HL Deb 27 January 2004 vol 656 cc168-74

7.28 p.m.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 11 December 2003 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order specifies that a decision of the Council of the European Union is to be regarded as a treaty for the purposes of the European Communities Act 1972. The decision in question is that of 25 June and 23 September 2002, which makes changes to an earlier 1976 Act of the European Parliament concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage.

I should explain at the outset that the 1976 Act, to which I shall refer throughout, is not an Act of the UK Parliament. It was an Act proposed by the European Parliament, made by the Council of the European Communities, now termed the Council of the European Union. The Council is the European Union's legislative body. The 1976 Act laid down a number of principles to be followed by member states in elections to the European Parliament. Those principles were adopted into UK law and first applied to the European parliamentary elections in 1979. That was the first occasion that representatives were elected to the European Parliament, and they have since been in force in all subsequent European elections.

The reason for this order is that the Government need to adopt the 2002 Council decision into UK law as the 1976 Act was previously. The changes to the 1976 Act, which the decision makes, were developed from proposals originating in the European Parliament in 1998, which were taken up by the Council of the European Union. The decision updates and revises the 1976 Act to take account of developments since 1976. It needs the unanimous agreement of member states of the Council. This was obtained after long discussion in which the UK was, of course, heavily involved.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs has submitted a note to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to explain why, for the purposes of adoption of the Council decision, the Government are regarding the decision as a treaty. Once this order is approved and made, the Government will be able to sign an instrument of adoption, which will complete our adoption procedures. We will also make regulations under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, to ensure that references in domestic law are up to date.

I will comment on the substantive provisions of the decision. The decision aims to ensure that Members of the European Parliament are elected in accordance with certain principles common to all member states, while leaving member states free to apply their national provisions in respect of aspects not covered by the decision. We believe that this is a sensible and balanced approach, and I hope that noble Lords will agree with us.

The decision is made up of four articles.

Article 1 of the decision forms the major part of the decision. It contains a number of amendments to the provisions of the 1976 Act about elections to the European Parliament. Most of these changes are minor, already in force in the UK or do not apply, and I do not propose to go into those. But there is a substantive change that I should mention.

The decision deals with persons who hold office both as an MEP and a as member of a national parliament, commonly referred to as "dual mandates". For noble Lords who want to follow this, it is Article 6 of the 1976 Act, and is dealt with in paragraph 7 of Article 1 of the decision. This states that: From the European Parliament elections in 2004, the office of Member of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of a member of a national parliament". "National parliament" refers to the Westminster parliament, and therefore provisions do not apply to the devolved legislatures of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I commend this measure to the House. Members of the Westminster Parliament and Members of the European Parliament should have clear mandates, and they should be able to concentrate on doing their jobs without dividing themselves between two bodies. The majority of European colleagues regard the job of MEP as a full-time post, and the Government agree. The provision preventing dual mandates is therefore a welcome, positive step.

However, in their discussions on the decision, the Government were aware that there are currently two Members of the other House, the honourable Members for Foyle and North Antrim, and three Members of this House, the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Nicholson and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who are also Members of the European Parliament. We therefore considered that it was fair and reasonable for this change to be phased in for these honourable Members and noble Lords.

The United Kingdom Government therefore negotiated a derogation from the dual mandates provision. Under this derogation, Members of the United Kingdom Parliament who were also Members of the European Parliament during the five year term preceding election to the European Parliament in 2004 may have a dual mandate until the 2009 parliament elections.

There are some minor changes that I should mention. The decision deals with other offices, in addition to representatives of a national parliament, that are incompatible with the office of MEP. These offices now include members of the board of directors of the European Central Bank, and the Ombudsman of the European Community.

In European elections, states are now able to count the votes at any time before the close of polling in the member state whose electors are the last to vote. For the UK, where voting takes place on Thursday, this means that we will be able to count votes before the last polling stations close in the European Union on Sunday evening. However, the results must be kept secret until after that time. This greater flexibility and timing in the counting of votes will be reflected in regulations that we are preparing for the UK European elections.

The decision also provides for Members of the European Parliament to be elected on the basis of proportional representation. This requires no change in our procedures. Since the last European parliamentary elections in 1999, UK MEPs are elected by proportional representation. States may establish constituencies for elections to the European Parliament. The UK is divided up into 12 electoral regions for the European elections.

The decision allows, but does not compel, states, first, to set a minimum threshold to the allocation of seats, and, secondly, to set a limit on candidates' campaign expenses.

Your Lordships will wish to note that, unlike the practice of some other European states, we have no plans to specify a minimum threshold for votes in the allocation of seats in the UK. Individual candidates and political parties are already limited in their level of campaign expenses. The decision re-states that MEPs are elected for a five-year term. It is still the case that no-one may vote more than once in any election to the European Parliament.

The decision addresses procedures for filling any vacancies that might arise during the five-year term of the European Parliament. Each member state must have procedures for filling any seat that falls vacant during the five year term of Parliament. Such procedures are already in place in the UK.

Article 2 of the Council decision simply re-numbers the provisions of the 1976 Act, as amended by the decision. Annexed to the decision is a table showing the new numbering of the articles in the Act, which is designed to improve the Act's readability.

Article 3 governs the coming into force of the decision's provisions.

Article 4 explains that the decision shall be published in the official journal of the European Community, which duly occurred.

This order will enable the Government to complete our adoption procedures in respect of the Council decision. This order ensures that we are fulfilling our obligations in respect of elections to the European Parliament, and I commend it your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 December be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very detailed explanation of this order.

With regard to the issue of dual mandates, the order will, as the Minister, said, result in those members of the national parliament—namely, Westminster— being unable to be both a member and an MEP.

However, the electorate will not understand why someone can be a Member of the Scottish Parliament or an Assembly Member as well as a Member of the European Parliament. Are the Government suggesting that they have more spare time than those based here? Surely it is as difficult for a person from those bodies to be an effective MEP as it is for Members of the Westminster Parliament.

With regard to the forthcoming elections in June, the Minister mentioned that the Government will be producing regulations. Can he assure the House that the regulations will come before a committee of both Houses for scrutiny?

On the electoral system being adopted, Members on these Benches would prefer to return to a constituency link and first past the post. One reason for the low turnouts in European elections is the lack of links with MEPs and the European Parliament. Will Her Majesty's Government conduct an investigation and report on the process post the June election? If the turnout worsens, will the Government consider changing the system back to first past the post to encourage the electorate to take their democratic right seriously?

Although we are sceptical about a number of areas, we shall not oppose this order. I look forward to the Minister's response to the issues I have raised.

Lord Rennard

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his full and careful explanation of the order. Overall I have to say that it is welcome to see these common principles in relation to how member states elect their representatives to the European Parliament. Many noble Lords on these Benches thought it disgraceful that Britain was able to get away with ignoring the principles for so long, making our representation at the European Parliament so unrepresentative of British voters for so many years.

I want to ask the Minister about a couple of areas in the order where there is concern. He has already referred to the particular issue affecting Members of this House. The common principles fail to recognise the current and very special position of Members of the House of Lords. It is acceptable to set out in a principle that there should be no dual mandate, that one should not be able to sit in the European Parliament and a state legislature at the same time, but that makes the assumption that people have a choice about where their priorities lie. That is a false assumption for Members of this House who currently have no provision for resignation. That is probably unique among the legislatures of the 25 member states that will shortly comprise the European Union.

While the Minister said that there is a temporary derogation for the United Kingdom in relation to the situation until 2009, should there not be a permanent derogation for the House of Lords in particular, one that would recognise the difficulty facing Members of this House who at present cannot resign from it? Or will the Government make it clear that whatever may happen in future reforms of this House, they will themselves instigate or fully support a measure that would release Members here from a lifetime commitment, preferably by allowing replacements to whatever part of the House they come from if they choose to exercise that option? That is an important principle; we should allow the common principles for the European Parliament to be changed in this way.

It does seem to me that it is potentially a fundamental breach of the rights of those three Members of this House also serving as MEPs, or any other Member who in the future may wish to stand for the European Parliament, if they are not able to do so.

Will the Minister respond to this point and clarify the position in relation to the counting of the votes in these elections? I understand that the order will provide for the counting of votes to begin before the last votes have been cast in countries voting at a later point. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr Christopher Leslie, indicated in another place that the returning officers will be able to count the votes in secret without announcing results either publicly or to candidates.

Is that not unprecedented in our system and quite wrong not to allow the traditional supervision over the counting of votes? For example, how would a party and a group of candidates know whether a recount would be necessary if they had not witnessed the original count and the degree of care taken to see whether the totals are correct? Those of us who, over the years, have witnessed a number of recounts at local council or parliamentary elections know that sometimes the totals can vary considerably between the original count and recounts. We have seen different degrees of accuracy once the votes have been counted. It is important, therefore, to provide for adequate supervision by candidates and their representatives to see that the count is conducted properly. However, providing for that would create a problem over maintaining the secrecy of the ballot.

Counting votes in secret has been something we have expected of fraudulent dictators when they try to rig the system and prevent people from seeing what is going on rather than what is done in a democracy. Perhaps the Minister could address in a little more detail the process by which it may be possible to examine the counting of the votes while maintaining the principle of secrecy before other votes in the Union are cast and counted.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Rennard, for their contribution to this short debate. I shall deal first with the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Astor.

On dual mandates, I am sure that most would agree that, as a basic principle, a member of a national parliament should not be an MEP as well. The two jobs have such weight that I argue that one person cannot do justice to both at the same time. But I do not think that anyone would argue that someone could not be an MEP and, say, a parish councillor. The question is: where should the line be drawn?

Lord Norton of Louth

My Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to give way to take a question on that point? I see the argument that in practice it is very difficult to be both a member of a national parliament and a Member of the European Parliament, but actually to ban it is to place a fundamental restriction on the freedom of the electors. It is for electors to choose who they want. If they choose someone who happens to be a member of another legislature, that is for them. This strikes me as completely unacceptable in principle because it limits the freedom of electors.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I think some confusion has arisen here. I am not talking about the freedom of electors. I am putting the point on behalf of the Government that it is not possible—this is open for discussion—for someone to be an effective MEP and a member of another legislature. We can discuss whether that is an infringement of the rights of the individual, but I do not think that it is a matter for the electorate.

The question, I was saying, is where the line should be drawn. We think that the line is correctly drawn at the national parliament level. We are not concerned here with the wide range of representative bodies that exist in member states below their national parliaments. That is why the provision does not apply to the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord also asked about European Parliament regulations. I can confirm that the European parliamentary election regulations are required by statute to be approved only after debates in both Houses of Parliament. We intend to lay these regulations before Parliament very shortly.

On the question of proportional representation—

Lord Roper

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he leaves the question of dual mandate, will he say something about the very special position of Members of this House who, unlike the members of any other legislature across the whole of the European Union, are unable to free themselves from membership of this House to stand for the European Parliament? Can he indicate whether the Government will include a provision which would enable a Member of this House to free themselves from such membership in the legislation intended to reform this House? If it were not included in the legislation, would they accept such an amendment if it were moved?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for his intervention. I was about to come to that matter because it was a question put to me by his noble friend Lord Rennard. I shall turn to it in a moment.

On the question of proportional representation and first past the post, I am aware of the opposition of the noble Lord and his party to the proportional system, but I am not sure that the reason for low turnouts at European elections can be wholly laid at the door of proportional representation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, nodding in vigorous assent. Although our manifesto committed us to review the operation of the various proportional representation systems in the UK alongside the report prepared by the late Lord Jenkins of Hillhead to see whether a proportional system might be adopted for Westminster, we have not decided on the structure or timing of any review.

However, it will not come as a surprise to noble Lords if I say that we have no intention of abandoning proportional representation for European elections. We have agreed with our European partners that European elections in all states should be by a proportional system. Indeed, the Council decision gives effect to that agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked two questions. First, is it fair for someone to be denied this right of being a member of two legislatures where they cannot resign from the House of Lords? The consultation paper on reform of the House of Lords proposes that Members will be able to resign in the future. We anticipate that, whatever delays there are in implementing House of Lords reform, by 2009 we shall have agreement. I enjoyed his comment—I am sure it was unintentional— about Members of this House being released to be MEPs if they so wish. I can confirm that it is the Government's intention to introduce the ability for Members to join other legislatures.

On the counting of votes and the anonymity of results, candidates and agents will be able to attend the count, and any recount whenever it is held, as well as any announcement of the result, so it will be like any other election. The counting of votes will be allowed at any time after the close of poll on Thursday night but there will be no announcement of any result until after the close of polls across Europe on Sunday night; and no announcement will be made to candidates or anyone else before that announcement on Sunday evening.

I hope that that answers all the points made. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Rennard, for their interesting comments. I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.