7 STATUTE FOR MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT
(24341)
PE 324/184
—
| Draft Report from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market of
the European Parliament.
|
| Legal base | Article 190(5) EC and Article 108(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community
|
| Department | Foreign and Commonwealth Office
|
| Basis of consideration |
Minister's letter of 15 May 2003 |
| Previous Committee Report |
HC 63-xviii (2002-03), paragraph 4 (9 April 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared
|
Background
7.1 By virtue of Article 190(5) EC, the European Parliament,
after seeking an opinion from the Commission and acting with the
approval of the Council, may lay down regulations and general
conditions governing the performance of the duties of Members
of the European Parliament (MEPs). Agreement was not reached
on its first draft, adopted in 1998, or on a later Council draft.
A further draft was debated in European Standing Committee B
in 2001.[16] A new draft
was submitted for scrutiny in March. When we considered this draft
on 9 April,[17] we put
several questions to the Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane),
to which he has now replied.
The Minister's letter
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
7.2 The Minister had commented in his Explanatory Memorandum
(EM) of 28 March that the wording of the provisions concerning
health and social security was ambiguous. We asked him to explain
further the proposed relationship between the distinctive provisions
under the Statute and those under UK law which will continue to
apply to UK MEPs.
7.3 In his reply, the Minister repeats the
point he made in the Explanatory Memorandum, that the Government's
understanding was that these were intended to be distinct from
any national systems. He now says that the Government's "clear
understanding" is that the provisions in the draft Statute
are complementary to national systems. As such, all the benefits
that accrue to MEPs, as outlined in the draft Statute, would "run
alongside" national social security benefits. He says that
the healthcare benefits mentioned in the draft Statute are additional
to provisions of national law and EU co-ordinating rules. The
contributions that UK MEPs may make to a scheme, by virtue of
the Statute, would be the same as for any other UK worker joining
a private healthcare scheme. The Government supports MEPs remaining
within the same social security system as their constituents and
continuing to pay UK social security contributions.
IMMUNITIES
7.4 We also asked about the immunities MEPs
would enjoy under Articles 5, 6 7 and 8 of the EP draft. The
Minister had not commented specifically on these. We said that
these appeared to confer more extensive immunities from legal
proceedings and criminal investigations than were currently enjoyed
by MEPs. We asked him if he believed that the conferring of immunity
from prosecution was a matter falling within Article 190(5) EC.
We were not persuaded that a rule which had the effect of permitting
the European Parliament to order a national prosecuting authority
to desist from a prosecution could properly be made under Article
190(5) EC. We were equally unpersuaded that such a wide immunity
from legal proceedings in an MEP's own Member State, as foreseen
in Articles 5 to 8 of the draft, could be justified. We asked
the Minister if he shared these misgivings.
7.5 The Minister comments:
"Article 190(5) provides that the European
Parliament is to lay down the regulations and general conditions
governing the performance of the duties of its Members. I believe
that this provision is sufficiently broad that it can be
used to deal with immunities, particularly given that MEPs (as
with MPs) require to be accorded certain immunities in order that
they can properly perform their duties.
"That said, the Protocol on the Privileges and
Immunities of the European Communities of 1965 sets out clearly
the immunities accorded to MEPs. The current text of Articles
4-8 of the draft Statute for MEPs, which deal with immunities
and privileges, is confusing and unclear. In several respects,
as your Committee noted, the draft Statute provisions would alter
the immunities under the Protocol. In some instances this would
have the effect of narrowing the immunities accorded; in others
it would extend them.
"This is clearly unsatisfactory. Work would
need to be undertaken to improve the sense of these provisions
— in addition to the concerns we have in other areas covered
by the draft Statute — before we could agree to it".
Letter to the Minister from Lord Grenfell
7.6 Lord Grenfell, the Chairman of the House
of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, wrote to the
Minister on 8 May 2003, commenting on the European Parliament's
draft report, which the Sub-Committee E (Law and Institutions)
did not clear when it considered it on 7 May.
7.7 On expenses, Lord Grenfell noted
that these were to be dealt with in a separate Regulation, being
prepared by the European Parliament, which would impose an "actual
costs incurred" regime. He said that his Committee supported
such an approach but sought the Minister's assurance that no agreement
would be given to the Statute without such a regime being made
mandatory.
7.8 Lord Grenfell comments that the Committee
had been surprised that the Minister had made no reference in
his Explanatory Memorandum of 28 March to the concerns which we
raised in relation to Articles 5 - 8 of the Statute. In
particular, the Lords Committee awaited the Minister's observations
on Article 6 on the entitlement to refuse to give certain evidence.
It appeared to be "extremely wide and to restrict the power
of domestic courts to require evidence to be produced".
Lord Grenfell commented that "the justification for this
provision appears to be based on a false premise, namely that
journalists have this immunity".
7.9 Referring to Article 4 of the draft
Statute, which deals with the freedom of MEPs to vote and speak,
Lord Grenfell says that this appears to exclude criminal, but
not civil, liability. He asks if this is correct and what is
intended to be covered by the words "or otherwise to be held
accountable extra-judicially".
Conclusion
7.10 This text continues to gives us
concern. The Minister admits that Articles 4 to 8 on immunities
and privileges are "confusing and unclear". He says
that he regards the text as unsatisfactory and that more work
needs to be done on it. We agree. We trust, for instance, that
it will be made clear that measures adopted under Article 190(5)
EC do not override the 1965 Protocol.[18]
7.11 In his
Explanatory Memorandum of 28 March, the Minister said that when
the text was forwarded to the Council, it would be able only to
accept or reject the text proposed by the EP. Therefore we ask
the Minister whether the Government will vote against this text,
which he has described as unsatisfactory, if it has not been amended
to take into account the concerns which we and the Lords Committee
have raised and which, to some extent, he has acknowledged. We
would not, for instance, expect the Statute to be agreed by the
Council before the Regulation on expenses has been adopted.
7.12 We do
not clear the document but ask the Minister to ensure that there
is time for the full process of scrutiny of the final text before
it is adopted by the Council. Meanwhile, we look forward to receiving
his responses to us and to the Lords Committee.
16 Official Report, European Standing Committee B,
29 January 2001, European Parliament. Back
17
See headnote. Back
18
Protocol (No. 34) . Back
| 
