The
Chairman: Before we proceed, I think that it would not be
out of place to welcome the hon. Member for Henley as a new Member of
the House, as this is the first Committee on which he has
sat. 2.47
pm
Lembit
Öpik: May I add my welcome to the hon. Member for
Henley, whose election to the House I worked hard to try to prevent?
Now that peace has been restored, I am happy to welcome him to the
Committee.
Mr.
Taylor: I thought that it was the efforts of the Liberal
Democrats in Henley that ensured my hon. Friend’s
election.
Lembit
Öpik: In that case, the hon. Member for Henley owes
me a pint, which I shall look forward to getting at some point in the
future. In the spirit of cross-party decency, I welcome the hon.
Gentleman. He might find the place somewhat jocular, but it is also a
pretty warm place in which to work. I have no doubt that he will enjoy
his time
here. The
hon. Member for Epping Forest said that she was not the antithesis of
Margaret Thatcher, but if Margaret Thatcher is the Medusa, the hon.
Lady is the Joan of Arc. With regard to the quality of the country,
there is no comparison, as the hon. Lady would have saved this country
during the Thatcher era. Unfortunately, Thatcher wrecked it, but I
digress.
The
Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would return to the
order.
Lembit
Öpik: Turning to the order, I also have a declared
personal interest as the European Union has now expanded to include
Bulgaria and Romania. Romania is a country that I know and love
dearly.
Pete
Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): Tell us
more.
Lembit
Öpik: The hon. Gentleman asks me to tell the
Committee more, but I think that he knows the reasons to which I refer,
and I shall pass on his best regards to Gabriela when I see her
later.
The inevitable
consequence of the order is a change in the numbers for us and other
countries, but curiously Germany seems to maintain its 99 MEPs. The
debate is not therefore whether we reduce the numbers, but how we do
so. I observe in parenthesis that, if the Lisbon treaty had been
ratified, we would have lost none, or one MEP. That not being the case,
we have to look at the changes as they apply to the United
Kingdom. Wales
is not included in the reductions, but it suffered a loss of one MEP at
the last turn of cuts, reducing the quota of MEPs for Wales from five
to four. While accepting the inevitability of the reduction, the hon.
Member for Epping Forest may be surprised that I share one of her
concerns and have raised it within my party. Since I am alone today, I
cannot be stopped from saying that it is difficult for a small number
of Members of the European Parliament to represent colossal
geographical areas. The hon. Lady is right to raise such a
point. I
spoke to one of the Wales MEPs, who expressed almost a lament and said
with a sense of despair that it takes him seven and half hours to drive
from one end of the area that he represents to the other. I generally
share the hon. Lady’s concern about making MEPs more accessible,
psychologically and physically, to their constituents. I accept that
that is a matter for another occasion but, in fairness, we should
return to
it. I
shall leave other members of the Committee to make specific points
about the regions that are losing their MEPs. But, in anticipation of
what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire might say, I
imagine that the reduction of one MEP in Scotland will cause the same
added pressures on the remaining MEPs as has been the case in Wales. In
her summation, perhaps the Minister will speculate on whether
additional resources are available, and on what strategies can be put
in place so as not to detach further MEPs from their
constituents. Alun
Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): Does the
hon. Gentleman accept not only that MEPs must spread themselves thinly
across major territories, but that the identification with a number of
constituencies, as occurred in the past, has been reduced? Although the
system produces greater proportionality, the reduced identification
with constituencies is a considerable loss in terms of identity, and in
terms of local authorities and Members of this House being able to
identify and work with
MEPs.
Lembit
Öpik: Although it is probably not productive for us
to debate the electoral system in too much detail, it being somewhat
separated from the matter at hand, I agree with the right hon.
Gentleman. I harbour an ongoing concern about multi-seat, single
transferable vote systems, whether for Europe or elsewhere. It is not
an issue that has been resolved. Although I have asked the Minister to
provide some perspective, in fairness to her, I do not think that she
can give many words of comfort because the system makes a geographical
necessity of expansive travel and thin access to MEPs as a whole. In
addition, people tend to go to one particular MEP, perhaps for party or
personal reasons. Therefore, with regard to Wales, we are talking about
one MEP having to service people across a population of 2.9 million.
That is difficult because, in essence, the detachment
means that there is no real, easy regard for surgeries, and the MEP
becomes reactive to matters that are brought their
way.
Alun
Michael: As I represented the vast area of Mid and West
Wales in the Welsh Assembly for a time, I can confirm the nature of the
challenge to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I take it that the
greater reality that he brings to the debate about the nature of
representation will follow on into an appreciation of the disadvantages
of proportional representation, if applied without thought to the way
in which representatives connect to
communities.
Lembit
Öpik: I have said what I am about to say in public
as well, so it is not a great revelation. On an ongoing basis, I see
the multi-seat, STV challenge as having to reconnect those individuals
to the constituents whom they
represent. There
is a slight difference in the questions—that of proportionality
in the voting system, and that of large STV seats. It is the latter
that we have an issue with, not the former. There are ways around the
former, whereby one could have a fair system without necessarily
breaking the link with
constituents. As
for the proposals before us, we have to make the decision in some way.
There will inevitably be losers in various constituencies. It looks to
me as if the losers on this occasion are the list as described. I hope
that the Minister can provide some comfort on the issues that I and the
right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth have raised, but I am
not holding my breath. If the Minister is so minded, will she also
reassure us that the potential paralysis that could ensue following the
Lisbon debacle in the south of Ireland will not be allowed to thwart
the concrete benefits of the European Union as a whole? In welcoming
Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union, and accepting the
necessity for such change, I hope that we consider some of the process
issues
raised. 2.56
pm
Pete
Wishart: It is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship, Dr. McCrea. It is always good to see a representative of
a minority party chairing a Committee. I extend a Caledonian welcome to
the hon. Member for Henley, who is a new kid on the block, although he
will only have that status for two weeks, as he will be joined by a
Scottish National party Member when we overturn that 13,500 majority in
Glasgow,
East. I
oppose the order. We in the Scottish National party, and I personally,
are totally opposed to any further reduction in Scotland’s voice
in Europe. Even now, we recognise that Scotland is perhaps the poorest
served nation in representation in the European Union. If the cut goes
through, Scotland will have the same number of MEPs as Yorkshire and
the west midlands. No disrespect to those wonderful parts of England,
but they are regions, without a national Parliament, without a
Government and without national institutions. They are regions. Unlike
the west midlands and the north-west, Scotland is a
nation. Scotland
is a nation with a challenging geography. I listened to the hon. Member
for Montgomeryshire on some of the issues in Wales and the difficulties
that
Members have representing parts of Wales. However, Scotland occupies one
third of the UK land
mass. Mr.
Charles Clarke (Norwich, South) (Lab): Will the hon.
Gentleman clarify what role population should play in the decisions
taken? As my hon. Friend the Minister indicated, the advice of the
Royal Statistical Society, the Office for National Statistics and the
Electoral Commission must be based on population in such matters. Does
he think that population has a role to play in such decisions? If so,
what is
it?
Pete
Wishart: Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman makes a good
and pertinent point. I shall give him a perverse example of how
population applies. Luxembourg has a population that is less than that
of Edinburgh, but has six MEPs. Scotland will have the same number of
MEPs as Luxembourg—when it comes to population, that is totally
perverse. Population issues have a great game to play in all such
proceedings. I
come back to Scotland’s particular challenge of geography. As
well as occupying a third of the land mass of the United Kingdom, we
have the vast, lion’s share of the coastline of the United
Kingdom. We have most of the inhabited islands. Currently, seven MEPs
are expected to serve a third of the total land mass of the United
Kingdom. They are already overstretched. To have that reduced by
another one, to six, will undoubtedly make representing Scotland all
the more difficult and
perilous.
Mrs.
Laing: I wish to support the hon. Gentleman, not
specifically on the numbers in Scotland, but because his case deserves
some sympathy. The situation is that one person is expected to look
after a constituent in Dumfries and a constituent in Wick at the same
time. That is impossible. To expect someone to do that is bad for
democracy. It must be possible for us to construct a system that is
fairer, more efficient and more
democratic.
Pete
Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those remarks,
but it is even worse than that—an MEP must look after
constituents not only from Dumfries to Wick, but from Dumfries to
Lerwick. The Shetland isles are closer to Norway than to Edinburgh.
That is a situation that MEPs from Scotland find themselves in, so any
further reduction would make the job more difficult and should be
opposed. We will therefore oppose the order.
Let
us look at how other nation states handled their national assemblies
and legislatures. A good example is devolved Wallonia in Belgium, which
has a population of 3 million. I go back to the issue of population,
which the right hon. Member for Norwich, South rightly raised. Scotland
has a population of 5 million. However, Wallonia will continue to have
six MEPs—the same number as Scotland. Then, of course, there is
the Rolls-Royce of European representation: normal nation status, which
is what we aspire to in Scotland. If we look at Finland or Ireland,
they continue to have 13 MEPs, compared with Scotland’s six. We
have the same population as Finland, at 5 million, but we have a larger
population than Ireland, and a larger geography and land mass
too. Those countries will continue to have fantastic
representation, a Rolls-Royce representation, whereas we will have
inferior representation as a result of the order.
We are making
progress and becoming a normal, self-governing nation, but we recognise
that we are where we are and it is up to the UK Government to look
after Scotland’s interests. I have been disappointed with the
way that the Government have engaged in this debate. They have not
listened to the clear case that Scotland has put forward.
Why is
Scotland a special case? As well as having our own Parliament, our own
Government, and challenging geography, we have our own national
institutions: a legal system, trade unions, industry bodies. All of
those particular Scottish interests need a particular and specific
Scottish voice to put their case to the European Parliament. The
Scottish Government also have European obligations as part of their
devolved powers, so as well as having a relationship and partnership
with Members of this House, Scottish MEPs also have to have a
relationship and partnership with Members of the Scottish
Parliament.
Every single
MEP from Scotland is opposed to the reduction. They have all written to
Lord Falconer of Thoroton and the Lord Chancellor, and a delegation met
the Minister a few weeks ago to try to put the case again. I think that
the words “cold comfort” were the best summing up of that
exchange. The Scottish Government are totally opposed to any reduction.
Linda Fabiani, the Minister for Europe, has also written to the Lord
Chancellor and the Minister, putting the case that the Scottish
Government believe in the strongest possible terms that this reduction
is wrong. There are no Scottish Labour Members here
today—perhaps they are used to doing as they are told on these
issues—but it is interesting to note that the two Labour MEPs
from Scotland are also opposed to the reduction.
We have been
told that the reduction is inevitable, that primary legislation is
required for it to be changed, and that there is a process that has to
be gone through. If a process has to be gone through to reverse this,
let us do it, for goodness’ sake. Let us accept that Scotland is
a special case, acknowledge that and do what we can to reverse the
reduction. Only 10 years ago we had eight MEPs. We lost an MEP in 2004
when the accession states came in; we are now set to lose another one
because of Romania and Bulgaria coming in. That means that
Scotland’s representation in Europe will be cut by 25 per cent.
in the course of 10 years. That is at a time when we have acquired a
Parliament, when we have stronger institutions in Scotland and we have
started to be recognised as a proper nation within the European
Union.
I come back
to the point that I made when the right hon. Member for Norwich, South
made his intervention. The most outrageous examples are countries such
as Luxembourg and Malta. Luxembourg is smaller than Edinburgh and has
six MEPs. That is an MEP for every 78,000 citizens, which is like
having a parliamentary constituency here. Malta, with a population of
402,000, has five MEPs—a ratio of 80,000 citizens per
MEP—and yet the number of MEPs for the nation of Scotland is to
be cut by another one, in order to fulfil the obligations.
Neither of
the countries that I cited are scheduled for any further reductions,
which makes it even more perverse. Even examining the breakdown within
the UK, there are a few anomalies suggested in the order. You are very
lucky in that respect, Dr. McCrea, as Northern Ireland
is to have its three MEPS. That is the deal and there is nothing wrong
with that whatever. Wales is not to be touched and the English regions
such as the eastern region, the north-east and the south-east, and even
Yorkshire and the Humber, will suffer no cuts in their representation
whatever. Scotland has been dealt a hard and heavy blow by the
Electoral Commission’s recommendations. I hope that
the Government will review the statutory criteria for making these
cuts. I cannot support any measure that cuts Scotland’s voice in
Europe. I will ask the Committee to oppose the order and will certainly
oppose it
myself.
3.5
pm
| 
