BEST PRACTICE

This is a web page preview of a Microsoft Word document from the East Midlands Liberal Democrats site. It is generated by a computer and is not manually edited. Formatting and content may be displayed differently to the original document, and should not be regarded as definitive.

The House of Commons can learn a lot from the European Parliament. In many ways the practices of the younger institution are far superior to those of the `Mother of Parliaments'.

Twenty-five years after its members were first chosen by direct elections the European Parliament continues to grow in authority and influence. It uses its powers of co-decision with ministers to shape and improve laws that will be binding on Britain and every EU member state. It demonstrated its ability to hold the EU executive to account in 1999 by forcing the European Commission to resign en masse rather than face inevitable dismissal. Its effectiveness is improved as MEPs adopt refined working methods.

Perhaps it is hardly surprising that its working methods are an improvement on those of the House of Commons. The inadequacies of the British system served as a benchmark to those who drafted the new assembly's procedural rules in how NOT to do things.

The European Parliament has learnt from the experience of the House of Commons. Now the latter body can learn from the experience of the European Parliament.

Of course, there are still a great many changes and improvements that must be made. The Parliament's co-decision powers must be extended so that it provides a check and balance whenever measures are being determined by the Council of Ministers on the basis of qualified majority voting. The methods used by MEPs to examine the commissioners and ministers who appear before them must become more professional. Reform of MEPs' travel expenses arrangements is long overdue.

But anyone who claims that the European Parliament is all bad has either no understanding of the Westminster reality or has allowed political prejudices to distort their objectivity. This work provides a challenge to those who attack the Parliament on the basis of arguments without substance.

The House of Commons does as it is told by the government of the day. It is a legislative and scrutinising assembly without independence, controlled by an executive enjoying the privileges of an "elected dictatorship". Few recent events have illustrated this more starkly than the approval early in 2004 of Labour's controversial proposals for tuition fees, albeit by the slimmest of majorities; a defeat would have represented only the fourth time in 100 years that a government bill had been rejected by MPs at the crucial 2^nd reading stage of proceedings. The time-honoured but deplorable tradition of the House of Commons is that `the opposition can have its say but the government shall get its way.'

No-one tells the European Parliament what to do. It is not a government poodle, dragged by the lead into doing whatever is required of it. The Parliament has the ability to amend, delay or reject legislative proposals tabled by the European Commission but its members have no political loyalty requiring them to answer to the beck and call of commissioners. Labour MEPs may sometimes seek to accommodate the wishes of the UK government, just as German socialist members may by sympathetic towards the views of their government, but both are minority groupings even within their own national representations and they are dwarfed by the MEPs from 24 other countries sitting alongside them. With few political strings to pull, not to mention competition between those trying to do any such pulling, the reality of the European Parliament is that it is independent.

In general a majority in the Parliament will be broadly sympathetic towards proposals tabled by the Commission. Their purpose, after all, is to put into practice the objectives of the European Union agreed by the 25 prime ministers and ratified by every national parliament. In general legislation is amended rather than rejected in its entirety, although this step is not unusual

The European Commission has the sole right to initiate legislation but the separation of powers and the independence of both the Parliament and the Council of Ministers means that, once launched, a proposed new law can take the form of an unguided missile; the Commission can hope it will follow its intended course but can never be entirely sure where it will land!

Members of the European Parliament are elected by use of proportional voting methods which ensure that the public's diverse opinions are well reflected and where no one group is dominant.

The strongest argument in favour of the first-past-the-post voting method still used in British general elections is that it is said to produce `strong' governments, though many on the European Continent would contest the implication that their governments are weak. Whatever the case, it is no argument at all for the travesty of democracy that produces a House of Commons unrepresentative of the national will.

The Labour Party, for example, holds 63% of the seats in the House of Commons, despite winning only 41% of votes in the 2001 election. Its huge overall majority in terms of voting strength flies in the face of the fact that most voters in Britain gave their support to other parties.

By comparison, in the June 2004 elections to the European Parliament the Labour Party won 23% of votes and 24% of seats. While it may not be a perfect reflection of the electorate's views it is at least very much closer to the reality.

MEPs have proper jobs to do as legislators. Relatively few can be considered as mere voting fodder, equivalent to those at Westminster who while away their time on the backbenches taking no initiatives but dutifully providing support for their party's line as required.

Work and positions are shared between the political groups in the European Parliament. Use of the D'Hondt system to determine who gets what ensures a fair allocation in proportion to their electoral strength and numbers. During the course of a parliamentary term every active member, even if they belong to a minority group, is likely to have the opportunity to become a rapporteur, the person who prepares the first draft of Parliament's response to a legislative proposal - roughly equivalent to being a winner in the Private Members' Ballot in the House of Commons. Even as a shadow spokesman they are likely to be frequently involved in negotiating compromises and agreements with representatives from other political groups.

While even after lengthy careers many MPs at Westminster will have little or nothing to show by way of legislative success, unless they have had the opportunity to be part of the government machine, a large proportion of their European counterparts will have taken the lead in guiding new laws through the parliamentary process and negotiating a final agreement with those representing the Council of Ministers.

In many law-making fields the European Parliament can exercise co-decision powers that give it equal rights with the Council of Ministers in negotiating the final shape of legislation. These powers come into force only if, at 2nd reading, a majority equivalent to at least 50%-plus-one of the total number of members in the House can be secured in support of the relevant amendments. In a Parliament now of 732 members this amounts to 367 votes, likely in practice to be well over 50% of the members present and voting at any one time.

Having the balance of political strength reflected accurately at every level of the Parliament's work promotes a co-operative approach and mutual respect for political differences. With no one political group coming close to holding even half the seats in the Parliament cross-party agreements must be reached if the necessary numbers are to be reached. Instead of exploiting political differences, MEPs have by necessity to explore and promote the common ground between themselves, notwithstanding their nationality or party affiliation.

It fosters a comparatively mature approach, sometimes described as 'politics for grown ups', and one that contrasts hugely with that of the winner-takes-all House of Commons where political points are scored at their opponents' expense in the knowledge that it will make no difference whatsoever to the result of any parliamentary vote.

Prime Minister's Question Time makes good television but is said to make a poor impression on most voters. When House of Commons' proceedings were first broadcast radio listeners were shocked to hear their representatives baying at each other. The addition of television pictures did nothing to correct the impression that politicians were not interested in working together for the common good.

`Yah, Boo' exchanges are rare in the European Parliament. No doubt this is partly due to the practical problems imposed upon formal proceedings by the need for interpretation, which delays one-to-one exchanges and reduces the value of rhetoric. A witty put-down loses its effect if the punchline takes several seconds to arrive! But the cross-party co-operation needed to secure qualified majorities also curbs any tendency towards more scornful or hurtful exchanges. It doesn't pay to insult another politician if you want their support the next day.

Those who believe that politics is simply a more civilised way of resolving disputes than going to war, and that strong emotions are an inevitable part of the process, may claim that a bit more passion and drama would do the proceedings no harm at all, but if the public wants civilised behaviour from their representatives then they are more likely to find it in the European Parliament than at Westminster.

The European Parliament's subject-based specialist committees, responsible for legislation, executive scrutiny and enquiry, provide a strong alternative to the artificial divide which pertains in the House of Commons.

Every MEP sits on at least one of the major committees, which have both legislative and horizontal political responsibilities. In effect they combine the role played by standing and select committees at Westminster. Unlike the former, which are dissolved as soon as their scrutiny of a single piece of legislation is complete, they are established at the beginning of each parliamentary mandate and their membership retains a strong common thread throughout the 5-year term.

While standing committees in the House of Commons permit MPs to cross swords only with the minister responsible for the legislation, European Parliament committees have the right to examine the Commission officials who drafted the proposals and pose questions of detail that few ministers can be expected to answer.

The Parliament's committee structure enables members to develop expertise in their subject area. It permits the legislators who piloted a measure through the parliamentary process to be involved in monitoring its progress and performance at a later date.

On one of the rare occasions when a debate in the European Parliament was reported on national radio the reporter mentioned that the vote would take place the following day. “But that's ridiculous,” snorted the programme presenter. “How can you have a debate one day and the vote on the next?”

In the European Parliament the political groups often complete their final voting recommendations only shortly before the vote take place, that is usually after the subject has been debated in the chamber. At Westminster the parties' voting positions are invariably decided before the debate takes place, and often up to a week prior to the event.

“But that's ridiculous,” it might be said. “What's the point of a Parliament where the votes are decided before the debate has even taken place?”

Voting in the European Parliament is not restricted to the minimalist `aye' or `noe' approach of the House of Commons, which leaves so many matters of detail to be resolved by backroom deals and the `usual channels'. The use of electronic voting in the European Parliament means that a vote recording the position of every member takes 20 seconds compared to 20 minutes in the House of Commons.

Modern voting methods allow more issues to be resolved by democratic process with the participation of every elected member, giving even ideas with limited support the chance to be aired and for individual members to have a greater chance of influencing the democratic process and doing the job for which they were elected.

The independence of members within the British parliamentary system is further distorted by the strength of the whipping system in the Commons, especially at times when government majorities are small. The occasions on which government business managers allow MPs `free votes' are rare.

Whipping cannot work in the European Parliament. Each political group is composed of members from different national political parties with different domestic considerations. There are few electoral thumbscrews that can be applied to individual members, and the D'Hondt system of fair allocation deprives party whips of many of the powers of patronage exercised at Westminster.

The political groups provide their members with voting recommendations, usually prepared by the MEP leading for the group, but in practice there is no means of forcing members to follow the line. In general, MEPs are more free than MPs to vote according to their conscience and their political beliefs.

European commissioners are handpicked by the prime ministers of each member state to do a 5-year job of putting the EU treaties into practice. It is an approach not dissimilar to the selection of US secretaries of state like Colin Powell or Donald Rumsfeld, who are appointed by the President to do a 4-year job on his behalf. But the Commission's unelected status earns it criticism and its members are condemned as `Brussels Bureaucrats.'

`Bureaucrats' of a kind they may be, but European Commissioners face a tougher start to their jobs than any minister. Their first task is to get to know their brief intimately or face public humiliation.

Appointment of the Commission has to be approved by the European Parliament, and each applicant will face examination by the parliamentary committee shadowing their role. They will be required to answer in writing up to 50 pages of detailed questions of policy before facing a three hour grilling in public by MEPs, at least some of whom will have expertise derived from decades of work in the field. Only then will the committee issue an opinion as to the nominee's suitability.

An MP read the response to his parliamentary question. “That's a typical government answer,” he said. “It's short. It's factual. And it tells me bugger all!”

The arcane rules governing the tabling of questions in the House of Commons tie the hands of legislators. `Fishing questions', for example, those that may seek to explore the government's position on a particular issue, are specifically prohibited.

No such rules restrict the questions MEPs can table to European Commissioners or the Council Presidency. Nothing prevents an MEP explaining why the question has been tabled and what particular information is being sought. `Fishing questions' are common, and Commission officials admit that the questions often force them to decide just what position they do hold on the issue. The answers given may also be discursive, providing the questioner with a better understanding of the reasons for the position being taken.

Recent media criticism of MEPs' expenses has focused on reports that members can qualify for a `subsistence' allowance by signing the attendance register even if they did not take part in that day's formal parliamentary business. The negative publicity has at least highlighted the fact that MEPs receive the Brussels/Strasbourg allowance of 260 euros per day only if they can prove that they have at some time been present in the Parliament.

By contrast members of the House of Commons representing constituencies outside London are entitled to a living allowance ('additional costs') of £20,333 per year, but no requirement is placed upon them to vote or go anywhere near the Palace of Westminster.

During plenary sessions the European Parliament rules are stricter. Mere presence in the building is not sufficient. Any member who fails to take part in at least half the recorded votes because they have entered the chamber late or left early automatically loses half their allowance for that day.

Repeated failure to attend and use their vote in Parliament results in further penalties. A member who fails to take part in more than half the plenary session votes is deprived of half the allowance paid to meet the cost of MEPs' staff salaries.

UKIP members will learn that if they fail to turn up in Strasbourg to vote they will lose much of the money they want to further their campaign against the European Union!

The European Parliament is proving itself an effective and democratic legislative assembly working in an extraordinary multinational environment.

It is growing in authority, partly through treaty enhancements, partly through organic developments such as inter-institutional agreements and self-generated improvements in its working practices. A former member of a national parliament explained his reason for seeking election to the European Parliament: “The executive arm is becoming stronger in almost every member state. Before the end of my political career I wanted to serve in a parliament that was becoming stronger and proving itself increasingly able to provide a counterbalance.”

Much still needs to be improved. For example, the Parliament's current practices rarely permit an examination of policy in the style of a House of Commons select committee. Liberal Democrats are calling for reforms that do not require new provisions in a constitutional treaty but simply better organisation.

But much needs to be improved also in the workings of the House of Commons. It has the comparatively simple task of providing representation for the people of just one nation state speaking just one language - yet does it remarkably poorly!