I spoke in a debate this evening when a colleague, Lord Trefgarne, moved a motion to annul the European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008.
The regulations arise from the fact that there is now a ban on the dual mandate for MEPs: anyone elected as an MEP cannot also sit as a member of a national parliament. This creates a particular problem for members of the House of Lords, since they are not able to give up their membership in order to seek election to the European Parliament. The UK presently has a derogation until 2009. These regulations provide that thereafter a life peer elected as an MEP is disqualified from sitting in the House of Lords for the period that they remain an MEP.
I do not object to enabling peers to sit as MEPs – quite the reverse. My purpose in speaking was to raise problems with the way the regulations were drafted. Why, for example, are they confined to life peers, thus excluding hereditary peers? However, I also took the opportunity to reiterate my objections to the initial ban on the dual mandate. I appreciate we cannot now undo it, but I do regard the ban as objectionable in principle. Prohibiting an MEP from also sitting in a national parliament is a limitation on the freedom of electors to choose whoever they wish to represent them. If electors wish to choose the same person to represent them in Westminster and Brussels, that is a matter for them. The reason for the ban is practical: it is deemed that being an MEP is a full-time job and that the Members therefore cannot fulfil another job. That may – or it may not – be the case, but it is not sufficient to outweigh the principle at issue. It is a matter for electors to choose, not for the Council of Ministers to tell them who they can or cannot choose.
The minister, Lord Bach, made the best of a bad job in responding, including apologising for the fact that the Government failed to consult the House authorities in drawing up the regulations. We failed to see eye to eye on the justification for the exclusion of the hereditary peers.
There was passing reference to the fact that Baroness Ashton has been made an EU Commissioner while remaining a member of the House. She is taking leave of absence, but nonetheless remains a member. The dual mandate does not apply to members of the Commission.
Personally I am (as I have said) broadly in favour of the EU; but I think the European Parliament should revert to being made up of delegates from the national parliaments. There’s a constant complaint of parliament being ignored, and the level of popular interest and demos in the EU is poor; so I think legitimacy would be increased in this way.
It would serve to reconnect national parliaments with scrutiny of the EU, as well as conferring greater legitimacy through the higher turnouts for parliamentary elections, as well as establish direct communication with European and Westminster – and maybe taking the edge of such ridiculous criticism the EU suffers.
Unfortunately, under the current voting system in the UK for elections to the European Parliament, voters don’t have the freedom to “choose whoever they wish to represent them”. Instead, they must vote for a party, and it’s left up to the party to decide who’s top of the regional list. If you’re a lifelong supporter of party X, and like no. 2 and no. 3 on the list but despise no. 1 – or indeed if you disapprove/approve of no. 1 already being an MP or peer – what are you to do? If we must have this sort of PR system for Euro elections, why not let people pick or rank their preferred candidate(s) from the list? The option of a party vote could still be there for people who don’t care.
Jonathan: I agree completely. The House of Lords did push, and pushed hard, for an open list system for the European Parliament elections. For some reason, the Government insisted on a closed list, with the result you mention, and resorted to the Parliament Act in order to get the measure through.
Adrian Kidney: I have sympathy with what you write. As you probaby know, this is one of the reasons that some have pressed for a second chamber of the EP, comprising members drawn from national parliaments. They are seen to be closer to the people, so this would be seen – as you say – to strengthen the link between electors and the EU. There are problems with establishing a formal second chamber, but the need to establish a greater connection is clear. It was one of the aims established at the Laeken summit but, in my view, is not achieved by the Lisbon Treaty. I believe there is a strong case for building links between national parliaments in the EU in order to influence what goes on in the EU; this to some extent is now developing. I would like to see it taken further.
I suspect part of the reason is that most people in the Lords would have the good sense not to get involved with the nest of vipers at the European Parliament, but perhaps I’m being too harsh..
“The dual mandate does not apply to members of the Commission.” As ever, there is one rule for ‘democratically’ [using the word in its very loosest sense] elected MEPs, and quite another rule for the unelected elite who make the rules which we cannot then veto.
I’m becoming more of a grumpy old man by the day, but the ‘better off out’ argument is becoming more appealing if the unreformable system which has strayed so far from ‘no representation without taxation’ continues..
I was indeed aware, Lord Norton, but I think a second chamber would imply more cost, and more bureaucracy, and divide the European Parliament against itself when it’s supposed to be scrutinising the Council of the EU and the Commission; I think it should return to the pre-1979 method of parliamentary delegation. Perhaps this could be aired in the House?
British MP’s and Members of the House of Lords swear a loyal and somen oath of allegiance to the Queen (Crown) and through the Crown to all her people in this Country.
No one can be true to two masters. Choose either one or the other. there is no point in being an mEP if the person cannot devote their full time to it in axactly the same way for the House of Lords. For the Lords, you are working for your Country. For the EU you are working for the deeper and total integration until all sovereignty has been transferred to IT.
Here is what was said in our House of Commons many years ago, names that are familiar to me if not to you.
On 3rd August 1961 (column 1735) Mr Shinwell continues his words after having read out a part of the Treaty of Rome, ending with “reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and widening of its powers and, finally, a European Government. That is the intention. That is their object and that is what they are saying on Hon Members can talk until they are black in the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most influential people–M.Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated that there is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic provisions of the Rome Treaty—and it looks as though this government might—they are on their way towards complete political integration”.
“I wonder what this place will be like during the course of the next ten years? There will not be 630 Hon Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be like—”
Mr A. C. Manuel, “A Council”.
Mr Shinwell, “I was about to say a Parish Council, with the authority of some kind delegated to it by the European Parliament and dictated to be a European Government. To that we are being led”.
Even they realised THEN that there was no need for increasing the Houses, but vastly decreasing. It is THIS indeed that we are ALL being led.
Adrian Kidney: I have some sympathy with your view (and I take your point aobut cost), but I am aware of the political reality. How would one revert to the pre-1979 situation? There may be problems in getting such a change through the institutions of the EU – especially the European Parliament!