 |
| Catherine Bearder
was elected an MEP in June 2009, representing the Liberal Democrats. She was Director of
Campaigns for Britain in Europe in our South-East region, working to highlight
the great economic benefits of EU membership. She has been organiser of the LibDem
regional party conference for the past three years and is vice-chair of the LibDem
European Group. She has campaigned on social justice and rural issues, with particular
interest in tackling homelessness and social exclusion. She also emphasises the need to
tackle climate change – she is vice-president of the Green Liberal Democrats and aims
to champion the environment in the European Parliament. |
|
In her introduction Catherine recalled
auditing the Sussex branch when she was working for Britain in Europe, and finding it an
active and enthusiastic group.
The South-East region There were 10 MEPs elected by proportional representation voting
from party lists. The whole South-East region covered from Milton Keynes in the north to
the Isle of Wight in the south, involving nine counties and about six million voters. The
population was bigger than that of 10 of the EU member states. It was a dynamic and
diverse region, and an exciting one to try to represent. But it was geographically large
and difficult to keep in touch in an even-handed way.
The elections in 2009 The count for the whole of the EU took up to four days so as to
allow votes from distant areas to come in – an example was the French
extra-territorial regions in central and south America. The new MEPs did not take up
office for some weeks after the elections.
First impressions Catherine arrived at the European Parliament, finding a series
of tables set out with forms to fill in as a new MEP. There was no office available until
the first plenary session in Strasbourg in July. A first task was to find somewhere to
stay, and it turned out to be easier to take a flat. Then there was a need for support
staff to be found – and a long queue of applicants. Indeed most of August 2009 was
taken up in organising accommodation and staff.
Down to work In September she was allocated a committee. She had indicated
that she would like to be involved in transport or the environment. But she was allocated
(1) regional development, and (2) international trade. In fact it tuned out well that each
of these committees should have a member representing environmental interests. She also
found that something of strong interest to her as a constituency MEP – twinning
– came under the regional development committee.
Organising time became a key factor in her daily life. She was constantly ion the move,
from Mondays to Thursday in either Brussels or Strasbourg, then Fridays and Saturdays at
home dealing with constituency business.
International trade The function of the European Parliament committee was to
agree on how to set criteria for trade with a wide spectrum of partner countries. Some
discussions were straightforward, but she gave two illustrations of more controversial
topics. Discussing trade with Columbia, the committee wanted safeguards on human rights,
particularly to realise fair trade agreements and to meet environmental issues. Then in
relation to Canada the extraction of oil from tar sands had become a controversial matter.
The involvement of the EP committee gave the opportunity to negotiate deals to benefit the
environment and advance human rights.
continued in right-hand column
|
(continued
from column 1)
The audience was
then able to question Catherine Bearder on a number of topics.
Martin Vasey
asked how MEPs could indicate their preference for committees. Who then made the decision?
The political group was given a proportionate number of seats on each EP committee. In her
case the ALDE†
group decided how to distribute the allocation it was
given.
( † Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)
Trinidad Catalan raised the topic of relations
with Israel.
The trade agreement with Israel had been complicated. The issue of Gaza and Palestine
continued to be very divisive. Such a delicate issue needed to be treated with care. The
mood was that it would be more productive eventually to continue talks towards an
agreement than to introduce trade sanctions.
John Preston was particularly interested in the
process of maintaining contacts and communications. How does an MEP relate to national
MPs?
In the UK the contacts between Westminster and MEPs has been unusually difficult. MPs tend
not to fully understand the European context. Curiously, in her view, the House of Lords
had shown better insight. An example of dysfunction was that the LibDem parliamentary
party normally met regularly on a Wednesday, which was right in the middle of the European
Parliament attendance days. Westminster MPs were not fully connected with the initiation
and process of legislation. In the European Parliament, however, MEPs have co-decision
with the European Council on most issues, and were therefore genuinely involved in making
legislation.
Illa Hayward asked if a prospective
Conservative government would change the relationship between MEPs and Westminster MPs.
Catherine saw that a longer-term problem lay in the decision of the UK Conservatives to
join the ECR† Group, which was in effect marginalised in the European Parliament. The
EPP† group had been distinctly unhappy with the Conservative decision. If the
UK Conservatives had remained part of the EPP group it would increase its weight and
influence, and substantially consolidate a majority in the European Parliament. It would
have had more presence in the membership of committees and in chairing committees, and
therefore in setting the priorities of committee agenda. The move had thus been a huge
loss of influence for the UK as a whole.
( † European Conservatives and Reformists
Group
European
People’s Party )
Stephen Quigley asked what action had been
taken towards Canada on the issue of exploiting tar sands.
The issue arises because Canada wants to send EU countries oil derived from tar sands, and
this is clearly an environmental issue that has a bearing on trade agreements.
Dorothy Smith suggested that the Liberal
Democrat party should now drop its commitment to a referendum on Europe. There was too
high a risk of a “no” vote generated by populist rhetoric.
Catherine disagreed. She believed the problem lay in the lack of discussion about European
Union issues. The value of a referendum would be “to lance the boil” – an
opportunity to reduce the level of ignorance. But she thought it very likely to be an
issue that would be forgotten about after the UK general election.
Harold de Souza was concerned about the total
absence of “Europe” in our community. In Ireland it was quite normal to see
credit given publicly to work subsidised by the EU.
It is true that Ireland received a lot of cohesion structural funds. The UK South-East
region has had comparatively little. She knew that at a location close to Eastbourne there
had been an EU-financed project, but notices giving credit for that had to be replaced
five times after vandalism.
But the real issue was the need to keep the positive value of Europe consistently in the
public eye. There was great value in the European Movement talking to schools, and
especially in educating teachers in the curriculum context of “citizenship”.
Another good route was through twinning associations, which can obtain and use EU funds
for their projects. There was great value in a local organisation sponsoring exchanges.
Yuri Borgmann-Prebil asked what languages were
used in European Parliament discussions.
Catherine had found that English was mainly used. This particularly helped the
representatives of the countries which had joined the EU from 2004 onwards (the
“A10”), who found it easier to use English as a common language. Simultaneous
translation was readily available, including signing for one deaf MEP. She had noticed
that translation comes at different speeds, according to the need sometimes for
interpretation to pass through one common language.
|
|