European Parliament (Representation) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): I fully support my hon. Friend's arguments. For my benefit, and perhaps that of the whole Committee, will he expand on what the next step would be if amendment No. 27 were made? That would mean that the order would fall and there could be no recommencement of procedures.

3.30 pm

Mr. Cash: Yes. We have legislative time in this House to deal with such matters properly. We did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because at bottomalthough I doubt whether the Minister will understand this, coming from mewe appreciate that we have to comply with our international obligations. I might like to see those renegotiated, become more transparent and be more democratically passed, but certain arrangements have been made, and although my whole party and I would have liked referendums on such important questions, we acknowledge the fact that the law is the law for the time being until we can be fortunate enough to do something about it.

Having said that, the answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes, we would be unable to recommence the procedure, but I anticipate that at that point another Bill would have to be introduced to deal with the matter more democratically. To take up the point that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I made under earlier amendments, that might perhaps be more precise about what is or is not Community law and address the questions on the accession treaties to which we have still not had very satisfactory answers. We do not yet know how many countries will become member states. We do not know what the outcome of the referendums in those countries will be.

Column Number: 79

The Bill is based on a hypothesis, and for all the reasons that I have already given, if the proposals end up being rejected by either House after a full-blown debate, there would be a case for saying that we should go back and recalibrate the system rather than recommencing a procedure that had, by definition, been rejected by the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The very fact that such a situation can arise presupposes that there could be such a rejection.

Mr. Ruffley: The more that I hear from my hon. Friend, the more I like the amendment. Will he explain whether the renegotiation at which he is, I think, hinting, would be carried out by the Government going to the Council of Ministers, or by some other mechanism?

Mr. Cash: We know that renegotiations have taken place. I think that I am right in saying that the Prime Minister himself has used the word ''renegotiation'' recently. There are circumstances in which that becomes absolutely essential. The word ''renegotiation'' used to be treated with contempt but it is now becoming common parlance.

The Minister might have the satisfaction of sitting there and thinking, ''Well, he can go on about this until the cows come home but he is not going to get any of these arguments through because the whole matter has already been determined by the Government's majority.'' I should be interested to know whether this provision is based on anything in the Labour party manifesto, but that is another story. The Labour party is in government and we accept the fact that while the rule of law must be obeyed, matters will go with the Government's majority. However, that is not to prevent us from criticising the manner in which the Government have made a law, from exposing matters that require further explanation or from putting down markers about what we think could be done if either House of Parliament decided, in its wisdom, to reject or withdraw such an order.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening. I re-emphasise that the amendment has not been tabled on the basis that I would regard the whole process as having come to a complete halt, and it should not be so construed. However, it would provide an opportunity, should those arrangements be rejected by Parliament, to introduce something to which I am sure that we would speedily assent and that would go through the parliamentary processes extremely quickly. However, that is to rely on what I have come to realise is merely a faint hope, which is that the Government will listen to what we say.

Mr. Heath: Throughout these proceedings, it has been clear that there are occasions on which the hon. Member for Stone and I share concerns about aspects of the Bill that we want to explore with the Minister. However, we part company when he places a nuclear device under the Bill, primes it and then steps asideor sits astride it, as I suggested earlierand I am afraid that this proposal is another nuclear device.

Mr. Ruffley: A pretty good one.

Mr. Heath: Well, it depends on the objective. If someone's objective is to ensure accession of a large part of central and eastern Europe to the European Union, they will not want a nuclear device; they will want to

Column Number: 80

ensure that the House can legislate effectively.

The hon. Member for Stone has been entirely honest about what happens. The recommendations of the Electoral Commission may not find favour with the House. I think that unlikely, but clearly it could propose something that no one finds satisfactory. It may decide that the south-west of England should have 60 Members and the rest are to be distributed around the rest of the country, which may feel short-changed by that. We may feel slightly over-represented and vote even more vigorously against having that many Members of the European Parliament. Whatever the case, there must be a way in which the House can express its opinions on the Electoral Commission's recommendations, and that is provided for.

The Bill also provides for a feedback loop, which enables the Lord Chancellor, having taken into account the House's views, to return with revised proposals. However, it does not give him the opportunity to create his own alternative without the Electoral Commission being happy that it falls within its independent assessment of what is appropriate for the country.

Mr. Cash: It is a relatively small point, but that is the arrangement already. It is not as if, with the revised version, the Lord Chancellor is given greater power. He is subjected to the same requirement to comply with what the Electoral Commission says in either event.

Mr. Heath: That is the case as the Bill is drafted. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment were successful, however, that option would be closed off and the Lord Chancellor would be unable to return with alternative proposals. The Bill would in effect be dead, and the only way in which the Government could secure our compliance as a country with our treaty obligations would be to introduce new primary legislation to give effect to what was in the Bill. I am not sure that that is a sensible way to legislate. Whatever deficiencies the Bill has, safeguards are built into it in the event that the House exercises its democratic will and decides that the Electoral Commission has produced proposals up with which it cannot put.

I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Bill and the mechanism for determining our representation in the European Parliament should die with the first effort on the part of the Electoral Commission. Primary legislation would have to be introduced late in the process, which would almost certainly mean that we were unable to comply with our treaty obligations or to secure the election of Members of the European Parliament in the time scale required for the next election. We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. I am sorry, but I simply do not regard the mechanism suggested by the hon. Gentleman as sensible.

Mr. Cash: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but there are features of this Bill—he has agreed with me on a number of them—which deserve censure and criticism. That leads to the question of proportionality. We are obliged to implement what has been decided, although we would have preferred it to be subject to a referendum.

Column Number: 81

There is a reduction. There are important democratic questions here. I emphasise that my suggestion is without prejudice. Being severely critical of the mechanisms that are being employed in this Bill and the arrogance that lies behind much of it, I expect that we would give a speedy response to any future proposals, in the event that Parliament rejected them. That is why I do not believe it is a nuclear device, in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman uses the term. That is the key point. It is not just a question, as he said, that they would be killed off by some arrangement that I have in mind. The House would decide whether the arrangements were unworkable and wrong. Because the protocol is already in law, there is no way of avoiding the fact that it is already binding upon us, although I have reservations about aspects of the argument in general concerning the application of Community law in every respect.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is intervening.

Mr. Cash: Yes, I am intervening.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that intervention.

The Chairman: And for the following chapter.

Mr. Heath: And for the relevant supporting material.

The problem is that the result would mean less scrutiny, not more. I would reduce the time. Because of constraints of the time scale, it would give Parliament, the Government and the Electoral Commission less time to effect the changes, to consult upon them and to debate them effectively. That is why I reject it.

We have to comply with our treaty obligations. Those of us who want to see accession take place at the earliest opportunity also have a responsibility to ensure that we achieve the necessary changes. The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to his wish to have a referendum on the Nice treaty. I am a strong supporter of referendums on European matters when they make significant changes to our constitutional arrangements. I would have argued, and did so elsewhere, for a referendum on Maastricht when it was rejected by the Government. I have always argued for a referendum on the euro, at a time when other parties were rejecting the idea.

In the case of the Nice treaty, I still do not see the major constitutional implications he describes that would have merited a referendum in that instance. However, there are occasions when that would be entirely appropriate.

Irrespective of whether or not we have a referendum, we have proposals that must be in place at a certain time. I want to improve the Bill and, as far as possible, accountability in the context of the Bill. However, I am not prepared to lose the context in which we can reach a decision in order to allow enlargement to take place on the present timetable. That is a consequence of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which is why I will not support him if he presses it to a vote this afternoon.

 

---

Prepared 9 January 2003