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 |
| |
Department: |
Home Office |
Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter and Supplementary EM of 14 January 2000
|
Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-iv (1999-2000), paragraph 7 (15 December 1999)
|
Discussed in Council:
| Date not set |
Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; awaiting further information on progress
|
Background
5.1 When we last considered this document
(in December 1999), we expressed dissatisfaction with its delayed
deposit and raised a number of questions about the proposals contained
in it.
5.2 On one issue, that of dual mandates,
the Government had not taken a view as it did not wish to pre-judge
the outcome of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform.
The Royal Commission has now reported[18].
In paragraph 8.20 it states: "We ... agree with those who
argued that membership of the second chamber would be too onerous
a task to combine with the increasingly exacting task of being
an MEP. We note that the European Parliament is itself opposed
to the idea that any of its members should have a dual mandate.
For our part, we have no objection in principle to individuals
seeking a dual mandate, but it would be wrong to make it a requirement."
This passage is followed by Recommendation 48: "No one should
become a member of the second chamber by virtue of being a United
Kingdom MEP".
The Minister's letter and Supplementary EM
5.3 The Minister of State at the Home Office
(Mrs Barbara Roche) has now written to us with a Supplementary
EM which repeats her earlier apology for the delay and addresses
our questions. She says:
"At paragraph 7.10 of the [Committee's] Report,
the Committee expresses its dissatisfaction with the delayed deposit
of the document and the EM. The Government can assure the Committee
that the need to inform them was not forgotten before work at
Council level on the dossier began. The Government is well aware
of the priority attaching to the Explanatory Memorandum, and reiterates
the Minister's apology for other overriding priorities having
led to the delay. The Government agrees that such delays on documents
of political importance are unacceptable and the officials with
responsibility for this area have been given a clear reminder
of the need to avoid them in future.
"At paragraph 7.11, the Government is asked
to confirm that it will oppose Article 7 of the draft, that would
reserve a proportion of seats to MEPs representing the Union as
a whole, resolutely. The Government agrees that it should maintain
its present firm opposition if this Article was found to be carried
forward within the draft proposals of the Council. At present,
there are strong indications that the Council will take note of
the arguments of Member States, and that its proposals will allow
the electoral procedures to remain governed in each Member State
by its national provisions, under an essentially proportional
voting system.
"At paragraph 7.12, the Committee observes that
being an MEP is, or should be, a full-time occupation which it
is difficult to reconcile with membership of any national Parliament.
It asks whether it is only the Government's 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. The
Government accepts the argument presented by the Committee, but
cannot take a final view on dual mandates until the Royal Commission
has reported. In the meantime, the Council has indicated that
its proposals will take into account the Government's concern
that the position of those individual UK MEPs who currently hold
dual mandates should be preserved.
"At paragraph 7.13, the Committee asks why the
draft Act should not require (rather than simply permit) Member
States to set a limit on candidates' expenditure as, without such
a requirement, one or more Member States may not do so, to the
disadvantage of poorer political parties. The Government will
give further consideration to this issue. However, it appears
doubtful whether making the Act prescriptive upon this point is
consistent with permitting electoral procedures to be governed
in each Member State by its national provisions.
"At paragraph 7.14, the Government welcomes
the Committee's agreement that the draft Act is the most appropriate
vehicle for extending the European Parliamentary franchise to
the citizens of Gibraltar. The Government is seeking amendment
of the 1976 Act on Direct Elections in order to bring into force
the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Matthews
v UK. This would allow the enfranchisement of Gibraltar
in good time for the 2004 elections. In the event that this amendment
is not achieved, other options would then have to be considered,
including unilateral action as recommended by the Select Committee
on Foreign Affairs. The Home Office is currently considering what
domestic administrative preparation will be required to extend
the European Parliament franchise to Gibraltar.
"At paragraph 7.15, the Committee asks 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.
The Government understands that the Council is in fact working
towards bringing substantial elements of the Resolution within
the draft Act. The Government will consider the call for a consolidation
with the 1976 Act.
"With respect to the Committee's decision to
keep this document under scrutiny, the Government hopes that the
foregoing comments will have been helpful. The Government notes
that progress is taking place within the Council towards a draft
Act that may be substantially revised in comparison with [this]
document and reiterates its commitment to ensuring that the Committee
is informed at an early stage of significant developments. The
Government will take the opportunity as necessary of advising
the Committee when decisions have been made in respect of those
questions which require further consideration".
Conclusion
5.4 We thank the Minister for her apology
and for her helpful answers to our questions. Our comments on
her response are as follows:
(i) we welcome the Government's agreement
to continue with its opposition to Article 7 and the suggestion
that the Article may not be carried forward;
(ii) we are encouraged that the Government
accepts our argument that being an MEP is, or should be, a full-time
occupation which it is difficult to reconcile with membership
of any national Parliament. Although the (now published) report
of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform does not oppose
the principle of dual mandates, it shares our
view of the workload involved. We shall be surprised, therefore,
if the Government does not come out against dual mandates once
it finalises its view on the matter;
(iii) we are pleased that the Government
will give further consideration to the question of requiring (rather
than simply permitting) Member States to set a limit on candidates'
expenditure. Such a provision appears to us no more prescriptive
than others in this proposal, such as the maximum size of constituencies;
(iv) we welcome the efforts the Government
is making to ensure the enfranchisement of Gibraltar in good time
for the 2004 elections and in particular its commitment to consider,
if need arises, the option of unilateral action; and
(v) we are pleased to learn that the
Council plans to bring substantial parts of the Resolution within
the draft Act. We urge the Government to press for a consolidation
with the 1976 Act in the interests of clarity and coherence.
5.5 None of our comments requires an
immediate response. However, in view of the fact that substantial
revisions are possible, we will keep the document under scrutiny
until we have further information about its likely final form.
We ask the Minister to keep us fully informed of developments
on the question of the Gibraltar franchise.
DETERMINING OBLIGATIONS AS BETWEEN THE
MEMBER STATES FOR THE READMISSION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS
(20790)
12488/99
|
Draft Council Regulation determining obligations as between the Member States for the readmission of third-country nationals.
|
Legal base: |
Article 63(3)(b) EC; consultation; unanimity
|
| |
Deposited in Parliament:
| 20 December 1999 |
Department: |
Home Office |
Basis of consideration:
| EM of 14 January 2000 |
Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see (19903) 10338/1/98: HC 34-xix (1998-99), paragraph 5 (12 May 1999)
|
To be discussed in Council:
| No date set |
Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information on progress requested
|
Background
6.1 Last year, we twice considered a draft
Readmission agreement between the EU Member States and a third
country[19].
We have still not cleared that document, on which negotiations
continue. This current proposal is related to it, in that, once
such agreements with third countries are in place, a mechanism
for determining obligations as between the Member States for the
readmission of third-country nationals will be needed. As the
proposal builds upon the Schengen acquis, the UK is able
to decide whether or not to participate in the measure.
The document
6.2 The proposal provides a framework for
the determination of obligations as between the Member States
for the readmission of third-country nationals, including those
who may be returned to a Member State under the terms of any future
readmission agreement concluded by the Community with a third
country. The assessment of responsibility would be based on criteria
similar to those used in the Dublin Convention for the determination
of which Member State is responsible for considering an asylum
application (for example, possession of a valid residence document
or visa).
The Government's view
6.3 The Minister of State at the Home Office
(Mrs Barbara Roche) comments as follows:
"The Government is concerned that this proposal
is premature, in that discussions on the format of the model multi-lateral
readmission agreement to be concluded between the Community and
a third country are only at an early stage. The Government nevertheless
acknowledges that, once such a Community agreement has been concluded,
internal rules on procedure will be required for the effective
implementation of the agreement.
"The Government also questions the value of
reliance on criteria similar to those used in the Dublin Convention.
In particular, the level of proof required in establishing to
which Member State a third country national should be returned
has caused particular difficulties in the Dublin context. This
is an area of the Dublin Convention which the Government is anxious
to see improved. Member States have not always been able to agree
on what constitutes acceptable indicative evidence of a third
country national's entry or stay on their territory and these
issues would need to be carefully considered in any new arrangement.
The Government also considers that the proposal as drafted would
be fairly limited in effect in that, in current experience, the
majority of illegal entrants are undocumented and could not be
considered against the criteria set out in Articles 4-7 of this
proposal [dealing with valid residence permits or visas]. They
may, however, come within Articles 8 and 9 [dealing with irregular
entry and border checks], although in practice the level of proof
required may again be an obstacle to return".
6.4 The Minister draws attention to some
weaknesses in the current draft. Although the first recital states
that the repatriation of illegal residents requires taking measures
on readmission in general, no justification for this statement
is provided. In addition, the recitals fail to address the compliance
of the draft Regulation with the principles of subsidiarity and
proportionality.
6.5 In relation to subsidiarity, the Government
considers that informal, bilateral action between Member States
would probably be sufficient to regulate readmission within the
Community. However, it recognises that Community-wide regulation
will be necessary in the context of Community-level agreements
on readmission with third countries.
6.6 The Minister tells us that the Government
is considering whether to exercise its opt-in to this proposal
and will in the meantime participate in the negotiations over
the text.
Conclusion
6.7 The prematurity of this proposal
is less obvious to us than to the Minister, given the need, which
she admits, to determine responsibility for the taking back of
a third country national once there is a Community-level agreement
on readmission, and the difficulty of devising workable criteria.
We can see, however, that the UK may be in some difficulty over
its decision about participation at this stage. Logic would seem
to dictate that the UK should opt in both to this proposal and
to the readmission agreement (once negotiated) or to neither of
them. Will the Minister confirm that this is the case?
6.8 The Minister does not dispute that
the proposal builds upon the Schengen acquis. Given that
the Protocol on integrating that acquis into the EU framework
gives the UK a reasonable period within which to state its willingness
to take part (in contrast to the three month period laid down
in the Protocol on the position of the UK and Ireland), how much
time does the Government think is available to it to consider
whether to exercise its opt-in to this proposal?
6.9 We will keep this proposal under
scrutiny until we have the Minister's response to these questions
and until further progress has been made in negotiations.
SANCTIONS AGAINST THE TALIBAN
(20807)
13964/99
COM(99) 662
|
Draft Council Regulation concerning a flight ban and a freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan.
|
Legal base: |
Articles 60 and 306 EC; qualified majority voting
|
| |
Document originated:
| 7 December 1999 |
Forwarded to the Council:
| 8 December 1999 |
Deposited in Parliament:
| 6 January 2000 |
Department: |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
Basis of consideration:
| EM of 24 January and Minister's letter of 25 January 2000
|
Previous Committee Report:
| None; but see (20616) : HC 34-xxxi (1998-99), paragraph 16 (10 November 1999)
|
To be discussed in Council:
| Expected to be adopted at an early Council
|
Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
Committee's decision:
| Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
7.1 On 15 October 1999, United Nations Security
Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1267 was adopted. It demanded that
the Afghan faction known as the Taliban, which also calls itself
the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, should hand over Usama bin
Laden for trial, without delay. Bin Laden is wanted by the United
States authorities in connection with terrorist acts against US
diplomats and diplomatic premises abroad. Under the Resolution,
given the Taliban's failure to comply, UN Member States are required
to impose a flight ban and to freeze the Taliban's funds and other
financial resources.
7.2 The EU Member States decided to implement
these measures collectively in the Community and on 15 November
1999, Common Position (1999/727/CFSP) was adopted. We cleared
it in draft on 10 November.[20]
The draft Council Regulation
7.3 In his EM of 24 January, the Minister
of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Vaz) says
that on 9 December the Commission presented a draft Council Regulation,
but this has been substantially revised. He has provided a copy
of both texts. The revised draft is expected to be adopted soon
and the Minister expresses the hope that we can clear the measure
quickly. The UN Resolution came into force in the UK and Overseas
Territories on 26 November, through Statutory Instruments made
under the United Nations Act 1946.
7.4 The revised Regulation will impose sanctions
against any aircraft, funds or financial resources listed in its
annexes. These lists will be drawn up by the Taliban Sanctions
Committee, established by UNSCR 1267 (1999), and the Regulation
provides for them to be supplemented and/or amended by the Commission
on the basis of "determinations" made by the UNSC or
the Taliban Sanctions Committee. Exemptions may be obtained through
the competent authorities of the Member States listed in an annex.
Exemptions granted by the Taliban Sanctions Committee will apply
throughout the Community.
7.5 Article 10 of the draft provides for
the Regulation to apply "notwithstanding any rights conferred
or obligations imposed by any international agreement signed or
any contract entered into or any licence or permit granted before
the entry into force of this Regulation".
Conclusion
7.6 We understand that the Minister would
prefer the parliamentary scrutiny reserve to be lifted as early
as possible on this proposal. Nevertheless, we are concerned at
the scope of Article 10. It is so widely cast as to have, in our
view, an uncertain effect on those EU persons or bodies who, before
the Regulation comes into force, have had legitimate business
with the Taliban. They will have had little prior warning and
no mention is made of providing compensation or exemption from
damage in given circumstances. No justification is offered by
the Minister for such a draconian measure, though the reason for
putting intense pressure on the Taliban, as provided for in the
Regulation as a whole, is clear.
7.7 We, therefore, ask the Minister to
tell us whether the possible effect of the Regulation on third
parties has been taken fully into account. Meanwhile, we shall
not clear the document.
18 A House for the Future: Royal
Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, Cm 4534, January
2000. Back
19 (19903)
10338/1/98; see HC 34-xiv (1998-99), paragraph 5 (24 March 1999)
and HC 34-xix (1998-99), paragraph 5 (12 May 1999). Back
20 (20616)
-; see HC 34-xxxi (1998-99), paragraph 16 (10 November 1999). Back
|