Bridget
Prentice: I knew that this would be a lively debate once I
saw that there was Scottish representation. The reason why no Scottish
Labour MPs are here is that they were not selected by the Committee of
Selection. If they had been, no doubt they would have had something to
say. I think that the selection is done by computer these days so it is
even out of the hands of the
Whips. I
apologise to the hon. Member for Henley. I should have welcomed him to
the Committee at the outset. I share in the felicitations that he has
received from other Committee members. I hope that he will serve on
further statutory instruments and that he will find them equally
mesmerising. I
am grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest for understanding and
accepting that, despite the difficulties that come with any reduction
in representation, this is a fair, reasonable and logical proposal from
the Electoral Commission. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred
to the debacle of the Lisbon treaty in the south of Ireland. That was
an interesting turn of phrase to describe the Republic of Ireland. I am
not sure that the Irish consider it to be a debacle. I suspect they
consider it to be a feisty debate that will no doubt continue for some
time.
Lembit
Öpik: I was making a morally neutral observation
about the treaty. For the avoidance of doubt, I was simply pointing out
that the vote in the south of Ireland has changed pretty much
everything about it. While respecting democratic processes, we must not
allow that vote to prevent the good work that is going on in the EU. I
was simply asking for confirmation that there will not be paralysis on
the basis of that one
vote.
Bridget
Prentice: I am grateful for that clarification. I assure
the hon. Gentleman that there will not be paralysis in the debate. I
spent yesterday discussing some important issues in the Justice and
Home Affairs Council. The Irish made a helpful contribution in support
of our position on the child rescue alert and achieving consensus
across Europe on ways of highlighting child abduction. That will
continue. Most
of my remarks should be addressed to the hon. Member for Perth and
North Perthshire. I understand that he takes a fundamentally different
point of view from the rest of the Committee. He does not believe in
the United Kingdom, and the rest of us do. Scotland is not an
independent nation, but a part of the United Kingdom. Long may it
remain so. That is how the rest of us feel.
Pete
Wishart: I accept that we are part of the United Kingdom.
The Minister has responsibility for ensuring that Scotland gets its
fair share. Does she recognise that Scotland is a special case as a
region of the UK because it has its own Parliament, challenging
geography and its own national institutions? She is from Scotland so
she must know that it is different from other regions such as
Yorkshire.
Bridget
Prentice: I will speak about the relationship with the
Scottish Parliament in a moment. I say to the hon. Gentleman that not
only do I come from Scotland—I come from the east end of
Glasgow.
Mrs.
Laing: What are you doing
here?
Bridget
Prentice: Indeed; one may well ask
that. In
response to the hon. Gentleman, of course Scotland has different
national institutions. There were separate institutions before the
United Kingdom joined the EU and that has not changed. We take
seriously the position of Scotland when negotiating in the EU. In
response his point about the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish
Executive, we make a conscious effort to involve the devolved
Administrations in our policy formulation for Europe. It could be
argued by people in the west midlands or other parts of the English
regions that both Scotland and Wales get special treatment in terms of
being involved in formulating the policy in some respects before we go
to Europe to discuss it. We are all conscious of
that. I
accept the point that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Epping
Forest made about the challenge in geographical areas. Sometimes even a
smaller geographical area can have challenges. It is arguable that
there are challenges in London just because of its sheer density, as
opposed to the challenges the hon. Gentleman described in Scotland or
in Wales, as described by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. Those
are challenges and I am happy to discuss how we can best help MEPs deal
with them, and whether there are resources or other ways and means of
helping people to develop communications with their electorates in such
areas. I am happy to look at ways in which we can enhance that
relationship between the electorate and the MEP.
The cynics
out there might well say that whether an elector is in Lerwick,
Lewisham—
Ms
Patricia Hewitt (Leicester, West) (Lab): Or
Leicester.
Bridget
Prentice: Or Leicester—their relationship with
their MEP is tangential. Perhaps it is something that we should all
consider in more detail on another
occasion.
Lembit
Öpik: I am encouraged by what the Minister is
saying because we need to discuss this issue, which is not directly
salient to the order today. I suggest that the essence of that future
discussion will be to define the nature of the MEP’s role. It
works if the MEP is not expected to do direct constituency work. It
does not work if they are expected to represent millions of people on
the same basis as we do in this House.
Bridget
Prentice: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I am
happy to facilitate those discussions at a later
stage.
Mrs.
Laing: Does that mean that the Minister and her colleagues
in the Government will be reconsidering the way that the proportional
system works for the next European
elections?
Bridget
Prentice: No, it certainly does not mean that we will be
revisiting the proportional system for the next election. I have my own
views on it, which I am not prepared to share with the hon. Lady in
this debate, but perhaps on another
occasion.
Alun
Michael: While recognising that it is not sensible to look
for major changes to the structure within that time scale, I encourage
my hon. Friend to ensure that it is on the agenda for the longer term.
The one thing that we can all agree on is that the present situation is
not satisfactory. Rushed change is not a good idea. Both sides of the
House would welcome the review that the Minister has hinted
at.
Bridget
Prentice: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that,
because he has reminded my that this Government, possibly more than any
other in history, are keen on looking at how we can improve the
governance of the country and at constitutional change. Perhaps, as he
rightly says, we can look at the issue in a more reflective mode. As
the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, we can look at exactly what
we expect MEPs to do, in just the same way as we reflect regularly on
how we expect MPs to respond to their constituents—we had a
statement today about how we expect local government to respond
locally. All those issues are worthy of debate and I am happy to help
to take them forward.
In
conclusion, I understand the difficulties that people perceive when
reductions are made in representation, but given the statutory
formulation under which the order is being made and the fact that it is
the Electoral Commission’s recommendation, which it made in a
fair and logical fashion, I commend it to the Committee.
Question
put:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes
1.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the draft European Parliament (Number of MEPs
and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and
Gibraltar) Order
2008. Committee
rose at sixteen minutes past Three
o’clock.
| 
