| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3 Feb 2003 : Column 71—continued
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Apart from a tendency to go down memory lane, the hon. Gentleman is trying to expand his argument too far.
Mr. Gummer: I shall not follow my hon. Friend's example, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to bring him onside, as I did not want him to feel under too much attack from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham for the form of the amendment. It is perfectly reasonable—it says that we favour the principle, but that the method of implementation is not the best. If the Government are not keen on it, I am sure that they could restrict their powers in a different way. If they did, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, in a spirit of friendship, which is in his nature, would accept that. However, if they do not, there is a reasonable feeling across the country that they are trying to pinch a bit of unnecessary extra power, which is par for the course.
Lady Hermon: I shall keep my remarks short this time. If there is a change or an anticipated change under community law in the total number of MEPs, the Lord Chancellor may by notice require the Electoral Commission to make a recommendation. Clause 2(5) says that a recommendation made under clause 2
- "must be published by the Electoral Commission and laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor".
Mr. Gummer: Having been a Member of Parliament for as long as I fear I have been, I know that there are some mechanisms that do not amount to much. If I may say so, that mechanism is one such and does not provide power. However, the mechanism is not the real problem. I cannot understand why the Government want to take an extra step when they could achieve the end that they desire in a way that is acceptable to the whole House.
This is a constitutional debate, but it is not anything like as worrying as is sometimes claimed. We are inclined to treat every issue as if it were the most important one, but with constitutional issues it is better to tread softly than go too far. In the past, people have dealt with such issues by achieving a necessary end in a way that is acceptable to the whole House.
Mr. Bercow: The Government are antipathetic to the amendments because as an Administration they are characterised by ministerial impatience. They do not want to accept them because in future, when they want to act, they do not want to have to listen to views other than their own. The purpose of debate here, however, is not merely to seek to change ministerial minds, but to enable the electorate to be more aware of the arguments and alternative points of view.
Mr. Gummer: As so often, my hon. Friend has put his finger on the problem, and explained why I have tried to
draw a distinction between the issue and the European ramifications. It is rare for me to be enthusiastic about being on the same side as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but on this occasion we are as one. The issue is a constitutional one—it is about seeking to limit Parliament's powers as little as possible to achieve the necessary end. No sensible person would deny that we need to achieve the end envisaged in the Bill, because we want enlargement of the European Union and to be able to meet our obligations in such a union. At the same time, we want to do so by as limited a method as possible. It would be no skin off the Government's nose if they helped everyone to feel that they had tried to get close to 100 per cent. backing on a constitutional matter rather than leaving us divided on something on which we do not need to be divided. The Government can achieve their ends and we can protect the constitutional position, which is the Opposition's duty, and normally one that the Government accept.
Tony Cunningham: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that in days gone by constitutional issues could be debated for a long time. I do not want people to get the idea that the Bill has not been debated at tremendous length. In Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) spoke for about 90 per cent. of the time, but we finished with a free sitting.
Mr. Bercow: That really will not do at all.
Yvette Cooper: We covered these issues quite extensively in Committee, when I gave full answers to many of the points made by the Opposition today. I am pleased that the throat of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is holding out, and I commend its endurance.
Mr. Bercow: I greatly admire the hon. Lady, as she knows, and I am sorry to interrupt her at such an early stage in her speech. However, it is exceptionally irritating to be told that the amendments, or at least their purport, have been substantially debated in Committee. I merely put it to her that it is important to bear in mind the fact that the Bill is now on Report. I was not privileged to serve as a Committee member, but I am entitled to hear the arguments, including hers.
Yvette Cooper: We were obviously deeply disappointed not to have enjoyed the company of the hon. Gentleman in Committee—he would have been a joy. I am happy to rehearse again many of the key points, but I question the decision of the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to make points that they had the chance to make repeatedly in Committee.
Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can repeat his point.
Mr. Cash: I am not going to make my point again, but wish to say that the point that I made about section 12
of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 was an additional point. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are valid—the Bill is a constitutional measure and should have been taken on the Floor of the House.
Yvette Cooper: We have already dealt with many of the substantial points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to go through them again. As we have made clear throughout, the Bill's purpose is to allow a mechanism for the implementation of the treaty of Nice.
7 pm
The treaty of Nice provides for the reduced number of MEPs that would be in place once all the states had acceded. It also provides for the Council to take decisions on the interim position and to make pro rata adjustments in accordance with the treaty. We should be in no doubt that we can implement the numbers set out in the treaty and the interim arrangements. The problem with the amendment and with attempts to restrict the relevant provisions in the Bill too much is that we might end up being able to implement the precise details set out in the treaty—the bottom-line position, which means that the UK should reduce the number of its MEPs to 72—but not be able confidently to give effect to the Council's decision on the interim position, which is provided for in the treaty, but on which a decision has not yet been taken. There is therefore a danger that we might not be able to implement the provision for 78 MEPs, and we would end up with fewer MEPs than Opposition Members say they want.
Mr. Gummer: Perhaps the hon. Lady can help me. Why is it not possible for her so to arrange things that she could ask Parliament about the matter? Why does she feel we would be excluded if we adopted the arrangement that would be most natural to us? We would set out the two most likely circumstances, and, if things did not turn out like that, the Government would return to Parliament and allow it to make its decision in plenty of time for it to be implemented. There would be no need to hold anything up for that, but at least Parliament would make the decision.
Yvette Cooper: We have ratified the treaty of Nice, which sets out the bottom line. The interim position needs to be achieved by a pro rata adjustment. We have done that. The matter has been debated and has gone through the parliamentary procedures. We have set out the final position and the basis on which the interim position will be decided. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the matter needs to come back before Parliament, which is why it will be dealt with through an order. He seems to be asking for primary legislation in order to implement interim arrangements, the details of which were set out in the treaty of Nice and endorsed by Parliament.
Mr. Gummer: I perfectly understand the hon. Lady's explanation. I merely suggest to her that these issues cause considerable concern and worry, often needlessly. In the circumstances, surely a Government with their
ear to the ground and with fingertip control would go the extra mile to give Parliament the opportunity to make the decision, so that it did not feel bypassed.
Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman overstates his case. It is clearly right that Parliament should ratify the treaty of Nice. That is exactly what happened. The treaty sets out the process for reducing the number of MEPs to ensure that the states joining the European Union can have representation. It sets out that representation in exact numbers, once all the accession states have joined. It also states clearly that the interim arrangements will need to made on the basis of a pro rata adjustment. That leaves no freedom to manoeuvre in the process that we will have to go through, but it is important that the Council decision is implemented; otherwise, we will not be able to allow other European countries to get their fair representation in time for the 2004 elections. Perhaps that is the agenda of some Opposition Members.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |