The European Parliament

Francis Jacobs, Richard Corbett

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781000301151
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book explains the state of the art in the European Parliament. It considers the future options available to the Parliament and the kinds of reform that it is likely to seek, and examines the historical evolution of the Groups within the Parliament.

II: The Actors and Working Structures

4. The individual members

Any examination of Parliament's key "actors" must begin with its 518 individual members. The following section first looks at the position of individual members within the European Parliament system, their rights and their obligations, and the status and role of their assistants.

The second part examines the background of the individual members elected in 1989, such as their length of service in the European Parliament, their national and political background, the numbers holding a dual mandate and the number of women elected.

The final part looks more generally at the role of the individual member within the Parliament, his or her capacity for independent action, and the position of backbenchers.

1. Rights and obligations of individual members within the European Parliamentary system

Just as there is still no uniform electoral system for the European Parliament there is still no uniform statute for its members, and attempts to provide such a statute have not been successful.

Incompatibilities and verification of credentials

A few common principles were established, however, in the 1976 Act adopted by the Council concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, which laid down, for example, a list of posts which were held to be incompatible with the job of MEP, such as membership of a government of a Member State, membership of the European Commission, being a Member, Advocate General or Registrar of the Court of Justice or an active official (e.g. not on leave) of a European Community institution. Even as regards incompatibilities, Member States were permitted to lay down additional national rules, pending the entry into force of a uniform electoral procedure.

The 1976 Act also provided for the Assembly to verify the credentials of representatives. This is done on the election of every new member, and is carried out by the Parliament's Committee on Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities which can only take note of the results, and has no decision-making competence. Even before this is finalised, newly elected members have the same rights as other members, and verification is almost invariably a simple formality. (One exception being the challenge, which was ultimately unsuccessful, to the credentials of the Irish Labour members nominated in 1981 to replace colleagues who had become Ministers: no criteria had been established for the replacement of elected Irish MEPs, and one of the individuals in question was not even a member of the national parliament.) Moreover, only one member has actually had her election invalidated, and had to stand again (successfully) for election, Dame Shelagh Roberts, who had been deemed to have occupied a post of profit under the Crown which was incompatible with being an MEP under the relevant UK rules.

Facilities

Once elected, new members are given an initial background briefing, receive a voting card for use in electronic votes at the plenary sessions, and also a special laisser-Yasser, which allows them to travel freely around the Community without any other documents.

The newly elected member is also given offices. In Strasbourg each member now has an individual office within the building known as IPE 1.

Members now have their own offices in Brussels as well. In Brussels they are more dispersed, although essentially in two buildings, the Belliard and Van Maerlant Buildings. (In Luxembourg, however, they were never given any office space, which undoubtedly harmed Luxembourg's case to continue to hold plenary sessions after direct elections.) Members also have a certain amount of working space available to them in the European Parliament's offices in their own national capital. Members' offices are broadly comparable in size and facilities, with only Parliament Presidents and Vice-Presidents, Quaestors and Committee Chairmen getting larger offices.

In certain other respects the failure to have a common statute for members has led to major differences in the treatment of members.

One such respect is a MEP's basic salary. This is still paid from the budgets of the Member States and is linked to the salary paid to national Parliamentarians from the members' own country. This results in very great diversity, with Luxembourgish or Irish members, for example, being paid far less than their German equivalents doing the same job. This is clearly an anomaly, and yet it is also a matter of great sensitivity in individual Member States where members of Parliament are paid less. In these countries a sharp rise in MEPs' salaries could have a negative effect on public opinion at large and on relations with lower paid national parliamentarians.

One way in which MEPs from different countries are treated equally, however, is in the size of the expense allowances. They receive daily allowances for the amount of time they spend in Brussels, or elsewhere, on Committee business, in Strasbourg for plenary sessions, and in Brussels or elsewhere for group meetings. To prove that they have actually attended they must sign a register. In the case of Strasbourg sessions their allowances are docked if they attend less than 50 per cent of the sessions. Once they have signed in, however, they have no obligation actually to sit in on the meetings. Members also receive allowances for travel to and from their constituencies or Member States, as well as a 2,500 ECU per annum allowance for other travel on Parliament business within the European Community. In certain special circumstances (such as research by rapporteurs) members may have other travel authorised by the Parliament's Bureau, (which has set certain criteria for such authorisation). On the other hand, members do not have any special funding for travel on Parliament business within their constituency beyond their general allowance. This has been of particular consequence for MEPs with large constituencies such as Winnie Ewing, who represents a constituency (Highlands and Islands) stretching from the Mull of Kintyre to the Shetlands.

Members also receive allowances to maintain offices in their constituencies, for stationery and office equipment and for secretaries and assistants (see discussion below). A number of selected members (such as Vice-Presidents, Quaestors and Committee Chairmen) have had computer terminals installed in their offices, in order to receive, for example, Parliament's in-house teletext system (OVIDE). More recently, the French government has offered telecopiers to all members in their offices in Strasbourg (and a matching offer may be made for Brussels by the Belgian government). Parliament cars are also available for members in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Members' allowances, and their working conditions in general, are regularly reviewed by the Quaestors who are those primarily responsible for such issues within Parliament's leadership structure (see Chapter 6 on this latter topic).

Members' allowances and privileges are considerable, and have aroused resentment among certain circles, and also accusations of abuse. While it would be hard to prevent unscrupulous individuals abusing the system it should also be borne in mind that the costs of being an MEP, notably of travel and telecommunications, are also very high. Moreover, if MEPs' office facilities are good (although no better than in certain national parliaments like the Bundestag), this is surely more conducive to effectiveness than the antiquated and cramped conditions in places like the UK House of Commons.

Two other issues concerning the status of members should be mentioned.

Immunities

The first is the issue of parliamentary immunity, another area where the lack of uniform statute for members has led to considerable diversity of national treatment. Members' immunity is still covered by the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Community, which provides for MEPs to enjoy the same immunities in their own country as national parliamentarians while in their home country. In other countries of the Community, they are immune from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings, and they are also immune while travelling to and from the Parliament, except when members are caught in the act of committing a criminal offence. Immunity can also be waived by the European Parliament, upon application of the legal authorities in the Member States, thus allowing the MEP in question to appear before Court.

The European Parliament called in 1983 for the protocol to be amended, and the Commission subsequently tabled a proposal to this effect, which would have provided uniform rules. This has still not been adopted.

Requests by the national authorities of the Member States for a members' immunity to be waived are a regular feature at most plenary sessions. Such requests are transmitted to the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, Verification of Credentials and Immunities which submits its report recommending in favour of or against the waiving of immunity, but not pronouncing on or even examining the Members' guilt. These reports are considered under Parliament's Rules as the first substantive item on the plenary agenda on Monday afternoons, and the vote immediately follows the debate. Parliament has established a tradition of having long-standing rapporteurs on immunity questions. In the 1979-84 and 1984-89 Parliaments, Georges Donnez (French Liberal) was the rapporteur, and after the 1989 elections he was succeeded by Jean Defraigne (Belgian Liberal).

In its many reports on requests for the waiving of immunity the Parliament has established a number of basic principles, the most important of which is not to waive immunity if the acts of which a member is accused form part of his political activities.

In the majority of cases, therefore, Parliament has not acceded to requests to waive immunity. A recent exception (December 1989) was when Jean Marie Le Pen's immunity was waived by a large majority after a long and passionate debate on whether the particularly obnoxious nature of his remarks justified abandonment of Parliament's customary concern to protect members' expression of political opinions. Parliament thus overruled its relevant Committee's narrow decision (10 to nine with two abstentions) not to waive Le Pen's immunity. Le Pen's immunity was again waived in similar circumstances on another charge at the March 1990 plenary.

Declaration of financial interests

Another issue which should be mentioned is that of declaration of members' financial interests.

Rule 8 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure states that Parliament may lay down a code of conduct for its members. The only implementing provision so far is that contained in Annex I of the Rules providing for such a declaration of financial interests. National traditi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• About the authors
• Map of the European Community with number of MEPs per country
• I: THE FRAMEWORK
• II: THE ACTORS AND WORKING STRUCTURES
• III: THE POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT
• IV: CONCLUSION
• V: APPENDICES
• General Index
• Names Index