COMMON PRINCIPLES FOR THE ELECTION OF
MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
(20673)
A4 - 0212/98
|
European Parliament Resolution on a draft electoral procedure incorporating common principles for the election of Members of the European Parliament.
|
| Legal base: |
Article 190(4) EC |
| |
| Document originated:
| July 1998 |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 24 November 1999 |
| Department: |
Home Office |
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter and EM of 2 December 1999
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| Discussed in Council:
| Preliminary discussions 6-7 December
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
7.1 Article 190(4) EC requires the European
Parliament (EP) to "draw up a proposal for elections by direct
universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all
Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member
States". In July 1998, before the entry into force of the
Treaty of Amsterdam, the EP adopted a resolution and proposed
amendments to the 1976 Act on Direct Elections to the European
Parliament. By focussing on the second option ("principles
common to all Member States"), the proposal avoids the need
for an across-the-board harmonisation of the electoral procedure
and takes account of the political traditions of each Member State.
The document
7.2 The Minister of State at the Home Office
(Mrs Barbara Roche) sets out the main proposals for amendments
to the Act as follows:
"(a) with effect
from the 2004 election, in each Member State, Members of the European
Parliament, (MEPs), shall be elected by a list system of proportional
representation (PR), using constituencies in Member States whose
population does not exceed 20 million inhabitants;
"(b) a minimum threshold for the distribution
of seats may be set and at a national level may not exceed 5%
of the votes cast;
"(c) further consideration may be given
by the EP to a proposal that a certain percentage of the total
number of its seats should be filled, with effect from the 2009
election, by means of list based PR relating to a single constituency
comprising the territory of all the Member States;
"(d) the office of MEP should be incompatible
with the office of member of a national parliament;
"(e) each Member State may set a limit
for candidates' expenditure linked to the conduct of the election
campaign."
7.3 The Minister continues:
"In addition, the Resolution
proposes that European elections should be held on a date in the
month of May, so as to maximise turnout by avoiding the school
summer holidays in some Member States; and recommends that the
number of days on which elections can be held should be reduced
to an absolute minimum, with a view to reaching a consensus on
a single day, or, if this is not possible, no more than two days
(eg Saturday and Sunday)."
The Government's view
7.4 In her letter of 2 December, the Minister
apologises for the delay in depositing both the document and the
EM. She explains:
"I am afraid that the
responsible officials have been heavily engaged throughout the
period, first in getting the European Parliamentary Elections
Act on the statute book last session, then in administration of
the 1999 elections, and most recently in preparatory work for
the Representation of the People Bill which is now before Parliament.
"However, as will be clear from the Memorandum,
activity on this dossier is only now beginning. It is on the agenda
for discussion at the General Affairs Council on 6-7 December,
but not for agreement. It is likely that the proposals will be
considerably amended before the Council takes them back to the
European Parliament for discussion. There will, therefore, be
a further revised draft and Explanation Memorandum to be deposited
with your Committee in due course."
7.5 In relation to the proposed amendments
to the Act, the Minister tells us that the Government broadly
welcomes them and considers that two only are problematic for
the UK. The first is the proposal (outlined in (c) above) concerned
with the possibility of a certain percentage of the total number
of seats being filled by list-based PR relating to a single constituency
encompassing the whole EU with effect from the 2009 elections.
The Minister does not expect Member States, including the UK,
to be in favour of this approach.
7.6 The second problematic proposal is that,
with effect from the 2004 elections, the office of MEP should
be made incompatible with the office of member of a national parliament.
The Minister says:
"There are at present
two MPs and two Members of the House of Lords who hold dual mandates
as MEPs. The Government has not yet taken a view on this issue
as it does not wish to pre-judge the outcome of the Royal Commission
on House of Lords Reform, although it would wish to preserve the
position of current holders."
7.7 In relation to the Resolution, the Minister
comments:
"The Government would
welcome development of the proposal for May elections provided
that the timetable permits UK local elections to be run alongside
European elections. The Government would not oppose a common voting
day on principle, but this may be difficult to achieve in practice.
Most other Member States vote on Sundays and the Representation
of the People Bill currently before Parliament will allow for
pilot schemes to establish whether weekend voting is a practical
proposition."
7.8 The Minister also tells us:
"The Government is considering
how to enfranchise citizens of Gibraltar for the purposes of European
Parliamentary elections, following the judgement of the European
Court of Human Rights of 18 February 1999 in the case of Matthews
v UK. We believe that the draft Act would be the most appropriate
means of ensuring that the 1976 Act is brought into compliance
with that judgement. Progress on this matter will be the subject
of further discussions with fellow Member States. If agreed, this
will require amendment of UK law and may have financial implications."
7.9 In relation to the timetable, the Minister
explains that the issue was to be discussed by the General Affairs
Council on 6-7 December 1999. Once the Council has agreed the
elements of a revised draft Act, the EP and the Council will begin
discussions in order to reach agreement on a joint text. The draft
Act will be subject to the EP's assent before being adopted by
the Council (as an annex to a Council Decision). The Act will
then be subject to ratification in the Member States.
Conclusion
| 7.10 | We are dissatisfied with the delayed deposit of the document and the EM. Although we note the Minister's apology, it seems likely that the need to inform us was remembered only when work at Council level on this dossier began. It is fortunate for the Government that no speedy agreement is expected, as we have a number of questions on the document.
|
| |
| 7.11 | The Government does not expect the UK to favour Article 7. As drafted, it would enable the EP and the Council to reserve a proportion of seats to MEPs representing the Union as a whole without national ratification and hence without reference to national Parliaments. We ask the Minister to confirm that, for this reason, the Government will oppose this proposal resolutely.
|
| |
| 7.12 | On the question of dual mandates, on which the Government has not yet taken a view, we observe that being an MEP is, or should be, a full-time occupation which it is difficult to reconcile with membership of any national Parliament. We ask the Minister whether it is only its wish not to pre-judge the outcome of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform which prevents it from taking a stronger line on this issue.
|
| |
| 7.13 | On election expenditure, we ask the Minister to explain why the draft Act does not require (rather than simply permit) Member States to set a limit as, without such a requirement, one or more Member State may not do so, to the disadvantage of poorer political parties.
|
| |
| 7.14 | On Gibraltar, we agree that the draft Act is the most appropriate vehicle for extending the EP franchise to its citizens as required by the judgment of the ECHR in Matthews v UK. We recall the verdict of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs "that it will be unacceptable for the ECHR judgement not to be implemented in time for the EP election in 2004. If there is evidence of Spanish opposition, we believe that it will be possible and desirable for the United Kingdom to act unilaterally, at least as a stop-gap."[33] We ask the Minister whether progress on this document will enable citizens of Gibraltar to participate in the 2004 elections and, if not, what steps the Government proposes to take.
|
| |
| 7.15 | Were the proposals to be adopted, provisions relevant to the holding of EP elections would be found in the EC Treaty, in the Act of 1976 and in this Act; furthermore provisions in the Resolution (such as paragraph 8 on the date of European elections) are substantive and thus belong better in the Act. We ask the Minister whether the consolidation of the Act of 1976 with this Act and the substantive elements of the Resolution in a single instrument might aid intelligibility.
|
| |
| 7.16 | We will keep the document under scrutiny until we have the Minister's response to our questions and further information on the Government's stance on those issues on which it does not yet have a view.
|
33 Gibraltar:
Fourth Report, HC366 (1998-99), paragraph 92. Back
|
