European Elections

Elections to the European Parliament will take place on Thursday 10 June 2004.

This will be the first election with an enlarged European Union of 25 member states, electing 732 MEPs. Enlargement and the new EU constitutional treaty mean that these elections come at a crucial time.

The European Union increasingly affects our lives. These elections represent your chance to have a say on the important changes that are happening across the EU.

This booklet is compiled by members of Christian churches to help you to explore issues raised by the European elections.

X 10 June 2004

CONTENTS Page

What does the European Parliament do? 2Issues:

EU Enlargement 3Agriculture 4Asylum and Immigration 5Family Issues 6International Development 7Peace and Security 8Political Extremism 9

How does the voting system work? 10Organising Hustings meetings 11Further resources 12

The European Union has four main institutions, of which the European Parliament is one:

The Council of Ministers is made up of ministers from the national governments of member states. The Presidency is held by member states in rotation for six months. The first half of 2004 will be held by Ireland, with the second half by the Netherlands. The six monthly meeting of heads of state and government is called the European Council.

The European Commission is the EU’s administrative and executive body. Initial proposals for legislation and policy are drafted by the twenty Commissioners who are nominated by member states and approved by the European Parliament.

The European Parliament is made up of 626 democratically elected MEPs (732 after May 2004) who scrutinise the activities of other EU institutions, pass the annual EU budget, and shape and decide new legislation jointly with the Council of Ministers

The European Court of Justice has a judge from each member state and adjudicates on all legal disputes involving community law

Also Court of Auditors – checks money spent

properly Economic and Social Committee – gives

opinions on legislative proposals Committee of the Regions – concerned

with issues that have a regional dimension European Ombudsman – investigates

misadministration by EU institutions The European Central Bank – ensures

price stability in the Euro-zone The European Investment Bank – the

EU’s long-term lending bank Community Agencies – eg the European

Food Safety Authority

What can the European Union do?The European Union can only do what member states have agreed in treaties that it can do. In a limited number of fields, eg making competition rules for the European single

market, the Union has exclusive powers. In

other policy fields where the Union can act (eg discrimination law) it shares its powers with the member states, and must act in accordance with principles of proportionality (the action taken should be relative to the problem) and subsidiarity (decisions should be taken at the closest level possible to those they affect).

How powerful is the European Parliament?When it comes to law-making, the European Parliament acts jointly with the Council of Ministers. Sometimes the Parliament is just consulted (eg over common foreign and security policy), but in a significant number of fields the “co-decision” procedure applies: the Parliament can amend legislation proposed by the European Commission and veto decisions of the Council of Ministers

The Parliament has powers over the Budget which it has to jointly approve with the European Council. It also has to approve the accounts of the Commission.

It has the right to approve the Commissioners proposed by the Council, as well as the ability to censure the Commission itself, which would then be forced to resign. This happened recently over concerns about mismanagement of funds within the Commission.

If adopted the draft Constitution would increase the influence of the Parliament. It would oversee all expenditure in the European Union and have the last say on all budgetary matters. “Co-decision”, or joint decision-making between the Council and the Parliament would apply in 80% of policy fields.

Question What steps do you think that the member

states should take to make the European Parliament more democratic, more accountable and more involving of citizens?

2

What does the European Parliament do?

European Court of Justice

European Parliament

European Commission

Council of Ministers

The European Union is entering an exciting and potentially difficult phase. On 1 May 2004, all being well, ten new members will accede to the Union. These are Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus. If current negotiations between the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus are successful, then EU entry for Turkey will be a more serious possibility. Romania and Bulgaria are likely to enter in 2007.

There has never been so large a group of new entrants, or so many people living in poverty in the EU. The EU population will increase by 100 million people to 470 million. The number of farm workers will double overnight. This will put a great strain on the institutions, on the accession states and on the existing members. The new entrants, overwhelmingly from the former Soviet bloc, are required to develop competitive market economies, democratic institutions and human rights safeguards, as well as fulfil the extensive and demanding EU rules.

A European Union of 25 or perhaps 30 members clearly requires a different constitutional arrangement to that which governed 15 members. So the Draft Constitutional Treaty is currently being renegotiated and broad agreement is likely to have been achieved by the end of June. All member states must ratify the Constitution, however, and a number of member states countries will have to hold referenda – including, as now seems likely, the United Kingdom.

The British Government is strongly resisting constitutional clauses that subject the domestic economy, migration, criminal justice, foreign and security policy to majority rather than unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers. Britain can block any such changes with its veto, but must have allies to be seen to be credible.

A complicating factor is the row that has broken out over the Stability Pact, designed to ensure that weaker currencies, like the Greek drachma and Portuguese escudo, should toe the common line on borrowing. But France and Germany have consistently broken these rules with virtual impunity, so a level of distrust has now entered the debates about the overall management of the EU. Britain is, of course, outside the Euro, and the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, has indicated that this position is

unlikely to be reconsidered before the next election.

The proposals are in some sense a maximum shopping list, which nobody expects to pass unchanged. It is important to recall that the completed agreement will still be a treaty between member states, and not a constitution of a federal Europe.

What do the parties say?There are divisions within all the parties on these issues. The Liberal Democrats are least critical of the arrangements for enlargement; the Labour Party in favour with the reservations outlined above; and the Conservative Party most critical of all. After considerable pressure, the Government has agreed to a Referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. But the final version of the Treaty will not have been agreed by the time of the European Elections on 10 June, and the Government will campaign on its determination that Britain’s reservations will be fully accepted. The Liberal Democrats see such a vote as a vital enhancement of European democracy. The Government has been compelled to adopt a similar view. The Conservatives see it is a legitimate way to destroy an undesirable instrument.

Question What do the parties see as the impact of

enlargement on the EU and on Britain?

3

Issues: EU Enlargement

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was founded in the 1960s, for a Europe with recent memories of war and hunger.

The purpose of the CAP was to guarantee self-sufficiency, better conditions for farmers and increased productivity. By the mid-1970s the European Community began producing surpluses, propping up prices and buying excess produce, leading to the famous butter mountains. Reforms of CAP in the 1990s managed to curb some of the worst excesses, but increased the layers of bureaucracy.

The recent pressures for reforming CAP come from a number of sources:

The Cost At 40 billion Euros (about £27 billion), the subsidies paid to farmers account for around half of the EU’s budget. Payments have been linked to production, with 80% of payments going to 20% of farms, and a quarter of payments going to 2% of farms

Enlargement On 1 May 2004 a total of 4 million farmers will enter the EU, a massive increase in the farming population. If the CAP regimes were extended unchanged to accession countries, the cost of CAP would soar

Changes in farming There have also been changes to perceptions of farming. In the past 25 years the European farm labour force has fallen from 13 million to 7 million. BSE and Foot and Mouth Disease have altered public perceptions of farming. Although there has been a growth in the organic market, many people still expect cheap food prices. At the same time, farmers have seen their incomes slide.

Development agencies, such as Cafod and Christian Aid, have expressed concerns that CAP is unjust and violates principles of free trade, saying that CAP hurts developing countries and their rural poor by dumping subsidised goods onto their local markets. For example Europe is the world's largest exporter of white sugar, even though it costs twice as much for European producers to grow it than farmers in poor countries. It is then sold at below cost prices, harming the prospects of farmers in developing countries.

From 2005 all farms will receive a simplified Single Farm Payment (SFP), which will be decoupled from production (ie not linked to

specific commodities). In Wales and Scotland the SFP will be based on what farmers received in the past, whereas farmers in England will move towards a flat-rate payment by 2012. The SFP will reduce the incentive to intensify farming, and, according to the Department for Food, the Environment and Rural Affairs, reward compliance with environmental standards.

The CAP budget overall will reduce as Europe pays for new member countries to join, and what remains will be spread more thinly. Money will move away from direct farm support in order to fund agri-environmental and rural development schemes. Amongst farmers the losers are likely to be intensive livestock producers and dairy farmers, as well as those who have exclusively grown only supported crops in the past (eg cereals and oilseed rape).

Question All political parties acknowledge that the

system for subsidising agriculture in Europe is in need of reform. How will parties balance the needs of British farmers, consumers, the environment and farmers in developing countries in working out precise proposals?

4

Issues: Agriculture

Since the 1993 Maastricht and 1999 Amsterdam Treaties the EU has been working towards a Common European Asylum System. The European Commission has proposed a series of resolutions, legislative proposals and communications on asylum and immigration to achieve greater harmonisation of asylum policies and practice in the EU. However for the UK, asylum and immigration are “red line” issues, and it opts out from common provisions as it chooses, for example the Schengen Agreement on the removal of internal borders within Europe

This “harmonisation” of common standards has taken place through inter-governmental meetings, with little European Parliament scrutiny or consultation. As a result EU policies are being formulated which simply codify the restrictive policy differences between member states at the lowest common denominator. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), together with non-governmental organisations and church bodies, has been critical of the deteriorating standards of refugee protection in the EU. Kofi Annan has argued that the consequences will be felt worldwide: how can poor countries be convinced to accept refugees if the richest countries are closing their doors?

The main features of the evolving EU asylum regime can be summarised as follows:

Restricted access to EU asylum proceduresMeasures have been put in place to obstruct or discourage people from claiming asylum in the EU in the first place. Visa restrictions are placed on countries most likely to produce refugees. Sanctions and fines are imposed on transporters found to be carrying passengers without proper travel documents. People who have travelled from a “safe third country” are commonly deported back to it, thereby increasing the risk of chain deportation back to the country from which s/he fled. The Dublin II Agreement states that people should have only one chance of making an asylum application within the EU and that this should be in the first country of arrival.

Stricter refugee determination procedures and downgraded standards of receptionWithin the EU there is a tendency to demand excessively high standards of proof, with limiting concepts applied such as “internal flight alternatives” (ie the asylum seeker should have fled within their own country before seeking asylum abroad). Accelerated procedures mean that some determinations can be completed

within 24 hours, hardly sufficient time to gather evidence. Asylum seekers are also subject to minimal welfare support and arbitrary detention.

Restrictive interpretation of the 1951 UN Refugee ConventionSome EU countries take the view that refugee status should only be given to those who can prove persecution by a state. Victims of persecution by non-state agents (eg rebel groups or extremist organisations) are excluded, as are those who flee generalised violence or cannot prove political persecution.

The EU Temporary Protection RegimeUnder this regime protection is granted for a limited period, with the asylum seeker expected to return home once the situation has improved. Whilst this may be appropriate in some situations, the asylum seeker can be at risk of summary expulsion and excluded from integration programmes. There is also a risk of setting a precedent creating second-class refugees and lowering standards of protection.

The question of asylum has grown in prominence in Britain as in the rest of Europe. Asylum seekers are blamed by those who feel threatened or insecure, and much of the media has contributed to heightened tensions. Politicians have sought to portray themselves as being “tough” on asylum, whilst belatedly lauding the contribution of refugees to British society.

Questions Should the EU continue to adhere

rigorously to the fundamental human rights standards of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights?

How are parties working to tackle the root causes of migration (eg conflict and poverty), and not just strengthening the borders of Europe?

Are parties committed to tackling racist and xenophobic expressions against refugees and asylum seekers?

5

Issues: Asylum

We face a demographic timebomb. Our population is getting older due to a combination of increased life expectancy and lower birth rates. This is in stark contrast to the population explosion occurring in developing countries. While the total EU population - including the new member states – grew in 2003 by approximately 1.2 million people, the birth rate averages 1.4 children per woman, far removed from the 2.1 children needed to maintain a demographic balance. Whilst men and women say they would like to have more children, they are restrained by increased work stress, a diminishing confidence in marriage, and the lack of policies that encourage and sustain families.

Active support for the family as the central institution for children must be among the most important priorities for all political players in the EU. Without families there will be less care available for us when we are older. Our economic growth will be unsustainable, and, without significant global migration, it will be difficult to shoulder the demographic burdens of the next generation.

The Lisbon StrategyIn Lisbon in 2000 the EU heads of government agreed an ambitious strategy to make the EU the most competitive region by 2010. This aim is to be achieved by strengthening the economy and creating jobs, and in turn funding social policy objectives. Yet this strategy is still missing a family focus, making the 2010 objectives unsustainable.

Two church organisations working in the EU, the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), and Caritas Europa are both currently seeking to persuade the EU to become the most family-focused region in the world by 2010. Throughout Europe people are calling on those standing for the European Parliament to act as champions for families.

Extending the Lisbon strategy to include an EU family strategy would cover issues such as: Greater recognition of older people in

society through increased assistance for them and their families

Promotion of socially balanced, child-oriented laws and policies

Promotion of fairer marriage and parent-oriented policies

More effective consideration and greater assistance for families in particular need of support

Enforcement of Article II.33 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, which guarantees the legal, economic and social protection of the family

Strengthening family life contributes to enhancing the quality of life for many people, and children and older people in particular. It can strengthen cohesion and positively affect our health. At the same time it could stop, or even reverse, the declining birth rate in Europe.

Social Policy in the European UnionSocial policy in the European Union is situated within a triangular relationship with economic policy and employment policy. Compared to these two policy areas, social policy is often viewed as the junior partner, dependent on the success of the economic growth and employment to fund social policy programmes. However, it is worth considering the cost to economic growth and employment that arises from failing to give sufficient attention to social policy. Failing to give consideration to social policy increases division, inequality and social exclusion, and creates a drag effect on other policy areas. Similarly, there is a cost to social policy of failing to provide a family focus.

What do the parties say?A significant problem in providing a family focus to EU policies is the reluctance of political parties to use the word ‘family’. Whilst the Conservative party has been most inclined to favour family policy, they too have to a large extent avoided using the term for fear of appearing to moralise about ‘family values’ without due legitimacy. Instead, the political parties have chosen to focus on children, but support for tackling child poverty is restricted without addressing the context within which these children live - their families. It is time we began talking openly about families again.

Questions How would the parties seek to advance

family focused policies throughout Europe? Would they work to extend the Lisbon

strategy to include a EU family strategy?

6

Issues: Family-Focused Policy

The EU describes trade and aid as the “twin pillars” of its development policy to be used in the fight against poverty.

Trade is recognised as a vital way of boosting economic growth as the European market is opened up to exports from developing countries. Europe is the world’s leading donor of development aid, with nearly half of all money spent globally on aid coming from the EU and its member states. EU members, along with other industrialised countries, are committed to the target of spending 0.7% of their GDP on aid each year – though few achieve this aim.

In many respects, the three main political parties adopt similar positions on issues of international development. There is a shared concern that the EU’s aid budget is more carefully targeted at poverty alleviation; that progress is made in widening market access to developing countries and reducing barriers to trade, including reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and that there is a commitment to the promotion of democracy and human rights.

The Labour Party speaks of being in Europe “to win justice for the developing world” and calls for “the right of developing countries to produce and sell in a fair way”. The Conservative Party draws attention to the fact that “less than half of the EU’s aid budget goes to poor countries” and declares the need for better targeting. The Liberal Democrats state that the goal of European development policy is to promote sustainable development, eradicate poverty and support projects that promote democracy.”

Trade policy is negotiated and agreed by representatives of the governments of the member states. Officials from the European Commission then represent this agreed position when negotiating international agreements on behalf of member countries.

There are two main ways in which the EU is able to influence the way trade impacts developing countries. First, through negotiations that take place within the World Trade Organisation. Second, through a separate agreement negotiated with 77 developing countries from Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific region known as the Cotonou Agreement. Signed in 2000, this is a comprehensive document covering aid and trade issues with the clear aim of reducing poverty. It looks to have established regional economic partnership arrangements by 2008,

so that there is open access to EU markets for developing countries and vice versa.

The main relief and development agencies representing the churches have been critical of the way in which the rules that govern trade are weighted in favour of the rich countries. They fear that the Cotonou Agreement will be a further example of developing countries losing out because they are prevented from protecting their fragile markets, and that the result will be increased poverty.

Questions What will be the approach of the parties to

trade with the developing world? How will they ensure that the Cotonou

Agreement provides adequate protection for the markets of poor countries?

7

Issues: International Development

The events of 11 September, the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorist bombings in Europe has turned minds to the role of Europe in building peace and security in the world. The European Common Foreign and Security Policy, agreed by the EU in December, is an attempt to define a European contribution to greater security.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy identifies what it sees as the causes of international insecurity, including competition for water resources; increasing inequality; globalisation; and HIV/AIDS. Security is described as a precondition for development.

The Policy then outlines areas for concern which arise from these causes: terrorism; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; regional conflicts, eg in Kashmir; state failure; and organised crime.

The policy emphasises the use of multilateral institutions and international law as the basis for response to global threats.

It also has established a new military agency for the European Union which is examining the military capabilities of the member states and identifying gaps in provision. This will not lead to a European Army, but there is the possibility of a form of European response force.

Political ContextThe controversy over this policy arises over the relationship between the Common Foreign and Security Policy and NATO. The Labour Party is keen that European military activity should be under the guise of NATO, and will be resistant to independent European action which threatens to undermine the strategic relationship with the US. The Conservative Party has expressed even stronger reservations, saying “Europe should not seek to create a defence structure as an alternative to NATO or as a counterweight to the United States”.

The Liberal Democrats have supported the development of a stronger European military identity saying “A militarily weak Europe which relies heavily on US protection will not only undermine its own ambitions…but will also undermine NATO itself.”

Questions

The Common Policy represents a definition of foreign policy, not just a defence policy. How does the EU propose to deal with the root causes of instability – poverty, globalisation, disease – which it identifies?

Disarmament does not appear to be addressed by the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In fact it appears to encourage an increase in military spending. What will the parties be doing to ensure that the principle of non-proliferation and a reduction in nuclear arsenals are maintained?

How will the political parties ensure that EU development funding is not captured by defence policy interests, particularly with the effort to create “buffer zones” around “Fortress Europe”?

8

Issues: Peace and Security

There has been a significant growth in right wing movements in Europe over the last few years, with members of some extremist parties serving in governments. This trend has been clearly linked to a perceived growth of the impact of migration to European countries, the broader political debate around asylum, and the “erosion” of national resources for local people.

It should not be assumed that the extreme political right in Europe is homogenous or disorganised. In terms of both membership and political agenda, these parties are very diverse and some are extremely well-organised, presenting themselves across the classes as the logical parties to support for those with a strong sense of national allegiance.

In Britain extremist parties have targeted “forgotten white estates” or areas which feel under threat. They are keen to play upon a state “agenda” of accepting “multi-culturalism” or “political correctness”, and tell people who feel forgotten that they are victims of a broader political process that they are willing to address.

Extremists are focusing on the European elections in order to attempt to break into the political mainstream: the BNP had 16 local council seats by June 2003 local council seats, but will gain far higher profile if it has an MEP. Parties hope to shape national debates “from above” and externally to the national parliamentary processes.

The Methodist Church, the United Reformed Church and the Church of England have released public statements stating that racism is sinful and contradictory to the nature of God. They encourage people to participate in the electoral process and to vote for parties that do not promote racist parties. Full texts of these statements, along with local church statements, can be seen at www.methodist.org.uk/, www.urc.org.uk and www.cofe.anglican.org/synod

Churches have called on Christians actively to encourage inclusion and community cohesion within the local church, ecumenical structures and through broader social engagement as an example of the witness of the Church to the nature of God. Churches are encouraged to foster good relationships with other faith

communities to counteract the way that global tensions impact upon our local communities.

Faith communities could take a number of practical and political steps, for example a local ecumenical or inter-faith campaign

to encourage people to vote presenting positive stories of community life

in the press encouraging local church members and

other people to be informed by hosting local discussions with candidates

discouraging other political parties from playing the “race card”

organising local events that are celebratory in nature and use the churches’ distinctive gifts and ministries, for example around prayer and worship

encouraging tolerance in discussion and a safe space where people can express their fears and aspirations

speak the truth in a measured and reflective, but prophetic way

For further information and advice on responding to political extremism, see www.methodist.org.uk

Question How will political parties oppose political

extremism, racism and xenophobia?

9

Issues: Political Extremism

The European Elections will be run under a Regional List System. Instead of voting for a particular candidate in each constituency, constituencies are grouped into regions and a number of candidates are elected across the region. Each party puts forward its candidates in the order they would like them elected. Electors have one vote which they cast for a party rather than for a specific candidate. The votes for each party are added up, and then a complex mathematical process – the d’Hondt formula - is applied to distribute the number of seats between the parties (see below).

This system is a form of proportional representation, and therefore means that the number of MEPs more closely reflects the proportion of the population who vote for them.

However some people object to the principle of “closed party lists” in that you vote for the party and the party effectively decides who will be the MEP. This means that it is difficult for voters to question particular candidates or to vote for certain candidates and not others within a

party. Once MEPs are elected they represent a whole region, and find it hard to build up links with a particular constituency within it.

This form of voting also means that candidates from smaller parties can be elected on a tiny proportion of the vote, which increases the likelihood of politically extreme parties such as the British National Party gaining representation in the European Parliament. In 1999, the last MEP place in the England North West constituency was won with just 72,000 votes or 7.72% of the total votes cast.

In four regions – the North West, Yorkshire and Humber, the East Midlands and the North East – the election will be conducted by postal ballot only. This is likely to increase voter participation among the 14 million voters affected, but the deadline for getting votes posted will mean that any activities around the election will need to be brought forward by as much as two weeks.

10

Conserva-tives

Labour Lib Dem BNP Green

% of vote 36% 32% 20% 8.5% 3.5%1st MEP Elected new score 36/2 =18 32 20 8.5 3.52nd MEP Elected new score 18 32/2 = 16 20 8.5 3.53rd MEP Elected new score 18 16 20/2 = 10 8.5 3.54th MEP Elected new score 36/3 = 12 16 10 8.5 3.55th MEP Elected new score 12 32/3 = 10.6 10 8.5 3.56th MEP Elected

new score 36/4 = 9 10.6 10 8.5 3.57th MEP Elected new score 9 32/4 = 8 10 8.5 3.58th MEP Elected Result 3 MEPs 3 MEPs 2 MEPs 0 MEP 0

The party with the most votes gets its first candidate elected.

The original percentage is then divided by the number of seats already gained plus one, and these new figures move onto the next round.

This cycle is repeated until all the seats have been assigned.

How does the voting system work?

An example of how the d’Hondt system would be used to calculate the distribution of seats in a fictional 8 member region

The party with the most votes gets its first candidate elected.

The original percentage is then divided by the number of seats already gained plus one, and these new figures move onto the next round.

The cycle continues until all the seats are allocated.

If this was a 10 member region, parties with 8.5% of the vote could qualify for a seat

Traditionally at election time, churches have hosted “hustings” – public meetings at which the candidates for a constituency answer questions from the voters. The Regional List System makes this more difficult as parties will have between 4 and 11 candidates depending on the region.

However it would still be possible to organise party-based hustings, asking the relevant parties to provide a spokesperson/candidate for the meeting. Contact details are below.

Conservative Party – 020-7222-9000Labour Party – 08705-900200Liberal Democrat Party - 020-7222-7999

You can find out details of other parties’ candidates by contacting your Regional Returning Officer’s representative (see table below).

You are not obliged to invite every candidate to a hustings meeting, so long as it cannot be seen as promoting or opposing a particular party. If you decide to exclude a particular party, for example on the basis that their policies are unacceptably racist, this appears to be acceptable under election law so long as you spend less than £10,000 in England or £5,000 in Scotland or Wales, but contact the Electoral Commission for further information (The Electoral Commission, Trevelyan House, Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2HW tel 020 7271 0500)

Hints for organising hustings Work ecumenically – try your local

Churches Together group or inter-faith group

Identify a date about two weeks before the election (remember if you are in an all-postal ballot area you will need to bring the date even further forward)

Invite candidates and brief them clearly on the purpose and structure of the event

Choose a venue that is accessible and convenient, and organise microphones, stewards, refreshments….

Produce publicity for the meeting and get this distributed as widely as possible – through churches, but also through public places like libraries, shops and surgeries

Get media coverage of the event. Notify the candidates that you will be doing this, and send a simple press release out to local newspapers and radio stations stating what, when, where, who and why. Remember to include contact details.

Find and brief an impartial and respected person to chair the meeting

You might like to follow this structure – brief introduction of candidates by name and party; short statement by candidates (just a couple of minutes); questions from the floor with responses from candidates; and final closing sentences from candidates

11

Regional Returning Officers’ Representatives

Eastern Trevor Amiss trevor.amiss@huntsdc.gov.uk 01480 388 017East Midlands Ross Thompson euro.eastmidregion@northampton.gov.uk 01604 837 332London Terry Lenton terry.lenton@london.gov.uk 020 7983 4450North East Bill Crawford Bill.Crawford@sunderland.gov.uk 0191 553 1141North West Andrew Scanllan nwrro@notes.manchester.gov.uk 0161 234 3053Northern Ireland Denis Stanley info@eoni.gov.uk 028 9033 9955Scotland Alex Thomson Alex.Thomson@edinburgh.gov.uk 0131 529 4550South East Steven Lake euroelections@southoxon.gov.uk 01491 823 613South West Paul Morris p.morris@poole.gov.uk 01202 633 028Wales Glynne Morgan glynne_morgan@pembrokeshire.gov.uk 01437 775 713West Midlands John Owen elections@birmingham.gov.uk 0121 303 2737Yorkshire and the Humber

Alex Meek alex.meek@leeds.gov.uk 0113247 6731

Organising Hustings Meetings

12

Written by Simon Bell (the Church of England), Keith Jenkins, Steve Hucklesby (the Methodist Church), John Joseet (the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales), John Kennedy (Churches Together in Britain and Ireland), Stephen Matthews (Caritas - social action),

Nick Read (the Church of England), Graham Sparkes (the Baptist Union of Great Britain)and edited by Rachel Lampard (the Methodist Church)

Bastille Court, 2 Paris Garden, London SE1 8ND

produced by the Methodist Church, Methodist Church House, 25 Marylebone Rd, London NW1 5JRtel 020-7486-5502 www.methodist.org.uk

Other resourcesThe Conference of European Churches has produced a Briefing Document for Churches which is available at http://www.cec-kek.org/English/EUElectionsA4.pdf

More information on the European Parliament available from www.europarl.eu.int

The Commission of Bishops Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) is at www.comece.org

The Methodist Church has set up a website to resource churches in areas where extremist parties are standing for election. See www.methodist.org.uk

Caritas Europa focuses on issues relating to poverty, social inequality and migrationwww.caritas-europa.org