Every time the European Union re-writes its treaties, the European parliament emerges as a winner. In the Single European Act of 1985, the Maastricht treaty of 1991, the Amsterdam treaty of 1997 and the Nice treaty still unratified of 2000, the parliament won more powers. It is likely to do so again in the inter-governmental conference that is due in 2004. And yet, each time the parliament wins more powers, fewer people bother to vote for it in the following European elections: the turnout across the EU fell in each of the elections of 1989, 1994 and 1999. This suggests that, whatever the parliament s merits, it has a serious credibility problem and that giving it more powers will not solve the problem.
In Britain in 1999, barely a quarter of the electorate bothered to vote in the European elections. The next elections, due in 2004, will be crucial for Labour, happening just a year before the likely time of the next general election. If Labour performs as poorly as it did last time, it could give the Tories a chance to revive their forces and gather electoral momentum.
One big error in Labour s 1999 campaign was refusing to fight the European elections on European issues. We talked about our domestic achievements, which was perhaps justified, but the way the campaign avoided European issues was an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. Most British voters are not great fans of Europe, but they do want to learn more about it and they know that it is important.
The Tories will probably fight the next election on a platform of xenophobic ranting, as they usually do. Labour should fight them on a programme of explanation and reform: telling voters that these elections matter because the European parliament has powers; and telling voters what those powers are and what they should be used for. We should highlight the many crucial issues that will be transforming the EU in 2004 the conference to revise the treaties, the British-led effort to give the EU a defence capability, the arrival of ten new members in the Union and the debate over farm policy reform that is due to be settled in 2006. I believe that the electorate will reward us if we take these issues seriously.
Although boosting the parliament s powers has failed to enhance its credibility with the electorate, there is, nevertheless, a strong case for giving it more powers in certain areas. It already has the power to veto the EU budget, except in the area of agriculture. It should gain veto rights in that area too, so that it can redirect farm spending towards more worthwhile causes, such as rural development.
The European parliament is one of few in the world where members cannot propose legislation. Currently the Commission has the sole right of initiative on all EU legislation. I would introduce a private members bill system, similar to that in the UK, so that MEPs are able to introduce their own legislative ideas. There would have to be a balloting system, like that in Britain, to avoid too much legislation.
The parliament s power of co-decision gives it equal weight to the Council of Ministers in many legislative areas. However, it should gain co-decision powers in all areas that the Council votes on by qualified majority voting. It currently lacks that power in some of these areas. The logic is clear: where the national veto no longer applies, national parliaments cannot block or amend EU legislation, so there needs to be a system of parliamentary control at EU level. What the parliament probably does best is hold the executive to account. It was the parliament that exposed the corruption scandals which led to the Commission s resignation in 1999. Parliamentary committees have a long and honourable record of exposing malpractice. Yet the parliament has seldom done anything to publicise its work; with the exception of the Commission s resignation, most people have no idea that the parliament has often published reports that reveal wrongdoing.
The European parliament probably needs more powers in this field, too. It lacks the right to subpoena witnesses to its enquiries powers that Congress enjoys in the US. For example, when the parliament held an inquiry into the BSE scandal, Douglas Hogg, who had been agriculture minister in the UK when the scandal broke, refused to testify. If Europe suffered from an Enron-style corporate scandal, it would have no power to force top executives and accountants to testify before it.
The parliament can make a strong case for more power in a number of areas. But more powers are unlikely to do a lot to improve its image with many electors. For that to happen, two things are necessary. First, the parliament must do a much better job of getting its message across. Most people do not know that it uses its powers effectively it needs to hire some good PR consultants. Second, national governments and political parties must campaign seriously on European issues. They should not be afraid to explain why Europe matters and how it can be reformed.