---

3 Feb 2003 : Column 41—continued

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 24, in clause 9, page 5, line 16 leave out 'the Governor and' and insert—

'the Government of Gibraltar and in particular'.

No. 26, in clause 11, page 5, line 34, at end insert—

'but only after he has consulted with the Government of Gibraltar and in particular the Chief Minister as to which matters it is proposed to legislate by order and which by Ordinance of the House of Assembly in Gibraltar'.

No. 27, in page 5, line 37, leave out subsection (3).

No. 28, in page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (4).

No. 32, in clause 16, page 8, line 22, after 'Chancellor', insert—

'subject to the provisions of section 25(3A)'.

No. 33, in page 9, line 13, after 'Commission', insert—

'and the Government of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister in particular'.

No. 34, in clause 17, page 9, line 24, leave out—

'or any provision of the law of Gibraltar'

and insert—

'but subject to the provisions of section 25(3A).'.

No. 41, in clause 22, page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3).

No. 30, in clause 25, page 12, line 6, after 'Chancellor', insert—

'after consultation with the Government of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister in particular in pursuance of section 25(3A).'.

No. 29, in page 12, line 7, at end insert—

'(3A) Where under Part 2 of this Act legislation is enacted or may be enacted by order that legislation shall not come into effect until the Lord Chancellor has consulted with the Government and Chief Minister of Gibraltar in particular as to whether it would be more appropriate (having regard to the Constitution of Gibraltar) for that legislation to be legislated by order or regulation on the one hand or by Ordinance of the House of Assembly in Gibraltar on the other hand.'.

Mr. Heath: It is a pleasure to consider the Bill on the Floor of the House, because we largely support it. Having said that, as was evidenced in Committee, there are some strange anomalies in its drafting, and

3 Feb 2003 : Column 42

new clause 2 deals with one: the neo-colonialist attitude of the Lord Chancellor's Department in framing the Bill.

It should be obvious to us all that, in seeking to implement a change in Gibraltar's electoral arrangements that has implications for Gibraltar's legal and financial processes and that could require sums to be paid from the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar, there should be adequate scope for consulting the people of Gibraltar. Sadly, the Bill includes only one requirement for direct consultation with Gibraltar: under clause 9, the Electoral Commission must consult the Governor and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, although there are subsequent occasions on which the Lord Chancellor will be required to consult the Electoral Commission. That is curious in a number of ways.

First, it is particularly curious that the Governor should be identified as a person representing the interests of the people of Gibraltar. That stands the constitution on its head. The Governor is a representative of the Crown in Gibraltar. It could be argued that the Government are consulting themselves; at the very least, they are consulting the representative of the Head of State. It might be argued that they are being required to consult a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as the FCO puts forward the recommendation for the appointment of the Governor of Gibraltar.

The Chief Minister, of course, is a different matter, as he more than adequately represents the interests of Gibraltar. But in a matter that requires changes to electoral rules that will apply not just to the Chief Minister's party but to other parties represented in Gibraltar, it is anomalous to consult only the representative of one party, however distinguished that person might be. It is anomalous to have an unelected Lord Chancellor consulting an unelected Governor of Gibraltar to consider the appropriate arrangements for electing Gibraltar's representatives in the European Parliament. I do not think that I am alone in finding that a curious state of affairs.

We have a newly appointed Governor of Gibraltar, Sir Francis Richards, whom I have every reason to suppose will be an exceptional Governor. As his experience is as director of GCHQ, he might be said to be very good at listening. Even with those credentials, he cannot properly represent the views of the people of Gibraltar, or at least he cannot do as good a job as would those elected by the people of Gibraltar—not just the Chief Minister but the Members of the House of Assembly and the representatives of the political parties that it is expected will be registered by virtue of the Bill, should it be enacted.

My amendment therefore places a modest requirement on the Government. It does not seek to challenge the position of the Lord Chancellor in taking forward the legislation, although we certainly could challenge it. Indeed, we had a debate in Committee that could have been subtitled, "Why is the Lord Chancellor?", to which there is no adequate response. The new clause simply specifies that the Lord Chancellor "shall consult with, and"—here is a constitutional innovation—

"shall have regard for the views expressed by, the Chief Minister and the House of Assembly of Gibraltar, and representatives of political parties established in Gibraltar which he expects to seek registration under section 11(3)",

3 Feb 2003 : Column 43

and that that consultation should take place before making any order or regulations under part 2.

Clearly, the mind of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has been working in a very similar way, as the raft of amendments that he has tabled would require much the same degree of consultation. To give the Minister her due, she undertook in Committee to re-examine the position of the Governor, and, on reflection, she perhaps shared our view that that piece of drafting was slightly anomalous. However, she has not tabled an amendment to address that at this stage, which is why we must pursue our proposals. Other than by assurance, she was not prepared to tell us that the consultations with the people of Gibraltar, via their political parties and the House of Assembly, would be as comprehensive as some of us feel would be appropriate. In particular, it is extraordinary that the House of Assembly should not be consulted as a matter of course before an order is put before this House. That is even more extraordinary given that the later stages of the Bill, and particularly the financial provisions in part 3, allow for

"expenditure to be paid out of money provided by Parliament or to be met by Gibraltar",

and

"for sums to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar".

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): The hon. Gentleman is developing an extremely persuasive line of argument. Given that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), is an acknowledged and proud democrat but that the Lord Chancellor manifestly and probably equally proudly is not, does the hon. Gentleman think that the lacuna in the Bill as it stands is an error of omission or of commission?

4.45 pm

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. It may have been apparent from my words that I share his view about the precise position of the Lord Chancellor. I applaud to the hilt what I believe to be the Parliamentary Secretary's position with regard to the matters that we shall debate tomorrow and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rightly rule out of order were we to discuss them today.

We discussed in Committee whether there was a mechanism by which we could place important electoral matters back into the hands of an elected Minister answerable to this House—namely, the hon. Lady—rather into the hands of an unelected Minister who appears to be accountable to no one except perhaps the person who appointed him and who wishes to clone that form of representation for the other place in future.

Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I apologise for missing the first two minutes of my hon. Friend's speech.

Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful if the Government accepted two

3 Feb 2003 : Column 44

more arguments? The first picks up on the frustration of Northern Ireland colleagues who often find that orders that they cannot amend are implemented over their heads. If we want to avoid further antagonising the House of Assembly and the people of Gibraltar, the new clause would provide a way of doing that.

Secondly, the past year has not been a glorious one for relations between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Gibraltar. The new clause would be a way of putting together an honest listening dialogue rather than the dialogue of the deaf that appears to the Government's approach when it comes to their listening to voices from Gibraltar in the past 12 months.

Mr. Heath: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says.

I return to the point with which I opened my brief contribution. The Government's present position suggests a neo-colonialism that ill becomes them. One can almost see the pith helmet on the head of those who seek to introduce these proposals.

---