| European Parliament (Representation) Bill
|
|
Mr. Heath: I do not have a particular concern about the point at which the Lord Chancellor chooses to consult the Electoral Commission. That is a matter of process. I have more concern about the point at which the changes in the total number of MEPs to be elected from the UK come into force under clause 4. What the Minister has told us in the past few minutes suggests that that point should be subsequent to the ratification of a treaty of accession. Perhaps she would be kind enough to confirm that that would be the case. Column Number: 028 Yvette Cooper: I am not entirely clear about what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Perhaps we could discuss it when we get to clause 4. The implementation of the order has to be in line with the treaty of Nice and the international obligations that we have. I was glad that the hon. Gentleman clarified his point about the timing of the consultation of the Electoral Commission because it did not seem to be a big deal to specify that in the Bill. He seemed to be concerned that the Lord Chancellor might unilaterally reduce the number of MEPs, or that he might at least be given the power to do so. However, that would also be contrary to the treaty of Nice. It would be against Community law for the Lord Chancellor to decide that we were going to have fewer MEPs than is set out in the treaty of Nice or the Council decision. For the Lord Chancellor to make such a choice would be against the treaty and against the international obligations and law that we have signed up to. Mr. Heath: I shall not intervene again. I just want to say that it is a completely absurd hypothesis that the Lord Chancellor would take such action, but he could do so under the Bill and there would be empty seats in the European Parliament. An empty seat policy has not been unknown in British relationships with the European Union in the past. Yvette Cooper: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Lord Chancellor has no such intention. We take seriously our international obligations and the agreement that we have made and negotiated as part of the treaty of Nice to maintain the places of our MEPs. The amendments are unnecessary. The point behind them is to consider the impact of states not ratifying the treaty. To the extent that they are delaying tactics that would make it impossible for us to implement the treaty of Nice—effectively, a back-door way of sabotaging the treaty, to which I understand that Opposition Members were opposed—they should be rejected by the Committee. The amendments would make it impossible for us to send the right number of MEPs to the European Parliament in 2004, and they should be rejected. Mr. Cash: We have had a wide-ranging debate, and several useful and important points of principle and detail have emerged. I have not had much in the way of answers to some questions. With respect to the question of a referendum, my party said that we should have a referendum on the Nice treaty. We have a vested interest in ensuring that referendums are held in relation to the provisions. It could well be that if there were a referendum in the UK on that question, we would get a no answer. I am pretty confident that that would be the case. The principle that lies behind my approach is consistent with what we would hope to see elsewhere in the EU. That does not prejudice the fact that we want enlargement. In 1990, when Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, I wrote a pamphlet—it was one of the first pamphlets on modern European issues—that advocated a policy of unity in Europe, but was against federalism. That is possible to achieve. Column Number: 029 What worries me about the Bill is that a lot of arrangements will be put in place based on hypotheses. The Minister made it abundantly clear in her reply that we do not have any options. Everything has already been prescribed and laid down in the— The Chairman: Order. The House requires all right hon. and hon. Members to address their remarks through the Chair and not to perambulate. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he tends to infringe both requirements and I ask him to amend that immediately. Mr. Cash: I should be only too happy to do so. My perambulations so far have not gone much further than the corner of the chair, but I am happy to keep at least one leg in line with the legs of the chair. The important point about the amendments is that they seek to identify the extent to which there is a mismatch in relation to the reality of the position that the Minister advanced. In effect, she said, ''You've got no option, so you've just jolly well got to accept it.'' That relates not so much to numbers in the event of there being a Division, but to the fact that the law has already been prescribed. Over and over again, the Minister has made the point that we have no option. It is a curious situation. In rather a grandiose fashion, the Lord Chancellor has all the mechanisms for making powers and the accompanying paraphernalia, but when we puncture the balloon there is nothing there because we have to do it anyway. It has all been prescribed and laid down in the treaty. That raises some serious questions about the extent to which the whole procedure enables us to make amendments. The Minister has made it clear that she will not accept the amendments, but, much more seriously, even if she were minded to accept them she would not be able to do so. I conclude with a point about how many Members could actually turn up and whether an increase would mean that the European Parliament was overflowing. It would not do the European Parliament any harm to note that we in the Westminster Parliament do not have sufficient seats to allow everybody to sit down at once. Amendment negatived. The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 4.
Division No. 1]
AYES
NOES
Column Number: 030 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 7 January 2003 |
