House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Jun 1993

Mr. Rooker : The point about paragraphs 7 and 8 of the schedule is crucial. Under the present arrangement, the Boundary Commission, not Ministers, will, after a draft proposal and a public inquiry, decide whether to issue an amended draft proposal. In this case, it is clear that the Minister, not the committee, will agree to issue the amended proposal. Opportunites sometimes arise for even a second public inquiry. That occurred on a previous occasion in the Finchley area, if I remember correctly. That point is crucial. It has to be transparently seen that the system has integrity from start to finish. The system will be damaged if there is no opportunity for a face-to-face verbal inquiry in which witnesses can be challenged and the commission that made the original proposal can decide whether, on the force of the arguments, to issue another proposal.

Mr. Blair : I understood that drawing up the boundaries would not involve any ministerial decision. Perhaps the Home Secretary could confirm that.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) combined two points in his intervention. He made a point about face-to-face contact, which is obviously what one gets at a public inquiry. He also said that, as a result of the procedures that we propose, the original committee would not decide whether the representations that were submitted were such as to cause the original recommendations to be altered. On that, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Members of the committee, who will make their recommendations and receive representations in exactly the same way as the Boundary Commissioners, would decide, without a public inquiry, whether, in the light of the representations, they wish to change their original recommendations. The committee will have the power to do so. In that respect, the procedures that we expect to follow will be identical to those which the Boundary Commission would follow.

Mr. Blair : I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr will make that point again during the debate. Is the Home Secretary giving an assurance that there will be no ministerial involvement in assessing whether the provisional recommendations of the Boundary Commission are altered or modified?

Mr. Howard : The procedures would be identical to those that would otherwise be followed. The procedures always provide that when either the Boundary Commissioners or the members of the committee make their final proposals, the Home Secretary can make orders in accordance with those proposals or modify them. That is always the case. There is no difference between what we propose in the Bill and what normally takes place.

The procedures will be as follows : the members of the committee will publish their provisional recommendations ; they will receive representations on those

Column 1001

recommendations and decide whether to alter their original view in the light of the representations that would be received ; they will then submit their final recommendations to the Home Secretary, who will then make Orders in Council. The Home Secretary has a discretion to modify final recommendations. I cannot remember when that discretion was last exercised.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : It never has been.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman says that the discretion has never been exercised. He may well be right about that. I have no reason to suppose that that practice would be any different on an occasion such as we are debating. The form and the language used for that stage of the process would be identical. I repeat what I have said time after time. Although there would not be room for a public inquiry in the process, and subject only to that omission, the procedures will mirror as closely as possible those that apply when the Boundary Commission is involved.

Mr. Blair : I accept the point that the Home Secretary makes. But the existence of the power to which he has referred adds weight to the need for a public inquiry. There is even greater pressure on the Minister not to exercise that power, because the full process of consultation will not have been completed.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : The hon. Member was probably still at school at the time and may not recall the occasion when a Labour Home Secretary had the audacity to lead his troops into the Lobby against his own orders.

Mr. Blair : The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I do not remember that occasion.

Sir Teddy Taylor : I shall try to seek some compromise in this difficult situation. Would not it be in accordance with the spirit of this excellent Bill if we were simply to go home now, cancel the debate and send a written representation to the Home Secretary about what we think about the Bill? He could carefully consider those representations and then-- perhaps tomorrow--let us know his conclusion. Is not the issue of a public inquiry that there is a massive difference between having a debate about something and simply sending letters that are carefully considered? Is not the matter one of principle rather than a minor bureaucratic point as some people think?

Mr. Blair : The hon. Gentleman has made his point well. The Opposition often feel that, even after a full debate, our points are not always taken on board fully.

The timetable, I would submit, would allow for the public inquiry process. The consultation of the committee membership could be achieved, one would think, within days of the Bill receiving Second Reading. The committee could determine provisional recommendations certainly within a couple of weeks. Those provisional recommendations could be published, let us say, a couple of weeks later. There could be a final date for representations. Notice of the public inquiry could be given--it could be four weeks on such a timetable. There could be then a week of public inquiries. We understand that public inquiries would be necessarily limited to a maximum of about 10 inquiries.

Column 1002

There would be another month before final recommendations were determined, and another couple of weeks before publication. That process from giving notice of the public inquiry to the publication of the final recommendations would take about 10 weeks. Looking as reasonably as one can at the matter, it does not seem to be impossible to do that. If the Home Secretary had been able to give a clearer illustration of why that was genuinely not feasible, he would have found a greater echo in some of the comments that he made in the House. If the process were to be put back to mid-December, which is not impossible, that could be done within the proper time scale and would allow for the public inquiry to take place. I understand elements such as the transcripts and commissioners' consideration and other matters. I return to the powerful point that the Government, if anyone, are responsible for the delay. They have dragged their heels. [Interruption.] It does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to blame their own side.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : We do.

Mr. Blair : Well, the hon. Lady may do so, but she must sort that out with the Government.

It cannot be right that the delay is used as a reason for not having a proper timetable for public inquiries. I have shown, or at least raised a prima facie case, that even with the constraints of time there is room for a public inquiry. We believe that it is important that the fairness of the procedure should not be a casualty of the timetable in the Bill.

There are three effective reasons why there should be an additional seat for Scotland. First, there are the special geographical considerations. If we leave out the seat for the Highlands and Islands, on the current basis Scotland does not have a much lower average electorate than England. The effect of giving England four extra seats instead of five reduces the average by only 7,000 voters per seat. The effect of giving Scotland an extra seat would be to reduce the average electorate by 55,000. If the calculation were purely numerical, the outcome would have been six, nothing, nothing--six seats for England and none for Wales or Scotland. A seat has been given to Wales and we support that.

If there is one for Wales, there should also be one for Scotland. That would leave Wales and Scotland similarly balanced. I am not suggesting that there is not a case for six seats to England, none to Wales and none to Scotland or even five, one, none, but there is a strong case for the position that we are advocating. Indeed, if the Secretary of State looks at his own table, he will see the strength of that case made out, because Wales and Scotland are treated differently.

We ask support for the notion that there should be an equitable distribution of the seats and a proper way of determining the redrawing of European seat boundaries. They are important matters when new boundaries are drawn up and new seats given. The procedure must be sensible and fair. It must erase any appearance of substituting some ad hoc committee run by the Government for a proper independent body. The Secretary of State has moved towards meeting the objections to independence and I accept that. However, I am not satisfied, and I do not think that my hon. Friends

Column 1003

are either, about the issue of the public inquiry. For that reason and the other reasons that we have given, we ask for support for our reasoned amendment.

5.40 pm

Sir Roger Moate (Faversham) : It is evident from the speeches and interventions that there is equal concern on both sides of the House for the principle of regular, fair and independent boundary reorganisation. That is a fundmental part of our democracy. It is significant that there is not the same concern for these European proposals. One must ask why my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should espouse so fundamentally and clearly the principle of independent, regular boundary reviews--so essential to our parliamentary democracy--yet feel it possible to recommend to the House a truncated and simplified system for European boundaries. Alas, he has left the Chamber, but the fundamental difference is that Westminster boundaries matter to this House and the public, whereas fundamentally, after many years of experience with this, the Strasbourg boundaries do not. If they did, there would be no proposition such as the one before us tonight.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : There is another, simpler explanation : we have a deadline of June next year.

Sir Roger Moate : A deadline would not be enough to undermine the principle that is so important to the House if we were talking about Westminster boundaries. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I agree with the Bill. It is a matter of supreme indifference to my constituents and to most constituents whether or not these new boundaries are determined by the full Boundary Commission and public inquiries or by a committee.

I would go further : I suspect that it is of supreme indifference to them whether or not they get the six extra seats. They will not cheer if the Bill is passed or weep tears if it is not. Had we declined to take these six seats, people would not be particularly upset. I admit that there are some with ambitions to represent their areas in Strasbourg or Brussels who would be disappointed, but for the vast majority that is not the case.

The important message that we can deliver to the world at large following today's deliberations on the Bill is that we should now examine the logic of what we are doing and the fundamental principles on which this and previous legislation are based. I can say that as one who is on the record as having voted in November 1977 against the original direct elections Bill. I believed it wrong then, and I believe it wrong now. If one believed it wrong then, it is logical to continue one's objections to the increased number of seats and the further entrenchment of the principle of direct elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), who has now left us, was a little unkind when he referred to the general public's perception of Members of the European Parliament. I am not saying that he was wrong, but it was unkind to draw attention to the fact that most members of the public do not know their

Column 1004

MEPs, are not aware of their role and have little contact with them. That is reflected at elections, when the percentage turnout is pathetically low. It is derisory.

That is not a criticism of MEPs. They are worthy, earnest, dedicated, conscientious men. My MEP is an honourable man, as are they all. Given their remit and their constitutional role, they cannot respond as we expect elected representatives to do. That is the point that we are entitled to examine when we consider this Bill today.

We now have an opportunity to examine the Bill in the light of developments in the Community and other developments, particularly one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). She rightly pointed to the changes that will be forced on us by the enlargement of the Community.

The proposal to increase the number of seats has come to us because of the enlargement of the Community by the inclusion of eastern Germany. As enlargement progresses and the Community of 12 becomes ultimately, I hope, the Community of 20, what then? Every time we take in two or three new member states, are we to have a new Bill of this sort? If so, what are we going to do? Will we reduce the number of Members per nation so that we do not increase the size of the Parliament, or will we increase their number until we have an assembly of 1,000 members?

I would find it rather amusing to be a member of such a Parliament. I suspect that it would give the same sort of pleasure as was given to the inhabitants of the tower of Babel. In practical terms, however, it cannot work. Surely it is incumbent on us now, during these interesting proceedings, to say what we want, and to ask where the European Parliament is going and what it is about.

Sir Teddy Taylor : I agree with every word of my hon. Friend. Does he accept that, if we defeat the Bill tonight and throw it out, there will be no extra MEPs in any country, because, under the Edinburgh agreement, if one country rejects the legislation, there will be no extra MEPs? Could we not save a great deal of public expenditure and avoid all the problems that he has described by agreeing to chuck out the legislation?

Sir Roger Moate : That is a tempting thought, but I do not feel in a destructive mood.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Constructive.

Sir Roger Moate : We should be constructive, and we should examine the Bill. After all, we have a Committee stage, when some such proposal could be tabled.

Let us consider whatast (Mr. Dykes), that we must consider what will work in future, because it is self-evident that the directly elected European Parliament is not working as we believe it should. It is not responsive and responsible to its electorate as a Parliament should be.

The situation will not improve ; it will become increasingly difficult. Therefore--this is the serious message that we must examine today, because if we do not, we shall have to return to it time and again--in the light of the enlargement of the Community, we should return to the system that we had before the 1977-78 legislation, which was nomination by this House. If we had such a system--or, at least, the option of such a system--we

Column 1005

would not face this legislation. That is an important proposition, and soon the Community will come back to recognising the advantage of it.

If, indeed, we believe in a Europe of nation states and want the central institutions to be responsive to our national legislatures, think of the advantages of returning to the system that worked rather well before 1977-- that hon. Members of this House should be nominated by their parties to serve in the European Parliament. They could work there in rotation or for a limited number of years.

The advantages are self-evident because, being Members of this House, they would be in touch with their electors and responsive to the real world instead of being in their ivory towers elsewhere, with electorates of some half a million. That system worked before, and I believe that it could work again.

In pursuing that logic, some nations may not want to follow that pattern, but others do. If we believe in subsidiarity, it should be left to each member state to determine how it selects those Members who are to represent this nation in that Assembly.

Instead of the Government simply diving into this Bill, how much better it would have been had we raised at Edinburgh and the recent negotiations the prospect of subsidiarity applying to the method of choosing Members to go to the European Assembly.

Mr. Allason : Does my hon. Friend agree that, as there have been grave doubts about the word "subsidiarity", this is an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate exactly what it means, and to have it work in this case? This is a classic case in which subsidiarity might work, yet the Government have rejected it and are producing a new invented mechanism specifically for Europe.

Sir Roger Moate : This debate gives us that opportunity. I repeat what I said at the beginning : it is a matter of supreme indifference to my electors how those boundaries are changed--whether by a boundary commission or a committee. That does not undermine the principle of independent boundary commissions for Parliament, where it matters for democracy, but I see no evidence to suggest that it affects real democracy in the full sense of the word, because my constituents are not influencing the democratic power of MEPs. The system does not allow for that, so it cannot be fundamentally important.

We should now say, let the Government have the system. Although it is not satisfactory, they are probably right to say that there is no alternative. But let us send a message loud and clear that this is the time to re- examine the basis of the directly elected European Parliament.

Mr. Cash : I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says but take issue with him on whether the powers of the European Parliament have been significantly increased under the Maastricht treaty. If this Bill is enacted, it will apply to the provisions of the Maastricht Bill, when enacted. Therefore, the powers of co-decision and all that go with them, which European parliamentarians will acquire, will be attributable to those Members who will sit in those new parliamentary constituencies.

Sir Roger Moate : I have heard my hon. Friend express that view about increased powers of the European Parliament, and undoubtedly there are some. I am an

Column 1006

optimist, and believe that those powers are neither extensive nor wide, and will not grow. It is our task to try to prevent them from growing.

I therefore maintain my position that it is of no great significance whether we have six more Members, because they are doing nothing effective or helpful to this country. Individually, they may be superb and they are delightful men and women, but collectively their constitutional role is muddled, and the system by which we send them to Europe is wrong.

In the meantime, it does not matter what happens to those six seats. Let Scotland have them all if that makes it happy. It will do England little harm. Alternatively, Wales could have half.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Or Gibraltar.

Sir Roger Moate : My hon. Friend makes a serious point. Gibraltar is a deserving cause for representation in the European Parliament. If Luxembourg can have such a large representation, Gibraltar must be equally entitled. Let us give Gibraltar all six seats. If that is not satisfactory and we are to conform in some way, let us give them to other worthy organisations such as Age Concern, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The matter is of no great constitutional importance.

Ultimately, we must deal with the matter, and we have had no answers yet on how the European Parliament is to mould itself to a Europe of 20 separate sovereign states. There are those who will not for one moment yield the principle of direct elections, because they see them as a symbol of a nation state, albeit a federal, centralised one. To them, it is almost a principle of religious importance, because that pretension to a unitary state requires direct elections.

If the converse is true, and we believe in a Europe of nation states and decentralisation, we should get away from direct elections and return to the system whereby this Westminster Parliament nominates Members to the European Assembly.

5.55 pm

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : I had a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and did not believe that I would hear such a frivolous speech. It horrifies me because if we want to take our membership of the European Community seriously, as I believe the majority in the House and the country do, to treat the matter so frivolously does no justice to the House of Commons. I am extremely disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. There is a role for national Parliament. Because of changes in the Community, which will undoubtedly occur within the next few years as a result of increased membership, the nature of the European Parliament will change. To try to keep the numbers sensible, it may mean a reduction in the number of directly-elected Members for each existing member state, and there will probably be a role for a second chamber made up of members of national Parliaments. That would provide a check and a balance. Each stage of democracy should have checks and balances built into it. I see possibilities there, although I do not wish to pursue the matter in detail.

I do not accept that the principle of subsidiarity applies in this case. I agree that a case can be made for it but it has

Column 1007

no strength simply because, if the European Parliament is to be treated seriously, bring the Commission to heel and have some control over what happens within the Commission, it is important that that Parliament is elected on a common, uniform basis and in a way that is compatible within Parliament. If each member state could send Members there on a wholly different basis--some elected, some appointed and others in different forms--it would negate the strength of a possible powerful check on the Commission by a democratically-elected European Parliament. I therefore do not accept the argument that each member state should be able to choose how it sends members to the European Parliament.

We are debating an important issue. We should not say that the turnout in the elections does not matter. As democrats, we should encourage maximum turnout at every election as part of the democratic process. It is up to our constituents to choose whether to participate in the debates. We should not argue that they do not care about the election and that we need not bother them with public inquiries as they can send letters. We should not tell them that that body and that election do not matter and that therefore their votes have no value. That sends a terrible signal to our constituents about what we think of the worth of their participation in how their country is governed.

I say that in the widest sense because not all power now resides in this House. Over time some of our powers have gone to the greater good of the European Community. On the whole, our constituents benefit from that, so it does not behove us to say that the elections do not count and that therefore it does not matter about the mechanism for those elections. It is more crucial for this country than for the other countries of western Europe. I freely declare my view that the elections should be based on proportional representation, as should the elections to this House. But I shall not pursue that matter today.

This is the only country in Europe that elects Members of Parliament on a single constituency, first-past-the-post arrangement. That has a destabilising effect on the composition of the European Parliament because, as we know from the 1989 election, a small change in the way the electorate votes can make a huge difference to the party representation of Great Britain in the European Parliament. The other member states are rightly aggrieved by that because they all subscribe to a system of proportionality by which representation is reflected in proportion to the votes cast for parties.

Our system is not proportional and we make no attempt to make it so except in Northern Ireland. That alters the party groupings in the European Parliament, the time available for speaking and the composition of its committees, and that is wholly disproportionate to the wishes of voters throughout Europe. Other countries have every reason to be aggrieved by Britain's slow progress on our commitment to a better and fairer system.

The Labour party conducted a long review of electoral procedures and systems. I attended all 28 of the meetings which were chaired by Lord Plant of Highfield. At our final meeting there was only one vote against recommending our party to subscribe to proportional voting based on a regional list system for the European Parliament. That

Column 1008

view has been endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and I am certain that it will be carried at our annual conference in the autumn.

By the end of the year and before the next Euro-elections Labour will be committed to a proportional system for those elections. I regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to bring our system up to date in line with article 138 and the proposals endorsed by a committee of the European Parliament in March. Those proposals would enable England, Scotland and Wales to retain single member constituencies up to a maximum of two thirds, the other third to involve a system of proportional top-up so that votes are matched to the representation of the political parties. Hon. Members think that people vote on an individual basis and that we have huge personal votes, but in European constituencies, with electorates of 500,000, people will vote on a party basis. The nature of our representation in the European Parliament should reflect that vote.

Mrs. Ewing : I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on proportionality. Has he looked at the implications for Scotland, Wales and England separately, bearing in mind that Scotland and Wales each have four major political parties whereas England tends to have three? There should not be a cross-boundary transfer of votes : representation should reflect the votes cast in Scotland, Wales and England.

Mr. Rooker : I accept that without equivocation and, of course, that applies in some other member states. However, because they use proportional systems, the small parties in those states are not snuffed out. In the nations of Scotland and Wales the parties represent large proportions of the electorate. Political parties are in the process of competition and of maximising support for their ideals and principles. It is not our role to organise systems to snuff out other parties. A proportional system, however it is based, must reflect the nature of the nationalist vote and other votes in Scotland and Wales. The dilution of the English vote must not be used to snuff that out.

Mr. John D. Taylor : Under the hon. Gentleman's proposal, would there be a national list system or a list system for the different component parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rooker : I think I said that we propose a regional list system for the European Parliament. Regions can be drawn in different ways but clearly Northern Ireland would be designated as a region and in that context would not be attached to any part of the mainland because that would not form a cohesive whole that any hon. Member could recommend. Scotland and Wales would be separate regions : it would be difficult to propose otherwise. The regions of England would need to be examined.

That is Labour's general proposal but we have not dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's because the detail is a matter for negotiation between the parties in the House and interested bodies outside. It is not for one political party to say, "This is what will happen." The Secretary of State is effectively saying through the Bill what will happen and there will not be proper discussion.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East) : The hon. Gentleman is well known for his pioneering work in his party and outside on these matters. Was not it a great tragedy that in

Column 1009

1977 the Labour Government cynically removed the regional list construction from the original draft Bill and went instead for giant constituencies? The latest disappointment also is that there will not be an additional member system for the six seats.

Mr. Rooker : I am not in favour of rewriting history. On a free vote the House had a choice between single member constituencies--the huge existing ones--and a regional list system. A schedule to the Bill that the hon. Gentleman mentions contained both systems. I voted for first-past-the- post, single member constituencies, but since then I have seen the disbenefits of that system in local, regional and national elections and I have changed my mind. There is nothing wrong in learning from one's experience : I thought that that was what life was all about. Such systems were proposed during the time of the Lib-Lab pact. The last Labour Government recommended that the House support the regional list system, but on a free vote the House chose not to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) spoke about Scotland. In his speech, the Home Secretary repeated words from a Home Office press release. The idea of fairness in elections is a new Home Office concept. On pure arithmetical fairness the proportions are 5 : 1 : 0--five to England, one to Wales and none to Scotland. To try to rule on the basis of arithmetical fairness, ignoring community interests, Britain's political geography and the nations that make up the United Kingdom, would not take account of the aspirations and opinions within the United Kingdom. Therefore, I could support an extra seat for Scotland.

I wish that the city of Birmingham had the same representation as the city of Glasgow, but as a result of agreements over time Scotland is over- represented because of its geographical position and the historical understandings that have served the nation well. I am prepared to live with that. We do not propose the imposition of a uniform system. The Government have an arithmetical case but political logic demands that Scotland should have an extra seat.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester) : I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman stands on the issue of one man, one vote, but surely the essential issue is that individuals are voting and not land masses. Therefore, the arithmetic makes a difference. It is people, not space, and the natural formula to follow is based on arithmetic.

Mr. Rooker : If it were just a question of arithmetic, there would not be various shaped constituencies for this House. Massive deviations are accepted, even at a time of boundary redistribution, over and above the arithmetical figure. America follows the arithmetic almost to the last 0.5 per cent., which means joining together districts that have no affinity just to make the numbers right. That is the problem with first-past-the- post, single-member constituencies and we have to live with that. It is one reason why I no longer subscribe to that system.

This House and the European Parliament should reflect, on a party basis, the votes cast in the ballot box, and that can be achieved by using one of a number of PR systems, whether single-member based with a regional top-up, a list or multi-member single transferable vote, as in Northern Ireland. That is the only way to get around the arithmetical difficulty of every constituency not being the same size.

Column 1010

I want to raise the issue of delay in bringing this matter before the House. In some ways this debate, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has forcefully argued against the snuffing out of public participation in the way that the boundaries are drawn, is happening only because of that delay. One would think that no one knew that there would be a delay. We seem to be overlooking the fact that from July to December last year Britain held the European presidency. When the Prime Minister went to the Edinburgh summit, it did not come as a surprise to him that there would be extra seats. I corresponded with the Prime Minister on that issue between October and March. I want to share some of that correspondence with the House. On 23 November, in response to a question about the size of the European Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman wrote : "We are, as Presidency, doing all we can to work for a solution We are taking soundings with other member states before Edinburgh." I checked the newspapers--although I did not do a massive Sherlock Holmes job--and I could not find a single account of the Prime Minister, during the presidency, raising the matter in the House or in the country. No briefing emanated from No. 10, prior to Edinburgh, about public participation in or soundings with other member states about the issues surrounding extra seats.

The Prime Minister also said in that letter :

"As far as the redrawing of European Parliamentary constituency boundaries is concerned, various options for doing this are being considered, but I am confident that we can work out a solution once an agreement on the number of seats has been reached."

That agreement was reached at Edinburgh a few weeks later.

Mr. Cash : Does the hon. Gentleman recall that it was Germany's absolute insistence that it should have 18 additional seats--despite the fact that it had previously said that it would not press for them--that precipitated this process? It is another example of our giving in, as we always do in Europe, to the overall pressures exerted by the Christian Democrats and the European People's party, and all that goes with that. That is the real reason for this Bill.

Mr. Rooker : That is xenophobic nonsense. If the structure of the European Parliament is to reflect the people in the nation states, while ensuring that small nations like Luxembourg are not snuffed out, the representation of countries such as Britain, France, Italy and Germany-- which all had roughly the same size populations before reunification--must now be adjusted to take account of German reunification. Germany virtually absorbed another nation state of 17 million to 18 million citizens, so it deserves greater

representation. No other member state deserves greater

representation. On the basis of arithmetical fairness, there would be extra seats for Germany but none for any other country.

It is political logic that has resulted in not just Britain, France and Italy, but all the other countries, except Luxembourg, gaining extra seats. Political logic is the very argument that we would use for Scotland.

Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh) : Would not the correct solution have been simply to have given Germany

Column 1011

extra seats to reflect its greater population after reunification? The complication has arisen because the French were afraid of losing out to the Germans.

Mr. Rooker : All this happened a long time ago, at the Edinburgh summit last December. There has been plenty of time for the issues to be resolved.

In my correspondence with the Prime Minister, I said that while we held the presidency Britain should give a democratic lead to Europe by pushing to have the issue resolved. On 30 December, having reached agreement at Edinburgh, he responded :

"This breakthrough will give us time to redraw constituency boundaries in time for the June 1994 elections."

He also referred to the importance of the European Parliament being able increasingly to scrutinise the Commission. That is crucial, but nothing happened. There was silence. The Government put forward no proposals for how that would be done.

By February, I had become quite angry and I accused the right hon. Gentleman of seeking to delay the issue to create the conditions for an electoral coup d'etat and have boundaries drawn behind closed doors. That is what will happen under the Bill. It is important to put his response on the record. In his letter of 16 March he said : "the question of how to allocate the extra seats is far from simple. It needs to be considered carefully, and it will be considered carefully. Consultation with Opposition parties will form part of the process. But I am not prepared to discredit the system by forcing colleagues into making unduly hasty and ill -considered judgments".

I should have hoped that it went without saying that

"one of our main concerns will be to ensure that whatever methods are used should be seen to be independent of political

considerations. Our proposals will maintain the integrity of this country's democratic traditions."

This Bill does not maintain that integrity. Boundaries will be drawn up behind closed doors, without public scrutiny or participation.

Some might take the view that the European elections do not matter. My view is that all elections matter when our constituents are asked to exercise political choice through the ballot box. Anything we do to devalue the procedure for next year's European elections will, at some future time, be used as the thin end of the wedge to undermine what happens in local government and, probably, in this place.

Mr. Marlow : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Next Section

Home Page