested by COP21 in 2015. It concluded that global emissions would need to drop rapidly during the next decade to avoid the worst consequences of global warming exceeding 1.5 degrees. Delegates at COP24 argued over how to acknowledge the IPCC report. They decided to welcome its timely completion, but stopped short of endorsing its contents.

Outcomes

The Katowice decisions constitute the ‘rulebook’ for the Paris Agreement. They give an operational interpretation to the Agreement and top-down direction to complement the bottom-up approach of ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs). A key issue in the negotiations was the long-standing differentiation between developed and developing countries. The rulebook binds all parties to the same reporting standards, but allows flexibility (time limited) for countries that need it. Moreover, developed countries are expected to have economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. The agreed rulebook:

• gives guidance on the content and format of NDCs, including a structured summary which forms the basis for regular reporting;
• sets out a regime for transparency and accountability, with common rules for measuring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions, finance and adaptation;
• defines processes for the five-yearly global stocktake of the effectiveness of climate action, which includes information-gathering, a technical assessment and a consideration of the outputs;
• establishes a committee to review non-performance of parties (such as failure to submit NDCs or reports or not acting on technical reviews), with the consent of the concerned party.

However, no agreement was reached on rules for international cooperation in achieving national pledges, such as voluntary carbon markets. Draft rules to avoid double counting of emission cuts were opposed by Brazil. Negotiations on this issue will continue in 2019, with a view to reaching agreement at the next COP.

Concluding the Talanoa dialogue, the presidents of COP23 and COP24 issued a non-binding call for action.

Role of the EU and the European Parliament

A delegation of MEPs attended the conference, backed by a plenary resolution calling for net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, an enhancement of NDCs by 2020 and a more ambitious EU target of a 55 % emission reduction by 2030. In November 2018, the European Commission presented a strategy for a climate-neutral future, aiming to achieving a modern, prosperous EU economy with net zero emissions by 2050.

Next steps

A UN climate summit with the theme ‘A race we can win. A race we must win.’ will be held in September 2019 in New York. COP25 will take place in Chile in November 2019, with a pre-COP meeting in Costa Rica. In 2020, discussions about post-2025 climate finance will start, and parties will have to update their NDCs.

Read this At a glance on ‘COP24 climate change conference: Outcomes‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for citizens interested in space exploration.

© pe3check / Fotolia

If you feel unsettled by national politics or climate change on Earth, to the point of considering relocating to another habitable planet, there is good news for you – such places do exist.

In 2016, an international team headed by Belgian researcher Michaël Gillon, discovered a system of seven planets outside of the Solar System. Three of these planets are located in a habitable zone, around a parent star called TRAPPIST-1, within which a rocky planet is most likely to have liquid water. At about 40 light-years away, the system is relatively close to Earth.

A residential infrastructure and childcare facilities are still lacking, but the next decade of space exploration is set to take humans from the International Space Station (ISS) to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

The European Space Agency (ESA) is preparing a robotic landing on the Moon in partnership with Russia as early as 2022. The mission will look for water ice, opening the door to future exploitation of lunar resources and preparations to go deeper into the Solar System.

NASA’s new Orion vehicle with a European service module will help to build a deep-space gateway located in lunar orbit, a thousand times further out in space than the ISS.

The next decade will see ESA’s ExoMars rover explore the surface of the Red Planet, using its ground-penetrating radar and two metre-long drill.

Looking beyond, ESA is already working on the technologies needed to accomplish the first round-trip mission to Mars and bring back precious samples so as to advance further on one of the most ambitious exploration challenges ever.

Further information

• European Commission’s Directorate General for Internal market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs website, http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/space_en
• Official website of the European Space Agency: http://www.esa.int/ESA

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for mountaineers.

© Chlorophylle / Fotolia

Europe has stunning mountain ranges that offer plenty of opportunities for outdoor activities. In the summer, rock climbing, hiking and mountain biking are popular activities, while winter is the season for skiing and snow­boarding.

The European mountains offer breath­taking natural landscapes that attract many visitors and are home to a wide range of plants and animals. To preserve this unique natural heritage, the EU has established the ‘Natura 2000’ network of protected areas that allow for the coexistence of wildlife and human activities. Moreover, the EU and eight countries are parties to the Alpine Convention, an international treaty for the sustainable development and protection of the Alps.

For a safe and enjoyable outdoor experience in the mountains, you need the right equipment, from suitable clothing to skis and snowboards or climbing ropes and harnesses. Thanks to the EU internal market, you have a wide choice, as equipment that is available in one EU country can be sold in all the others as well. Under EU law, defective products must be repaired or replaced free of charge within the legal guarantee period of two years.

Mountaineering equipment has to be safe – your life depends on it. EU rules require that personal protective equipment in the EU must bear the CE label to show that it conforms to safety standards. In order to be able to use mountain equipment, such as carabiners, safely and effectively, it is essential that you understand the instructions. That is why EU rules require that manuals be available in the language of the country where products are sold.

Further information

• Alpine Convention, www.alpconv.org
• European Commission website on Natura 2000, ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/
• European Commission website on CE marking, https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/ce-marking_en

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for canny shoppers / bargain hunters.

© Rido / Fotolia

If you like to save money when you shop, EU laws can help you tell if you are getting the best deal and protect you from some scams.

According to EU rules, sellers must indicate product prices clearly, including price per unit, to enable you to compare products easily. Prices must include all taxes and delivery charges and must be unambiguous, clearly legible, and easily identifiable.

Sellers are also forbidden to label a product as ‘gratis’, ‘free’ or ‘without charge’ if you have to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the advert and collecting it or having it delivered.

EU laws ban all aggressive and misleading commercial practices, but some of these are especially relevant to canny shoppers. Shops are, for instance, forbidden to claim that they have a ‘liquidation sale’ when this is not true. Also forbidden are false claims that a product is only available, or available at a certain price, for a very limited time, as this means you don’t have time to make an informed choice. Bait advertising – where sellers lure you to their shop by advertising a product at a low price, even though they know don’t have sufficient quantities available at that price, or refuse to show the product or to take orders and promote a different product instead, is also not allowed.

EU laws also forbid the use of hidden advertising in the media, where adverts are presented as journalistic content without a clear indication that the publicity was in fact paid for.

Further information

• Presentation of the Champagne region and wine, https://www.champagne.fr/fr/economie/chiffres-clef
• European Commission website on Geographic indications, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/intellectual-property/geographical-indications/
• European Court of auditors, Report on investment and promotion support to the wine sector, https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR14_09/QJAB14005ENC.pdf

With European elections coming up in May 2019, you probably want to know how the European Union impacts your daily life, before you think about voting. In the latest in a series of posts on what Europe does for you, your family, your business and your wellbeing, we look at what Europe does for champagne and sparkling wine producers.

© geniusksy / Fotolia

If you are one of the 15 800 producers of champagne in the Champagne region of France or a producer of sparkling wine in another EU country, such as Spain or Italy, you are perhaps concerned about the sector’s development. So is the European Union and it is working to secure the sector’s long-term viability.

As a wine producer, you can receive financial support from the EU for loss of revenue resulting from restructuring. This can also be used to cover vineyard conversion, for instance to introduce new varieties, relocate or improve vineyard management techniques.

Wine producers can also get support for measures to promote EU wines under the geographical indications (GI) scheme, which identifies EU country products whose quality can be attributed to a particular geographical origin. Under this scheme, the EU can contribute up to 50 % of the cost of participating in international fairs, or conducting information campaigns and carrying out studies of new market outlets.

The EU can also help protect products recognised under the GI scheme at international level. To do this it ensures that the products remain protected in the various multilateral trade negotiations with the World Trade Organisation, in particular through the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. In addition, it also seeks to achieve high levels of protection for GI products in bilateral trade agreements negotiated or under negotiation with non-EU countries such as Canada, China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.

Further information

• Presentation of the Champagne region and wine, https://www.champagne.fr/fr/economie/chiffres-clef
• European Commission website on Geographic indications, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/intellectual-property/geographical-indications/
• European Court of auditors, Report on investment and promotion support to the wine sector, https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR14_09/QJAB14005ENC.pdf

Written by Marcin Grajewski,

© oraziopuccio / Fotolia

Citizens of the European Union go the polls in May 2019 in elections to the European Parliament which many analysts say may be the most important ever. Commentators are currently focused on the prospective performance of anti-establishment parties and movements, many of which run on Eurosceptic platforms. The vote will also indicate if the so-called Spitzenkandidatenprocess, launched by the European political parties five years ago, has become an established practice. If followed as in 2014, the candidate from the political force that receives the highest number of seats in the European elections would become the President of the European Commission.

This note offers links to reports and commentaries from some major international think-tanks and research institutes on the forthcoming European elections and related issues.

A cordon populiste from the Baltic to the Adriatic Sea: Is a new populist alliance emerging in the EU?
Istituto Affari Internazionali, January 2019

2019 European Parliament elections will change the EU’s political dynamics
Carnegie Europe, December 2018

Les modes de scrutin et les enjeux des élections européennes de mai 2019
Fondation Robert Schuman, December 2018

European Parliament elections 2019: The litmus test for the Spitzenkandidaten process
Centre for European Reform, December 2018

European election 2019 monitor
Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, December 2018

Policies and politics of migration towards the European elections
Istituto Affari Internazionali, December 2018

Europe matters, but how do we tell young people that?
Friends of Europe, December 2018

Ten elections to watch in 2019
Council on Foreign Relations, December 2018

The European Parliament after the elections
Clingendael, November 2018

European elections 2019: What will the new Parliament’s composition be?
Fondation Robert Schuman, November 2018

Negotiating the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework in an electoral year: Which consequences?
Jacques Delors Institute, November 2018

25 years of Spitzenkandidaten: What does the future hold?
Wilfried Martens Centre, November 2018

Millennial dialogue on Europe: Shaping the new EU agenda
Foundation for European Progressive Studies, Think Young, November 2018

What impact would a no deal Brexit have on European Parliament elections?
Jacques Delors Institute, November 2018

The power of the past: How nostalgia shapes European public opinion
Bertelsmann Stiftung, October 2018

Schatten über den Europawahlen
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, October 2018

European election 2019: Can we cry wolf one more time?
European Council on Foreign Relations, October 2018

Election interference in the digital age: Building resilience to cyber-enabled threats
European Political Strategy Centre, October 2018

Could an illiberal Europe work?
Carnegie Europe, October 2018

Attentes et ressentis, l’état des opinions publiques avant les élections européennes
Jacques Delors Institute, October 2018

Towards elections with integrity
Open Society Foundations, October 2018

Programmatic Europeanization revisited: The role of EP election proximity, EU support and Eastern European patterns
Centre for Policy Studies, September 2018

Spitzenkandidaten and shifting electorates: Towards the 2019 EP elections
Institute for Development and International Relations, September 2018

EP elections forecasts: EU trade policies from 2019
VoteWatch Europe, September 2018

EP elections forecast: EU data protection policies from 2019
VoteWatch Europe, September 2018

The Trump-Juncker meeting in DC raises urgent questions for the next Commission
Centre for European Policy Studies, August 2018

Strengthening parliamentary voices in the EU’s multi-level system
Jacques Delors Institute, June 2018

Comparing democratic distress in the United States and Europe
Carnegie Europe, June 2018

The composition of the European Parliament in 2019
Fundacion Real Instituto Elcano, March 2018

The problem with the Spitzenkandidaten system
Centre for Policy Studies, February 2018

Read this briefing on ‘European elections‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

How can collective intelligence help tackle social inequalities? What is Europe’s role in the current trade wars? How can the EU27 move forward? These questions and many more were discussed during the EPRS roundtable discussion ‘Europe’s challenges in 2019’ following the publication of the third edition of the annual EPRS ‘Ten issues to watch’.

After a short welcome by EPRS Director General, Anthony Teasdale, Vice-President of the European Parliament Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso (EPP, Spain) introduced the discussion with a keynote speech. The Vice-President emphasised the importance of the forthcoming European elections for the areas of policy that feature in the ‘Ten issues to watch’, and pointed out that European citizens now had to choose between parties who aim to bring the European project forward, and those parties whose aims are less constructive.

As Étienne Bassot, Director of the Members’ Research Service stated in his introductory remarks, the issues chosen for the publication belong to three overarching topics: technology; Europe in the wider world; and 2019 as the year of EU renewal. The intention of the debate was not to claim to cover all relevant policy issues, but rather to ‘set the scene’ for the political year to come.

The authors of the eleven chapters of the ‘Ten issues to watch’ then briefly presented their contributions, giving an overview of the main challenges in their respective areas and discussing existing, as well as still required, EU policy action.

Nora Milotay elaborated on the concept of collective intelligence – the combination of human and artificial intelligence (AI). The major challenge is to combine social and technological innovation, for example regarding health, education and the labour market, to prevent technological developments increasing inequalities within the EU.

Maria Niestadt highlighted the potential of e-mobility for the EU to reduce CO₂ emissions, air pollution, and noise, as well as EU dependence on oil imports. Whether the EU will be able to exploit this potential, however, will largely depend on its ability to improve the infrastructure of recharging points, battery performance and the integration of electric vehicles into the electricity system.

Marcin Szczepanski and Tambiama Madiega explained the process of digital transformation – the integration of digital technology into all aspects of our lives. They underlined that that the EU needs to ensure a legal and ethical framework for this fundamental transformation: to protect ethical norms, especially in the field of AI; to update safety and liability rules; and to regulate the access and re-use of digital data.

Discussing internal security, Sofija Voronova explained that cybersecurity not only covers cyber-attacks but also involves traditional crime ‘going digital’. Terrorist activities and organised crime pose a particular security threat, which the EU needs to tackle both offline and online.

Gisela Grieger explained the US stance in the current trade war(s) and elaborated on different scenarios for future US-China relations. She also pointed out the challenges for the EU to navigate between the two powers while protecting its own economic interests as well as the multilateral trading system, mainly through pushing for World Trade Organization reform.

Eric Pichon discussed Africa’s role as Europe’s ‘twin continent’ and potential strategic partner. He points out the challenges of diverging interests, especially on migration, as well as defining partners, due to the different channels through which EU-Africa cooperation is managed.

Didier Bourguignon illustrated the EU’s path towards a policy for the oceans, which allows both use of the oceans’ resources, e.g. for renewable ocean energy or tourism, while also protecting their ecosystems.

Asked about the future financing of the EU, whether the EU will decide on its next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) in 2019, Magdalena Sapala pointed out three obstacles: different positions on the scope of the future budget; different decision-making procedures for different legislative proposals; and the political changes in the European Parliament and Commission following the European elections.

Silvia Kotanidis outlined the way forward for the EU27 after Brexit and discussed the idea of a Europe ‘at different speeds’, the possibilities of using the entire potential of the Lisbon Treaty and even a possible treaty change. She also highlighted that the future EU-UK relationship still needs to be defined in various policy areas, especially trade and defence.

Finally, Laura Tilindyte explained the possible changes in the new European Parliament and the new European Commission following the elections in May. Brexit will decrease the size of the Parliament, and declining support for traditional parties will change the power relations between the political groups. The appointment of the Commission President also remains unclear, due to the power struggle between the European Parliament and Council regarding the Spitzenkandidatenprozess.

In his final remarks, Étienne Bassot concluded that the political, technological and institutional challenges the EU faces are increasingly intertwined and require further analysis, both individually and in their interrelated aspects.

The round table discussion was followed by a short Q&A session.

• Vice-President of the European Parliament Ramón Luis Valcárcel Siso (EPP, Spain)

Written by Martina Prpic and Rosamund Shreeves,

© Giuseppe Porzani / Fotolia

The European Union (EU) is committed to eliminating inequalities and promoting gender equality ‘in all its activities’ and has made considerable advances over the years. Nevertheless, the situation remains uneven across the EU, and in recent times progress has slowed, stalled or even regressed in some areas. Yet, the evidence points clearly to the benefits of gender equality for individuals, the economy and society as a whole.

Public opinion surveys show that a large majority of Europeans agree that promoting gender equality is important for a fair and democratic society, the economy and for them personally and that a growing share of citizens would like the EU to do more in this area. Europeans also expect increased EU action on related policies.

During the current legislative term, as part of a broader gender equality programme, the EU institutions have been working on proposals for new EU laws to improve work-life balance and combat violence against women and promoting equality between women and men will remain one of the major challenges in the coming years. Demographic trends, technological developments and changes to the way we work are just some of the issues where different impacts on women and men will need to be considered.

Options for further EU involvement could include better implementation and enforcement of existing legislation, moves to modernise it, fill gaps in protection and address emerging issues, and non-legislative measures such as data collection and monitoring, awareness-raising, and support for national and grassroots initiatives. It will require the political will at all levels to tackle issues across a broad spectrum of policies, together with the provision of the necessary institutions, tools and resources to put that resolve into action.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Promoting equality between women and men‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• gender gap in employment
• gender gap in education
• percentage of respondents who would like the eu to intervene more than at present
• expectations for more eu action than at present – percentage points difference between 2016 and 2018
• perception of eu action as adequate at present – percentage points difference between 2016 and 2018

Written by Ionel Zamfir, Martina Prpic and Rosamund Shreeves,

© high_resolution / Fotolia

In the 70 years since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the first international document to set common standards of achievement for all states – the pivotal role and moral, legal and political significance of human rights in the international arena have become indisputable. However, despite considerable progress in many areas on recognition, codification and implementation, human rights have also come under increased attack. Whether in theatres of war or in the political arena, human rights are now rejected on ideological grounds. The EU itself has not been spared by the current backlash. In its Member States, a populist wave has empowered political forces that increasingly question the significance of core human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression.

In these troubled times for human rights, opinion polls show that European citizens perceive human rights as one of the most important values for them personally and one of the values that best represent the EU itself.

Having emerged from World War II and its atrocities, European countries were determined to secure lasting peace, and the Union they created is now founded on respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights, which guide and shape its legislation and policies. Within the EU, recent action has included new legislation on data protection and access to justice, the European Pillar of Social Rights, and initiatives to combat inequality, discrimination and hate speech. There is also an acknowledgement that more needs to be done to complete the legal framework to combat discrimination and strengthen internal mechanisms for upholding the rule of law. Human rights are additionally a general objective of EU external action. The EU is deeply committed to promoting human rights, as enshrined in international treaties, in its relations with third countries and with other multilateral regional and global institutions. During the last EP mandate, the EU consistently applied and deepened a range of policy approaches that strengthen its role and image as a normative power that inspires others through its example. Maintaining and consolidating this policy remains vital for preserving the EU’s image and credibility as a normative power, based on values, that has the capacity to act at a time when the principle of multilateralism is increasingly questioned.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Human Rights‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Human rights as the most important personal value, per Member State, in %
• Human rights as a value that best represents the European Union, per Member State, in %

Written by Clare Ferguson,

January is traditionally the month to look forward and consider the issues to watch for the year ahead – and this is reflected in the plenary agenda. The President of the Government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, will speak in the session on Wednesday morning, for the latest instalment in the series of debates on the Future of Europe. Members will also hear Council and Commission statements on Tuesday on the presentation of the programme of activities of the Romanian Presidency, which began this month. The Council and Commission will also make statements on Wednesday morning on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and on Tuesday morning on the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 13 and 14 December 2018, which set out the short-term EU agenda. This meeting agreed a schedule for negotiations on the multiannual financial framework negotiation, as well as a debate on the single market in early 2019, and assessed the EU approach to migration, among other issues. This latter topic will also be the subject of a Council and Commission statement on the reform of the EU asylum and migration policy in light of the continued humanitarian crisis in the Mediterranean and Africa.

Following a topical debate on comprehensive European education, research and remembrance of the totalitarian past on Wednesday afternoon, Members’ attention will turn to the situation of fundamental rights in the EU in 2017, and a report from the Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs committee. The report draws on the core EU values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights to underline areas where these came come under attack in 2017, including during the migration crisis. Despite the adoption of the European Pillar of Social Rights, this was also the year that saw the first formal EU action following up on criticisms of the rule of law in EU Member States, including over moves to reduce women’s rights, curtail freedom of expression or judicial independence, and to discriminate against minorities. Freedom of religion and belief also feature on the agenda on Monday evening, when Members will discuss a report on the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the EU. The European Union’s Article 17 Dialogue offers churches, religious, philosophical and non-confessional organisations an opportunity to make their voices heard at EU level. As is the tradition, debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law also feature on the agenda on Thursday morning, notably the situation in Togo, Azerbaijan and Sudan.

On Monday evening, Members will get a chance to evaluate the effectiveness of equality policy in their own institution, with a debate on a report from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) on gender mainstreaming in the EU: State of play. While gender may not at first glance be a central consideration in policy on trade, or the environment, neglecting this aspect can perpetuate inequalities between women and men. For this reason, the EU has put in place a strategic engagement for gender equality for the 2016-2019 period. However, the FEMM committee report highlights that there is still some way to go to improve the current gender balance in Parliament itself, particularly in political and administrative posts.

Moving on to environmental issues, while the EU has some of the most stringent authorisation procedures for pesticides in the world, renewed approval of glyphosate in 2015 continues to cause controversy. The subject returns to the agenda on Monday evening, with Parliament due to consider recommendations from its special committee on pesticide authorisation. The committee recommends reinforcing the EU’s capacity for independent, objective and transparent assessment; fast-track approvals for biological pesticides; and greater monitoring of their impact on the environment.

Finally, the European Commission has proposed to update the 25-year-old rules on the use of vehicles hired without drivers, given the considerable changes in today’s market for road freight transport. Freight operators could reduce their environmental impact by hiring vehicles in other EU Member States instead of making longer journeys, and newer model rental vehicles could potentially be better for the environment. However, negotiations in Council are unlikely to proceed rapidly, as some EU Member States disagree with the proposals, fearing a loss of revenue from vehicle taxes and registration. Parliament will discuss a report from the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) at first reading on Monday evening.

Written by Marcin Szczepański,

© zapp2photo / Fotolia

Through its industrial policy, the European Union (EU) has been striving to create conditions conducive to increasing industry growth and competitiveness since 1992. European industry remains a cornerstone of the economy, providing one job out of five and is responsible for the bulk of EU exports and investment in research and innovation. Today, the aim of EU policy is to enable a successful transformation towards a digital, knowledge-based, decarbonised and more circular industry in Europe. To reach this goal, the EU supports, coordinates or supplements Member State level policies and actions, mainly in the areas of research and innovation, SMEs and digital technologies.

In a recent Eurobarometer poll conducted for the European Parliament, more than half of EU citizens expressed support for increased EU action on industrial policy. Despite this, it is still the least understood policy area covered in the poll.

Since 2014, efforts have been made in a number of areas, including investment (mainly through the European Fund for Strategic Investment, which supports industrial modernisation); digitalisation (for example setting up a number of research partnerships, or a growing network of digital innovation hubs); financing (making it easier for industry and SMEs to access public markets and attract venture funds); greener industry (for example through the revised 2030 emission targets, or measures on clean mobility); standardisation (bringing together relevant stakeholders to collectively develop and update European standards); and skills (mobilising key stakeholders to close the skills gap and providing an adequate workforce for modern industry). The European Parliament has called for ambitious policies in many of these areas.

In the future, EU spending on key areas relevant to industrial policy is expected to rise moderately. The European Commission proposes to boost the share of EU spending on research, SMEs and key infrastructure, although not as much as Parliament has requested. In the coming years, policies are likely to focus on fairer global competition, stimulating innovation, building digital capacities and increasing the sustainability of European industry.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Industrial policy‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Percentage of respondents who would like the EU to intervene more than at present
• Expectations for more EU action than at present: percentage points difference between 2016 and 2018
• Perception of EU action as adequate at present: percentage points difference between 2016 and 2018

Written by Magdalena Pasikowska-Schnass,

© michelangeloop / Fotolia

The concept of cultural diversity lies at the heart of the European project. Recent years have seen renewed interest in the sector’s potential for promoting social cohesion, unity and tolerance, on the one hand, with continued recognition of its valuable economic role, on the other. There is a strong commitment at the EU level to ensure that culture is mainstreamed in all policy areas, with a special focus on the protection of cultural heritage and cultural diversity, which are key elements in cultural identity and expression. From the economic point of view, the cultural and creative sector, which employs 8.4 million people in the European Union, is dynamic and has a large potential for growth due to its diversity and scope for individual creative freedom. Yet the development of this potential is hampered by barriers, notably linguistic diversity, fragmentation and different financial mechanisms across the EU. The EU’s cultural and creative industry also faces challenge from digital technologies and global competition, particularly from the United States’ (US) audiovisual industry, and from US and Chinese diplomatic efforts to promote their cultural output.

Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU’s role in the context of cultural policy is a supportive and complementary one, direct responsibility in the area being largely a matter for the individual Member States. Nevertheless, since 2014, these challenges have been addressed at the EU level, inter alia via the strengthening of the digital single market, which is essential for access to culture, the circulation of European cultural works, the fair remuneration of creators and fair competition. Since the economic crisis, additional funding has also been made available for the sector via the European Fund for Strategic Investment introduced by the Juncker Commission in 2015.

As indicated in a 2017 European Commission communication on the role of culture and education, the synergies between the socio-economic aspects are to be enhanced. The European Year of Cultural Heritage in 2018 is to feed into a reflection and actions related to shared culture and history. These issues are addressed in the New European Agenda for Culture, while the new multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027 envisages increased funding for culture. This will also support efforts to combine artistic and technological skills, which are a prerequisite for artistic expression in the new digital environment.

Read the complete briefing on ‘EU policies – Delivering for citizens: Promoting European culture‘ in the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

• Market share of European films in terms of admissions % in 2016
• Cinema admissions in millions
• Unesco World Cultural Heritage Sites
• Investment in cultural diplomacy, 2014, in €million
• Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020
• Creative Europe budget in € million

Written by Christian Kurrer,

Allowing consumer electricity prices to fluctuate from one time of the day to another could help accelerate the transition towards renewable energies and drive down the costs of this transition. Electricity production from renewable sources, such as wind and solar energy, is expanding rapidly in Europe and around the world. However, integrating these fluctuating sources into the grid is becoming increasingly challenging for grid operators that need to match electricity supply with demand. Switching over to a new electricity market system, in which demand would better adapt to supply, could be crucial for the success of the transition towards a low-carbon society.

© Galaxy67 / Fotolia.

The amount of electricity that we consume varies significantly over the course of the day. Consumption generally goes up in the early morning hours and reaches a peak in the late afternoon. Up to now, utility companies essentially respond to intra-day differences in electricity demand by adapting the production of electricity accordingly. With fossil-fuel power plants, this can be done quite easily, provided that sufficient capacity is in place to cover the peaks in demand.

With the rapid increase of electricity production from fluctuating energy sources such as wind and sun, this picture is becoming significantly more complicated. On windy or sunny days, there can be an oversupply of energy that needs to be absorbed by the power grid, while on calmer and cloudy days, the electricity production rate drops sharply. In order to balance out supply and demand, utility companies need to either maintain expensive fossil fuel plants to cover occasional peak loads, or find ways to store electricity locally or redistribute it over longer distances. In the end, the increasingly high cost of storing or redistributing electricity is beginning to counterbalance the decreasing cost of renewable electricity production.

This is increasingly a problem not only for consumers and utility companies, but also for renewable electricity producers. Wind turbines, for instance, produce most of their electricity exactly at those times when all the other neighbouring wind turbines also produce at maximum rates, pushing down wholesale electricity prices. This is making it more difficult for wind energy to become economically viable without relying on government support.

The introduction of smart electricity meters now offers an opportunity to redesign our energy market system. Smart meters would allow operators to charge consumers variable rates throughout the day, which would follow the evolution of electricity wholesale prices. How would that affect the overall system?

Potential impacts and developments

At first, the change would perhaps not yet be dramatic: electricity would become cheaper for some hours of the day, but more expensive at other times. Most consumers would not necessarily check the current price of electricity before switching on the coffee machine or the hair dryer, just to possibly save a couple of cents. However, new, more adaptive smart electrical devices could start to appear on the market that would monitor electricity prices for us, optimise the way we use energy overall and lower our utilities bill. Examples could include washing machines or dryers that select for us the best time of the day to finish their job; freezers that lower their temperature when electricity is cheap to save electricity when it is more expensive; charging systems for electric cars that take advantage of the cheapest periods of the night to recharge their batteries; or stand-alone battery systems that would ‘buy’ cheap electricity from the grid when prices are low, and deliver it to the consumer when prices are higher.  

The greatest potential might however be in the area of building heating systems: most domestic heating systems today rely on fossil fuels to heat water, because oil or gas is (still) cheaper than the (average) price of electricity. However, if the price of electricity fluctuated sufficiently, it might become cheaper to switch to heating water electrically during certain periods of the day. This would not only allow heating bill reductions, but would also gradually replace oil and gas with electricity generated from renewable sources. Moreover, the storage tank for warm water, present in many households, could be heated electrically whenever prices are low, further reducing the need for fossil fuels at other times of the day.

In this way, fluctuating consumer electricity prices could not only lower our electricity bills, they could also reduce the amount of oil or gas we need for heating, as well as help push the decarbonisation of the transport sector. At the same time, the additional electricity used by these smart systems at times when wind and solar energy is most abundant would help stabilise electricity prices during these times and therefore boost the economic attractiveness of investing in more wind and solar power. The resulting positive feedback loop would therefore mean smart consumers would not only benefit from fluctuating electricity prices, but would also increase the economic viability of further investments in fluctuating renewable energy production.

Anticipatory policy-making

As wind and solar energy becomes an increasingly prevalent part of our energy production capacity, we need to fundamentally transform our consumer electricity market system to become more responsive to short-term fluctuations in electricity production rates.

This would require smart meters that adapt the prices of electricity to the supply, and at the same time, smart consumer devices such as heating systems that switch over to electricity whenever the fluctuating price of electricity falls below a certain level.  

From the technical point of view, smart meters and/or smart heaters are quite straightforward to develop, but initially, one without the other makes only limited sense. Political leadership, industrial coordination, financial incentives and the setting of common standards will be important for setting this transition in motion. Eventually, this would also require a different approach to the energy-efficiency labelling system. A smart freezer that could modulate its temperature according to electricity prices would perhaps use slightly more energy than one that maintains a constant temperature, but the cost of the electricity would be lower, and it would make more use of fluctuating wind and solar energy, and thereby help reduce carbon emissions.

Written by Etienne Bassot,

©EU2017 – EC

The Treaty of Lisbon is the current legal foundation for the work of the European Union and its institutions. Although there is at present no general debate within the institutions on the revision of the Treaties, senior EU politicians have recently hinted at the possibility of expanding Parliament’s powers. However, given that the ordinary procedure for revision of the Treaties is cumbersome and lengthy, and that the simplified procedure cannot be used to broaden EU competences, it makes sense to explore possibilities for unlocking the full potential of the existing Treaties as they stand now.

Characteristically, European citizens are less concerned about how precisely the EU institutions operate, than whether the Union is capable of delivering on specific policy issues of importance to them, such as consumer protection, free movement of citizens, irregular migration and combatting transnational crime and terrorism. Even in matters which lie at the heart of state sovereignty as traditionally conceived – such as the broad domain of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – large proportions of EU citizens call for more EU action. The expectations of the European public therefore represent an important guideline for the European institutions, and delivering upon such expectations, within the Treaty framework, contributes to enhancing the EU’s democratic legitimacy. In this vein, the present study explores the possibilities for unlocking the full potential of the legal bases already available to the Union, with a view to better delivering on citizens’ expectations. 

The European Union is a community of law, and therefore any action or measure undertaken by the Union institutions – whether legislative or non-legislative – no matter how much it is needed or how much citizens demand it, must have a solid legal basis in the Treaties. This is in line with the well-established principle of legality, which is a key component of the ‘rule of law’ principle. In the EU context of multilevel governance, the principle of legality is connected with the principle of conferral, meaning that the EU enjoys only such competences as have been explicitly conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties. Therefore, the EU co-legislators – the European Parliament and the Council of the EU – are bound by the will of the Member States, expressed in the Treaties, laying down the precise fields of potential EU legislative activity. Such rules are referred to, especially when it comes to enacting EU legislation, as legal bases. For the purposes of this paper, EPRS policy analysts have identified and analysed those legal bases which can be described as either unused or under-used. However, it must be remembered that the Treaties should not be read independent of their changing context. A ‘static interpretation’, sticking to the ‘original’ intent of the drafters, would quickly find itself out of touch with the changed context, both within the EU and in the wider world. The Treaties, including the legal bases for EU action, should therefore be interpreted dynamically, in order for the EU to be able to address new challenges.

The study is based on both legal analysis of the relevant Treaty articles and on policy analysis focused on current challenges, and how they could be addressed through more EU action. Obviously, it is up to policy-makers to decide which legal basis should be used to further action and what kind of EU action is needed. Our intention has been to demonstrate that there are still unused or under-used possibilities for the EU institutions to deliver even more in terms of citizens’ expectations and meeting current challenges. The outcome of the project, in the form of a systematic overview of the 34 under-used, or even unused, legal bases should be seen as a kind of toolbox for political decision-makers. The possible forms of EU action that have been identified might take, not only the most obvious one of legislation (i.e. adoption of directives or regulations), but also improving procedural mechanisms (e.g. moving beyond unanimity and unlocking the ordinary legislative procedure), enforcing delivery of legislation which already exists but the potential of which remains to be fully tapped, enhancing complementary administrative capacity at EU level (e.g. a European Anti-Fraud Corps), and finally, increasing financing in a given policy area.

Read the complete study on ‘Unlocking the potential of the EU Treaties: An article-by-article analysis of the scope for action‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Etienne Bassot,

© lazyllama, Andrey Popov, sdecoret, Zerbor, Richard Carey, Siarhei, SFIO CRACHO, peshkova, EdNurg / Fotolia; Lightspring / Shutterstock.com

This annual publication offers up-to-date insight from policy analysts in the European Parliamentary Research Service on ten key issues and policy areas that are likely to feature prominently on the political agenda of the European Union (EU) in 2019. Each of the ten contributors presents the state of play on the issue, highlights what the European Union is doing and the specific role of the European Parliament, considers possible interactions with the other issues, and looks to the future to identify some of the major staging posts ahead.

This new edition covers three clusters of issues. The institutional cluster starts with ‘A new European Parliament – A new European Commission’, focussing on the institutional implications of the new political landscape which citizens will define when they vote in the European elections in May 2019. It suggests the ways the new European Parliament may differ from the current and previous ones, and looks at how the new European Commission will be appointed. Next, this cluster puts the spotlight on ‘The way forward’ for a Union of 27 Member States, looking at the direction of the current debate and the future beyond Brexit. Finally, the ‘Future financing of the Union’ presents the content and objectives of the Commission’s proposals for the financial framework for the next seven years, and the Parliament’s ambitions and position in the negotiations.

Four geopolitical issues form the second cluster: first, the relationship between the European Union and Africa – referred to by the President of the European Commission in his 2018 State of the Union speech as our ‘twin continent’. This section looks at the push for stronger relations and explores potential partnerships. Then, ‘Trade wars’ takes stock of current relations between Europe, China and the United States and addresses the political, economic and legal implications and the EU’s response in this context. Next, ‘Internal security’ reveals how crime is increasingly becoming digital in nature and how the EU is dealing with the issue. Lastly, environmental and climate challenges are studied from an unusual perspective, albeit one constituting the largest part of the surface of our planet, namely the oceans. ‘Towards a policy for the oceans’ looks at the benefits of, and pressures on, the oceans, as well as at EU and global policies in this area, and at likely developments in the coming year.

Technological issues close the circle of these ‘Ten issues to watch in 2019’, starting with a reflection entitled ‘From artificial intelligence to collective intelligence’, which explores this emerging topic and the role of the EU in 2019 and beyond. This is followed by a piece on ‘Electric mobility’, looking at the growing market for electric road vehicles and EU action to support it. Finally a more general contribution on ‘Digital transformation’ takes stock of this omnipresent phenomenon and looks at how best to build a digital economy and shape the legal, ethical and regulatory framework it needs.

Complementing the two previous issues in this annual series, and the extensive offer of EPRS publications in general, this 2019 issue of ‘Ten issues to watch’ seeks to inform Members of the European Parliament and the broader public, and to stimulate reflection and discussion at the start of a decisive year for the future of Europe and its citizens.

Read this In-depth analysis on ‘Ten issues to watch in 2019‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Elena Lazarou,

© doganmesut / Fotolia

Following the mid-term elections of 6 November 2018, the new United States Congress will start work on 3 January 2019 with a Republican majority in the Senate and a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. The shift of power in the House is likely to affect key issues including oversight and immigration.

Background

The 2018 mid-term election recorded the highest voter turnout in mid-term since 1912, with over 116 million voters casting ballots, and 49.4 % of eligible voters participating. The election saw a record number of women elected to Congress, with the first Muslim women and Native American women among them. Immigration and healthcare were key issues for voters, but the election was also seen by many as a referendum on President Donald Trump.

As a result of the election, the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, gaining 40 seats to hold 235 of the 435 seats overall. (One seat remains contested due to a dispute over alleged fraud: the 9th district in North Carolina.) The Republicans retained control of the Senate, gaining two additional seats, which brings their total to 53 of 100 seats. This allows them to confirm (or to withhold consent from) candidates nominated by the President for Administration posts, and to ratify (or block) international treaties. Through gaining a few more seats, Senate Republicans can afford some Republican defections on particular votes but still have a majority. With a divided Congress, passing legislation will now depend on both parties working across the aisle. However, according to opinion polls, few Americans expect bipartisan relations to improve.  

The current Congress returned from recess on 13 November and continued to work until mid-December. The new Congress will start work on 3 January 2019.

Implications of the change in the House of Representatives

With the House of Representatives under Democrat control, that party will hold both the influential position of Speaker of the House and committee chairs, as well as wielding the ‘power of the purse’. As a result, the Democrats should be able to set the legislative agenda, modify the rules of debate, conduct oversight hearings and allocate funds.

Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) has been nominated by her Democrat peers to be the next Speaker of the House, after initially facing opposition from a faction within her party. When the new Congress convenes, Pelosi will need to receive 218 votes in the House to officially become the next Speaker. Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) will return as House majority leader (the post he held when the Democrats were last in the majority in the House) after running unopposed for the position. With House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) retiring, the Republicans elected Kevin McCarthy (R-California) as minority leader in the House. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) will remain House Republican whip for this Congress.

The Democrats will now chair all of the committees in the House, owing to Congress’s ‘winner-takes-all’ system of assigning chairs. As a result, they will now be able to advance legislation to full chamber consideration as well as arrange oversight and investigatory hearings. Control of the Foreign Affairs Committee will mean that Democrats will be able to question the Administration on its foreign policy decisions, and advance legislation to the full chamber. Additionally, they will now influence foreign aid and military expenditure.

Key issues

Tariffs and trade: Congress has Constitutional authority (Article I, Section 8) to regulate commerce with foreign nations, conduct oversight on trade policy and pass legislation on the matter. However, in limited circumstances, the President may bypass Congress and impose tariffs by executive order. One of these is in the instance of ‘national security threats’. This mechanism comes from Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and it is the basis for President Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminium. As a result, Congress can only stop the current tariffs by passing legislation that strips the executive of this authority, or overturns the executive action with a veto-proof majority. The level of support needed for the latter is unlikely to occur in this Congress.

The Ways and Means Committee has primary jurisdiction over trade in the House of Representatives and will face several contentious issues in the new Congress, given disagreements between the executive and legislature, but also within the Democratic Party itself. These include:

• ratifying the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA);
• future free trade deals with the EU, the UK and Japan;
• conducting oversight with regard to the President’s unilateral use of tariffs and the escalation of tensions with China.

There is legal uncertainty as to whether or not the President can unilaterally withdraw the US from free-trade agreements without Congressional approval.

Immigration: Under unified Republican control, Congress was unable to pass immigration legislation. Under a divided Congress, passing a comprehensive immigration reform package is an even more unlikely prospect in the next session. House Democrats intend to pursue more narrow immigration reform in the House that will protect those brought to the US illegally as children (DACA), retain highly skilled graduates and reform visa programmes. A policy that pursues these more narrow issues combined with increased border security may have a chance of seeing movement in the upcoming session of Congress.

Infrastructure: One of the first legislative packages that Democrats intend to introduce is designed to promote US$1 trillion in infrastructure investment. According to their proposal, this would create 16 million jobs and ‘invest in American iron and steel and new American-made green infrastructure materials’. Rebuilding US infrastructure is something that President Trump campaigned on. Following the mid-terms, he has signalled openness to working with House Democrats in this area.  

Oversight: Thus far, throughout his presidency, President Trump has enjoyed a unified Republican Congress. Consequently, his Administration has not had to endure the scrutiny which is likely to come from a divided Congress. Democrats will now be able to conduct oversight hearings in House committees where the Administration can be obliged to provide witnesses and documentation under subpoena. Democrats on the Oversight Committee have already listed areas they intend to investigate, ranging from national security issues to the President’s alleged financial conflicts.

Nominations: The power to consent to Presidential nominations lies in the hands of the Senate (Article II, Section 2). The change in House leadership therefore has no impact on forthcoming appointments.

Key new committee chairs in the House of Representatives

House Foreign Affairs Committee: Jurisdiction over investigations and legislation relating to foreign affairs.
Eliot Engel (D-New York) – Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) participant and member of the EU Caucus.

House Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia and emerging threats: Relations between the US and the region. Oversees matters related to the regional activities of the United Nations, its affiliated agencies, and other multilateral institutions.
Gregory Meeks (D-New York) – TLD participant and EU Caucus co-chair.

Housed Armed Services Committee: Jurisdiction over defence policy, military operations, Department of Defence, Department of Energy.
Adam Smith (D-Washington) – TLD participant and member of the EU Caucus.

House Ways and Means Committee: Jurisdiction over taxes, tariffs, social security, Medicare.
Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts).

House Subcommittee on Trade: Jurisdiction over trade and related matters.
Bill Pascrell (D-New Jersey) – TLD participant. Source: European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO), Washington, DC.

Source: European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO), Washington, DC.

Read this At a glance note on ‘ The US Congress in 2019: What to expect ‘ on the Think Tank pages of the European Parliament.

Written by Gianluca Quaglio,

Research gap between drug development and real world healthcare delivery © Pot Regnier/STOA Introduction

The STOA workshop entitled ‘Innovative solution for research in healthcare’, chaired by Paul Rübig (EPP, AT), first STOA Vice-Chair, is an opportunity to discuss the implementation of an ‘innovation-centred’ system, exploring a truly ‘patient-centred’ paradigm with systematically coordinated applied clinical research carried out in conjunction with drug development. The workshop will be held on 10 January 2019, 9:30-12:30, at the European Parliament in Brussels (Altiero Spinelli building, room 5E2).

Webstream

#HealthSTOA

In 2015, the Council of the EU, while accepting that there is no common definition of the term precision (personalised) medicine, noted at the same time that this is generally understood to refer to a medical model, which uses the characterisation of individuals’ phenotypes and genotypes for tailoring the right therapeutic strategy for the right person at the right time, and/or for determining the predisposition to disease, and/or for delivering a targeted prevention strategy.

As the number of authorised drugs that target specific proteins implicated in the disease phenotype increases on the market, and as next-generation sequencing and other technologies bring comprehensive genome-wide analyses to affordable levels, precision medicine begins to play a much wider role in routine practice.

However, once a drug enters the market following regulatory approval, each EU Member State determines its real-world use based on its own criteria: pricing, reimbursement and clinical indications. Such an innovation-centred clinical research landscape might neglect patient-relevant issues in a real-world setting. There is a demand for reform of the current system to create a truly ‘patient-centred’ paradigm, with systematically coordinated treatment optimisation in conjunction with the drug development process.

Two disconnected stages: from drug development to real-world application

In Europe, most of the clinical research dedicated to therapeutic innovations in drugs aims primarily at regulatory approval. In this first stage, scientific issues on the efficacy of a new drug are addressed in selected patient populations and lead up to European Medicine Agency (EMA) approval.

Once a drug enters the market, the second stage begins, where research addresses clinically relevant questions to tailor the therapeutic indications to ‘real-life’ clinical practice. Due to this discontinuity between the first and the second stage, research during the second stage results – for various reasons – in suboptimal uptake of findings into practice or clinical guidelines.

Administration of improper treatment may generate unnecessary toxicity for patients, but also affects national healthcare budgets and adds cost to already highly priced treatments. Therefore, following the drug development phase, independent investigations are needed on the optimal use of medicines (known as ‘treatment optimisation’).

Regulatory approval

The regulatory approval of new treatments does not address clinical issues relevant to patients in real-world settings, such as: (i) how to combine new treatments with the existing therapeutic options; most patients may need some form of combination therapy, which is determined individually, based on a number of clinical and biomarker predictors; (ii) how to evaluate the clinical outcomes when new treatments are administered in off-label indications; (iii) how to determine the optimal scheme/treatment duration and at which benefit/risk ratio; (iv) what the long-term issues related to the treatment are. When addressed, the above-mentioned issues are studied mostly following EMA’s approval and rely on the goodwill and agendas of independent research groups.

Reasons for a lack of real-world evidence

There are a number of reasons for such lack of real-world evidence, mentioned briefly here. First, regulatory approval of new treatments requires data on ‘quality, safety and efficacy’ and not on ‘comparability’. This approach is centred on the innovative treatment, as its value is assessed in absolute terms, not relatively to the pre-existing therapeutic armamentarium of medicines, equipment and techniques available. Second, in order to maximise the experimental treatment effect, patients included in clinical trials represent only 2-4% of the overall targeted population, leading to a poor external validity of clinical trials. Finally, there is a lack of evidence that would make it possible to rank the multiple therapeutic options available and define the conditions for optimal care.

Aim of the STOA workshop

This workshop will provide patients, clinicians, payers, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies, regulators, pharmaceutical companies, researchers, policy-makers and the public at large with an opportunity to present their point of view and their innovative suggestions for future drug development in Europe.

The establishment of a new developmental framework through close collaboration between industry, patient representatives, and regulatory, governmental, academic and other stakeholders would hopefully facilitate comparisons of assay performance before regulatory approval, harmonising the approval process. Such a framework could mitigate the somewhat problematic current situation. The issue is ubiquitous in modern biomarker/drug development processes and is not related to particular targets or pathways.