---

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put and proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

Question agreed to.

28 Apr 2003 : Column 71

Orders of the Day

European Parliament (Representation) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 17. If the House agrees to this Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Before Clause 2

Lords amendment: No. 1.

6.31 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 20.

Yvette Cooper: This small group of amendments relates to part 1 of the Bill. As hon. Members who were involved in the Bill in Committee will recall, we discussed the limited circumstances in which the order changing the number of Members of the European Parliament could be made. As I said in Committee, our intention has always been that that should apply pursuant only to our treaty obligations. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked that the scope of the clause

"should be expressly limited to changes arising out of Treaties which have already been the subject of an earlier Act of Parliament".

That is what amendment No. 1 does. It defines "Community law", which is referred to particularly in clause 4, to mean in this context treaties that have been the subject of an Act of Parliament amending the European Communities Act 1972 to include such treaties and Council decisions or other Community instruments made under such treaties. That clarifies the position and ensures clear safeguards for Parliament.

Amendment No. 2 was inserted to enable action to be taken to debate and put in place the orders necessary to change the numbers and distribution of MEPs in advance of those Community law provisions, and if necessary in advance of their incorporation into UK law.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): I am glad that there has been some movement, but is not the Minister being a little economical with the truth? This is a climbdown. It was not clear during the original debate that the provision was limited to those areas where treaties had already been the subject of the proper debate and parliamentary scrutiny that is required for the passage of an Act, and the worry was that it would be back-door legislation without proper scrutiny.

Yvette Cooper: We have always made clear our intention to ensure that we could implement not only decisions made under treaties, but Council decisions

28 Apr 2003 : Column 72

that were pursuant to treaties. That is why the orders are necessary. We have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—

Mr. William Cash (Stone): The hon. Lady is being a little disingenuous. She may recall that not once, but two or three times, I raised the question of protocol A to the Nice treaty—I am sure that she remembers every detail of it. That was some time before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made its recommendations, and I am somewhat surprised that she should overlook the fact that although the matter was hotly debated, she has only partially addressed the points that I made.

Yvette Cooper: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks suggest that he will therefore support the amendments. We have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Moreover, as we clearly explained in Committee, the problem with the amendments that he tabled is that we could not be sure that they would apply not only to the explicit wording in the treaty, but to Council decisions pursuant to the treaty. As I remember, we discussed that in considerable detail. We have ensured that the provision is framed in such a way as to cover not only the explicit wording of the treaty, but Council decisions that are pursuant to it. That is important.

Amendment No. 2 enables debate to take place in advance, but it is important to recognise that it does not allow the orders to be brought into force until the conditions set out in amendment No. 1 apply and, in effect, until the Community law provisions come into force. That is necessary because the treaty of accession that sets out the number of MEPs for 2004 will not come into force until 1 May 2004, which is only five or six weeks before the election. Furthermore, if one of the accession states should fail to ratify the treaty, a Council decision under the protocol on enlargement annexed to the treaty of Nice will make a pro rata correction to the number of MEPs, which could enter into force at a similarly late stage. We expect, however, to know what the numbers of MEPs will be shortly after all the referendums in ratifying states are completed in September this year. It is important that everyone with an interest in the elections—those who are involved in the administrative arrangements, electoral returning officers and those who are involved in the parties in terms of campaigning and candidates—can plan with some sense of what the arrangements will be for 2004. We therefore expect to be able to debate and to make the order well in advance of 1 May 2004, even though it will not actually come into force until that date or the date on which the Council decision comes into force. The amendment solves the timing problem to allow electoral administrators, candidates and parties to proceed on a firm basis early in 2004.

Amendment No. 3 is simply a consequence of amendment No. 2, which moves two subsections displaced by amendment No. 2 to a more logical place, and amendment No. 20 corrects a typographical error.

I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Cash: I have already made one of the points that I intended to make in response to the Minister. She is indeed being disingenuous, as I suggested. We debated

28 Apr 2003 : Column 73

the provision significantly in Committee and on Report, but it is still no more than a partial response to the points that we made, which at that time were resisted by the Government. Before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made its recommendations, the Minister was not prepared to accept the points that I made. I have here protocol A of the Nice treaty, which deals with the enlargement of the European Union, and which, in article 2, sets out the provisions concerning the European Parliament. The Minister rightly says that it is perfectly possible that a number of countries may decide—they would be wise to do so—to vote against the proposals in a referendum, but the fact remains that article (2)(3) states:

"If the total number of members referred to in paragraph 2 is less than 732, a pro rata correction shall be applied to the number of representatives to be elected in each Member State, so that the total number is as close as possible to 732, without such a correction leading to the number of representatives to be elected in each Member State being higher than that provided for in Article 190(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community".

However, it then goes on to say:

"The Council shall adopt a decision to that effect."

In other words, protocol A already prescribes the manner and vires of the decision.

The amendment, which refers to an anticipated change in Community law, states:

"In this Part 'change under Community law' . . . means a change made by . . . a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties; or . . . any provision of a Council Decision, or of any other instrument, made under a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties."

The provision to which the Minister refers is specific: it is a decision under article 2(3) of protocol A. It therefore surprises and concerns me that she is not prepared to stick to the words of the treaty and refer in terms to the fact that the decision on which she relies is already prescribed.

The amendment to clause 4 constitutes another substantial change, which is partly a response to points that I made in Committee and on Report, to the timing of an order. We had extensive debates, which we do not need to repeat. Although I am prepared to concede that some progress has been made, and that it is the job of Government and Parliament to respond to reasonable points that the Opposition and other parties make, the provision is exceptional and objectionable. It is objectionable because it tries to deal with the fundamental point of principle that I have made throughout the proceedings on part 1.

The Lord Chancellor and the Minister as his vicarious representative on earth have provided that an order making an amendment to section 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, which prescribes procedure and the number of seats allocated to each member state,

"may be made before the provision making the relevant change has entered into force."

It may be highly convenient for those who have regard to the diktats and decrees of Brussels and the order-making powers that are incumbent on Ministers in the European Communities Act 1972 to say that the requirement to debate such matters, or at least to do so

28 Apr 2003 : Column 74

at the right time, is a waste of parliamentary time and that we have to be more realistic about that in a modern world.

As the Minister said in Committee, those who do not have a majority in Committee do not win votes. She also suggested that the outcome would be based on a European decision, and that we would not win our case on that, either.

---