The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Dr. William
McCrea
Chapman,
Ben
(Wirral, South)
(Lab)
Clarke,
Mr. Charles
(Norwich, South)
(Lab)
Heppell,
Mr. John
(Nottingham, East)
(Lab)
Hesford,
Stephen
(Wirral, West)
(Lab)
Hewitt,
Ms Patricia
(Leicester, West)
(Lab)
Howarth,
David
(Cambridge)
(LD)
Howell,
John
(Henley)
(Con)
Hurd,
Mr. Nick
(Ruislip-Northwood)
(Con)
Khan,
Mr. Sadiq
(Tooting)
(Lab)
Laing,
Mrs. Eleanor
(Epping Forest)
(Con)
Michael,
Alun
(Cardiff, South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
Öpik,
Lembit
(Montgomeryshire)
(LD)
Prentice,
Bridget
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Justice)
Taylor,
Mr. Ian
(Esher and Walton)
(Con)
Turner,
Dr. Desmond
(Brighton, Kemptown)
(Lab)
Wishart,
Pete
(Perth and North Perthshire)
(SNP)
Mike Clark, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Eleventh
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 9
July
2008
[Dr.
William McCrea in the
Chair]
Draft European Parliament (Number of MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2008
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget
Prentice): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft European Parliament (Number of
MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and
Gibraltar) Order
2008.
It
is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr.
McCreaI think that it is the first time that I have done so and
I look forward to it, as I am sure the rest of the Committee
does.
The
order relates to the European parliamentary elections to be held in
June 2009 and is an important part of our preparations for those
elections. It provides for the reduction in the number of UK Members of
the European Parliament from 78 to 72, as a result of the accession of
Bulgaria and Romania. The order also sets out how the new number of
MEPs will be divided between the electoral regions in the United
Kingdom. The new number of MEPs, as distributed by the order, will
apply in the elections to the European Parliament in 2009.
May I give a
little background on how and why the order is necessary? The treaty of
Luxembourg, which came into force on 1 January 2007, provided for the
accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union and resulted in
the Union being enlarged to 27 states. After the
negotiations, in which the United Kingdom played a full part, it was
agreed that the Parliament would have a maximum of 736 MEPs and that
the number of MEPs allocated to the existing member states would be
reduced to accommodate the new accession
states.
The
treaty of Luxembourg gave effect to the intent of the treaty of Nice
that 12 new states should join the European Union. That has resulted in
an expanded Union of 27 states. Ten of those states joined by virtue of
the Athens treaty, which came into force on 1 May 2004. The Luxembourg
treaty provided for the accession of the remaining
two.
As
I am sure that the Committee knows, the Government fully support the
enlargement of the European Union. However, I am equally sure that hon.
Members would agree that it makes sense to put some kind of limit on
the total number of MEPs elected by states, so that the European
Parliament does not become too unwieldy. A necessary consequence of
that is that the number of MEPs elected by existing member states,
including by us, must be reduced.
Parliament has
given its approval to the Luxembourg treaty. The order implements the
revised allocation of 72 MEPs, which is provided for in that treaty.
Under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, for the purposes
of elections to the European Parliament, the United Kingdom is divided
up into 12 electoral regions. England is divided into nine electoral
regions, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each constitute a
single electoral region. The 2002 Act specifies how many MEPs each
region
has.
The
European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 provides the mechanism
for implementing any change under Community law to the total number of
MEPs to be elected in the United Kingdom. Where there is such a change,
the Secretary of State for Justice will ask the independent Electoral
Commission to make recommendations on how the new number of UK MEPs
should be distributed between the regions. The 2003 Act specifies that,
in making a recommendation, the Electoral Commission must ensure that
each electoral region is allocated at least three MEPs and that the
ratio of electors to MEPs is, as near as possible, the same in each
electoral region. The Act provides that the Electoral
Commissions recommendation must be reflected in the order
implementing the change. There is no discretion to reject or modify
that
recommendation.
In
January last year, the Secretary of State for Justice asked the
commission to make such a recommendation in respect of the reduced
number of seats. The Electoral Commission made its recommendation at
the end of July, in accordance with the 2003 Act. That recommendation
was laid before Parliament in November 2007. The method used by the
Electoral Commission was fully explained in its report and I do not
feel that I need to go into the details of that report here. However,
that method was supported by a number of expert sources, for example
the Royal Statistical Society and the Office for National
Statistics.
The
recommendation was that in six electoral regionseastern,
north-east, south-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, Wales and Northern
Irelandthe number of seats should remain unchanged, while the
other six regions would all lose a single seat. As required by the 2003
Act, the order implements the recommendations as to the distribution of
seats between electoral regions.
Article 1
contains the citation, commencement and interpretation provisions. The
order will come into force on the day after it is made, although it
will not affect the number or distribution of United Kingdom MEPs
during the current term of the European
Parliament.
Mr.
Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton) (Con): Looking at the list
and seeing the regions that will lose a seat, does the Minister think
that the reduction of one seat in Scotland is sufficient in the current
circumstances?
Bridget
Prentice: I am sure that my Scottish colleagues will feel
considerable concern at the hon. Gentlemans suggestion. The
Electoral Commission examined the issue carefully and, as I have said,
there was the statutory need to ensure that every region has at least
three MEPs. The Electoral Commission has made recommendations that
balance the difference in population across the different regions.
However, the hon. Gentleman may wish to go into further detail on
another occasion with our colleagues from Scotland on that
provision.
Article 2
amends section 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. The
order inserts into the 2002 Act the new total of 72, and substituted
subsection (3) provides for the distribution of MEPs between the
regions according to the Electoral Commissions recommendation.
The order will apply to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. As hon.
Members will know, Gibraltar was enfranchised for the purposes of
European parliamentary elections from June 2004 and has been combined
with the south-west electoral region to form a new electoral region for
European parliamentary
elections.
The
Electoral Commission has given us its support on the order; the 2003
Act required us to ask it for support. Therefore, as I said to the hon.
Member for Esher and Walton, the Electoral Commission has made a fair
and reasonable recommendation. It is never easy for colleagues to see
the reduction in representation across the UK, and a personal feeling
is almost always expressed. However, hon. Members know that the
Boundary Commission, for example, regularly considers our boundaries,
and we all take a clear and close interest in that issue. In this case,
the Electoral Commission, understanding the difficulties that reducing
the number of MEPs creates for individuals and political parties, has
come up with a fair and reasonable recommendation. On that basis, I
commend the order to the Committee.
The
Chairman: It is helpful to remind the Committee that this
debate will not revisit the principle of the reduction of the total
number of UK MEPs. It would be in order for Members to ask why certain
electoral regions rather than others have been selected to lose an MEP,
but we will conduct the debate within those
parameters.
2.39
pm
Mrs.
Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): Thank you, Dr.
McCrea, and I echo the Ministers words and say that it is a
pleasure to serve under you for the first time on this Committee. In
the same vein, I hope that the Committee will welcome my new hon.
Friend the Member for Henley, who is serving on his very first
Statutory Instrument Committee. His 40-minute speech on this matter has
taken some preparation, Dr. McCrea, and I am sure that you will look
forward to it.
I fully
accept the parameters that you have set out, Dr. McCrea, and I would
not wish to question such matters in detail. Indeed, I agree with the
Minister that the Electoral Commissions recommendation is fair
and reasonable. We accept and fully support the fact that this order
comes before us as a necessary consequence of the Luxembourg treaty,
the terms of which we agree with. I agree with the Minister that the
proportional reduction in the number of MEPs for EU member states as a
result of the accession of new member states is properwhich is
just as well, because we cannot disagree, as the law has already been
passed in that respect. Nevertheless, I have no
complaint.
Will
the Minister say why, when negotiating the Lisbon treaty, the
Government abandoned the principle under discussion and allowed the
number of British MEPs to fall to 73, while there were, for example, to
be 74 French MEPs? That is not a big difference, but, in principle, why
should there be fewer representatives from the United Kingdom and
Gibraltar than from France?
What are the Governments reasons for the French having greater
representation than Britain in the EU? In practical terms, France might
have only one more MEP, but as all Committee members know one vote can
often be the deciding factor. Therefore, it matters in
principle.
There
is a worrying disparity between the representation of small countries
and large ones, with the populations of small nations being
significantly better represented per capita. What justification would
the Government make for that situation? oes the Minister agree that the
people of the United Kingdom and Gibraltaras I will refer to it
properly in this contextshould be at least as well represented
in the EU as any other nation, however large or
small?
The
elegant nature of the Luxembourg treaty provides an unfavourable
comparison for the Lisbon treaty. How can the formula for the expansion
of the EU to include Romania and Bulgaria be so simple and
uncontroversial, when the Government pretend that future expansions
demand a treaty on the monstrous scale of Lisbon? Is it not a fiction
that Croatias accession to the EU cannot be managed in a
similar manner? We agree with the Government on the provisions of the
Luxembourg treaty, which has worked perfectly well. Why cannot the
Lisbon treaty be modelled on the Luxembourg
treaty?
Finally,
our discussion raises the issue of the unpopular proportional
representation system that the Government imposed on European
elections, probably because they wanted to keep the Liberal Democrats
happy during the negotiations on this matter in 1998. I say to the
Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for
Montgomeryshire, with whom I usually agree on many matters, that the
system by which our MEPs are now elected is undoubtedly unpopular,
because there is no proper, direct relationship between the elector and
the elected. One of the principles of democracy is that people must
know what they are doing when they vote. When they put their cross or a
number on a piece of paper, they must know what the result of doing so
will be. They must have a choice. The choice is made at present by
political parties, not by the
electorate.
Lembit
Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): I do not want to digress too
far, but the hon. Lady will of course be aware that even under the
leadership of that ghastly woman Margaret Thatcherthe
antithesis of the angel who speaks for the Conservatives
todaythe Conservatives supported proportional representation in
the 1970s but junked it as soon as they gained a majority in
1979.
Mrs.
Laing: Although I accept the hon. Gentlemans
point, I am not sure that it is a compliment to me to be called the
antithesis of Baroness Thatcher. I know that he intended no personal
insult, but I am afraid that it is not my dream to be the antithesis of
Baroness Thatcher. The policies of the Conservative party in the 1970s,
I am pleased to say, were not my responsibility, and they will not be
resurfacing.
It is a
serious point that the people casting their votes and making a decision
in an election ought to know what it means when they fill in their
ballot paper. The proportional way in which European elections are
currently constructed in our country means that people do not have a
choice, because that choice has been made by the political parties.
That puts the power in the hands of political parties, rather than in
the hands of the people.
If democracy is to work properly, the power to choose or get rid of
representatives must be simply exercised by the people and the
electorate and not by political parties. I accept that EU law demands
that that system has an element of proportionality, but it would be
possible to have a different system in the UK that restored some of the
link between the constituency and the representative and made the
elections to the European Parliament more meaningful.
It is always
my intention to try to improve the democratic system, so that it gives
the people more of a say, takes power away from the state and political
parties and ensures that democracy works properly. Having said that, on
the narrow issues on the numbers of seats, I agree with the principles
that the Minister laid down and will not seek to oppose the
order.