European Parliament (Representation) Bill

[back to previous text]

Mr. Heath: The Minister is being extremely helpful. I am glad that she is considering the issue further. Does she agree that it is hard to see how even minor offences—I mean lesser offences; they are quite important—under regulation would be excluded from the court of Gibraltar's jurisdiction under the

Column Number: 149

clause? I am not sure how the clause makes that distinction. It seems simply to prevent any offence from being tried by a court in Gibraltar, provided that the offence is committed under the regulation that is part of the secondary legislation to be introduced.

9.45 am

Yvette Cooper: The clause simply gives the power to exclude matters from the jurisdiction of any court in Gibraltar under the regulations. It does not say that all matters will be excluded; that is certainly not the intention. It gives the power to exclude matters through regulations, so that they can be further explored before the regulations are finally drawn up and the regulations can set out exactly what will form part of the jurisdiction of which court. That would be done as part of the European parliamentary election regulations, and so would undergo the affirmative resolution procedure. The matter would return to the House for its consideration. It is purely a question of having the flexibility fully to explore the ramifications before setting out what should go to which court.

Mr. Cash: I, too, find the Minister's explanation useful in throwing light on how the Government want the power to operate. I accept that it would be a power, and that the word is ''may'', not ''shall''. However, a problem arises in relation to the words

    ''relating to any matter connected with'',

which is extremely broad. There would be a conferral of jurisdiction if we were to insert the word ''Gibraltar'' where the clause says

    ''confer jurisdiction relating to any matter connected with the election of MEPs''.

The clause continues:

    ''and . . . exclude any such matter'':

in other words, any such matter connected with the election of MEPs.

I find the Minister's remarks helpful. The Department clearly has some sort of blueprint that lists several problems that could arise as well as several matters that the Government believe they should exclude from the courts of Gibraltar where, for example, matters in question would affect the combined region as a whole, without infringing on any of the rights of the citizens of Gibraltar. The Minister used the phrase, ''At the heart of the matter'', or words to that effect. It may be that some sensible discussion can emerge from this exchange, but I sense that there is somewhere lists of things that would be included as well as excluded. The question is whether that blueprint bears examination when it is applied to the criteria that we have been discussing in relation to the rights of the people of Gibraltar and their courts. Sight of that blueprint would probably help to ease the discussions.

The Committee has grown in my opinion since I started out on this venture. As I have said repeatedly, I am increasingly conscious of the fact that I speak for individuals in Gibraltar—as does the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—who have no direct voice in this matter. It is therefore important for us, albeit vicariously, to do our best to try to get to the bottom of it.

Column Number: 150

The Chairman: That was a very long intervention.

Mr. Cash: I was indeed. I am sorry.

The Chairman: I must appeal to all hon. Members, but especially to the hon. Gentleman, to curtail their interventions.

Yvette Cooper: We have an outline of the matters that we would expect Gibraltar to deal with and those that we would expect to be dealt with in the UK courts. We have already discussed that with the Government of Gibraltar. I am happy to write to hon. Members and set out further details of what we expect. I am also keen to examine the issue further to see if it is possible to clarify it any more before the primary legislation completes its passage through the House. However, I must give a word of caution: it may not be possible to do that because of the complexity of election legislation, election rules and so on. It would be deeply unfortunate if we found later that one particularly complicated aspect of the law meant that the matter could not be dealt with in the Gibraltar courts and needed to be dealt with in the UK courts, but that we had not set up a power to enable us to act in that way. That could cause difficulties, given the timetable of the 2004 elections. We need to be aware of the possibility that I have outlined.

It is always possible to draw up lists, but it is always difficult with electoral legislation, in my experience, to be confident that a list is comprehensive. That is why the clause is drawn relatively broadly at this stage. However, as I have said, I am happy to share with hon. Members more information about the detail of our intentions. We expect further discussions with Gibraltar about the matter, and to clarify and refine it. More work is needed to reach a clear view of the way in which the jurisdiction would be divided, and the regulations drawn up.

For the reasons I have given, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. Heath: The Minister's answer has been extremely helpful, and it covered a lot of ground on questions that I was concerned about. I hope that she will examine the clause again, because it is rather clumsily worded. It gives the strong impression that no jurisdiction is to be conferred on Gibraltar; the fact that Gibraltar is not mentioned in proposed new paragraph (b), which is the permissive paragraph, but that Gibraltar alone is mentioned in proposed new paragraph (c), which is the exclusive one, is bound to cause misapprehensions.

I agree with the Minister that it may be very difficult to draft primary legislation that covers all the eventualities in the way that she suggested. It would certainly be helpful to me, and, I suspect, to other hon. Members, to be able to see what the Government intend, subject to their further deliberations with the Government of Gibraltar. However, on the basis of what the Minister has said, I have no intention of pressing my amendment.

Mr. Cash: In the light of all that has been said, it seems to me that there is a way to deal with the matter, certainly with some discussion. There is no question of the people of Gibraltar expecting to drive the whole

Column Number: 151

jurisdiction relating to elections relevant to the combined region as a whole. That is the key point. On the other hand, they do not want anything to happen to the detriment of their jurisdiction in Gibraltar, on genuinely Gibraltarian matters. There is a balance, and the Minister has given us enough information to persuade us that the matter is being taken seriously, that discussions will continue, and that at some point the drafting will reflect that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Financial provisions

Mr. Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in

    clause 22, page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3).

This relates to the public funds of Gibraltar. There are bound to be financial provisions in a Bill of this kind that should be marked in italics, having regard to the constitutional position vis-à-vis the House of Lords. Such matters are more properly and effectively dealt with by the House of Commons. The provisions that are listed in subsections (1) and (2) are set in italics. In subsection (3), which is where Gibraltar comes into the equation, matters that pertain to the United Kingdom exclusively are italicised but those that pertain exclusively to Gibraltar are not. I am sure that the Minister will have a note to explain why that should be so.

Let me put forward one or two thoughts on the matter as I read it myself. Subsection (4) states:

    ''Subsection (3) applies to—

    (a) an order under section 11;

    (b) regulations under section 16; and

    (c) regulations under section 7 of the 2002 Act.''

We have been through those extensively. We certainly do not need to repeat them. They are broad and they have a lot of adverse implications in the context I have already explained. Where the subordinate legislation would bite in respect of the Consolidated Fund in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole, in other words where it would affect this Parliament, I would have no specific point to make. I may reflect on that, but I do not doubt that a proper provision would need to be made in order to ensure that the money that was found related to that part of the Bill that affects the United Kingdom directly.

The problem is that where the Bill deals with the deployment of the public funds of Gibraltar, the UK legislative statutory instrument that would be employed under subsection (3) would require the use of money that is the public funds of Gibraltar. That is rather curious to say the least. The public funds of Gibraltar are deployed and deployable under and in respect of the financial arrangements within the House of Assembly. It does not come back to this Parliament to determine how and where it will spend its money. The Bill seems to be making provisions that are constitutionally unexpected and unreasonable because

Column Number: 152

they impinge on deployment of the Gibraltar public funds.

As I understand it, no United Kingdom statutory instrument, order or other legal provision has purported to deploy or commit Gibraltar public funds since decades before Gibraltar acquired its first modern constitution in 1964. We are talking about something that goes back an extremely long way. That is a reflection of our deep concern that, in order to deal with the hybrid situation of a combined region, powers are being taken that invade the constitutional propriety of Gibraltar in an unnecessary fashion.

The Minister has raised the question of proportionality on a number of occasions. For example, when discussing the name of the combined region, she mentioned size and we discussed the question of proportionality and why the words ''and Gibraltar'' would be conveniently put after the name of the electoral region, which has yet to be decided upon. I do not know the exact number of people in each of the regions—it will vary, because there is no fixed number. However, when considering the relatively small number of people in Gibraltar, I ask myself how much money will be charged to the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar in proportion to the combined region as a whole; I am thinking of taxation and the amount of money that would need to be found for the Gibraltar end of the equation.

We require a clear explanation of that. It seems to me that a case can be made the Gibraltarians not having to pay any money out of the consolidated fund of Gibraltar. I have said what I need to say for the moment, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

10 am

 
Previous Contents Continue

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index


©Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 16 January 2003