NEW SCHEDULE 2 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978 (Hansard, 5 March 1998)

§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)
I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 6, line 6, leave out '6' and insert '7'.

The First Deputy Chairman
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 60, in page 6, line 10, column 2, at end insert—

'County of North East

Lincolnshire

County of North

Lincolnshire'.

§ Mr. Greenway
This group of amendments provides the Committee with a further opportunity to reflect on the 1219 proposed electoral regions in the scheme proposed by the Bill and to question again whether they are the most appropriate.
I begin with a simple question: how does anyone know? There has been no public consultation, no White Paper, no review by the boundary commission. As I reminded the Committee in an earlier debate on the number of electoral regions, the involvement of the boundary commission was thought so important by the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary that, when the House considered those matters, the then Opposition would not support the creation of additional constituencies for the European Parliament in the United Kingdom. If the involvement of the boundary commission were so important then, why is it not necessary to consult the boundary commission now?
It is conceivable that some parts of England, especially, may have been placed in the wrong region. Our argument this evening is about not size, but the regional boundaries. The Minister, like the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), on a previous occasion in Committee, will no doubt tell us that the regions chosen by the Government are in effect the regions of the Government offices, which were introduced by the previous Government. However, it was not proposed that those regions should become electoral regions for the European Parliament. The previous Government's view is not a mandate for the imposition of the map for electoral purposes. There could be numerous examples of inappropriate boundaries. In the amendments, we have selected two examples.
The first concerns North and North East Lincolnshire. As a result of local government boundary commission changes, we have got rid of the county of Humberside and we have a unitary authority containing both North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, and Lincolnshire county council. Why is it appropriate to keep North and North East Lincolnshire with Yorkshire and to call that region Yorkshire and The Humber, and not to put North and North East Lincolnshire in with the rest of Lincolnshire, where we believe it would be more appropriately placed?
In an earlier debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) even questioned whether Lincolnshire ought to be in the East Midlands, and whether it should more appropriately be placed in the Eastern England electoral region. One can understand why. It is a largely rural county, which would be better placed with rural counties such as Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire.
We think—I ask the Minister seriously to consider this—that, having got rid of a boundary for local government, reinstating that boundary for the electoral regions for the European Parliament is bound to cause confusion in the minds of electors. That confusion will be all the greater because North East Lincolnshire, especially, is part of the Lincolnshire and Humberside South European parliamentary constituency. The MEP who represents those areas now will not be able to represent all of them in future, if she is successful in the election, because some of them will be in Yorkshire.
My second example relates to Cumbria. It is valid to ask whether Cumbria should be in the North West or the North East. Given Government statistical regions in 1220 the past, Cumbria has always been linked with Northumbria and Durham as part of the north. Indeed, Cumbria forms part of the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority.

§ Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness)
Not true.

§ Mr. Greenway
Before the debate took place, I took the opportunity of telephoning the office of the chairman of the authority on that point.

§ Mr. Hutton
If the hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would realise that the south of the county, in the area which I represent, is part of the North West regional health authority.

§ Mr. Greenway
The hon. Gentleman is right in that a tiny part of south Cumbria is in the North West RHA, but the major part of Cumbria, certainly in geographical terms, is in the Northern and Yorkshire RHA. Those boundaries do not reflect many other parts of public life such as the provision of water services, electricity and other energy supplies. As we discovered in a recent debate, there are media boundaries. Cumbria is covered by BBC North.

§ Mr. Hutton
Not true.

§ Mr. Greenway
It is true.

§ Mr. Hutton
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Greenway
No. I am not giving way. We want to make progress. Again, one has checked this out.
The Government have made no attempt to discover local preference. How does anyone know where Cumbria would prefer to be in the proposed electoral regions? No one was asked. What if the Government, decide to change the regional boundaries? How many people, even in Cumbria, know what is happening? As I have said, there has been no consultation. That is a major deficiency in the Bill.
I presume that the Minister will speak to Government amendments Nos. 30 to 32. The amendments reflect some drafting deficiencies. I suspect that the problems with Sussex and Telford and The Wrekin are understandable, but it is rather surprising to find that the Home Secretary's local authority boundary—Blackburn with Darwen—is shown in the Bill as Blackburn. The right hon. Gentleman appears not to know the name of his local authority, or perhaps his departmental officials did not know.
There are serious shortcomings in the Bill, which we have sought to address by tabling amendments. There has been no consultation on boundaries and the boundary commission has not been involved. There is no provision for review and—

§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)
I am intrigued. I have listened carefully and I yield to no one in my ignorance of the north-west. However, to what degree has the hon. Gentleman consulted the people of 1221 Cumbria before prescribing a different system from that which he prescribed when in government for the regional offices?

§ Mr. Greenway
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. There has been no consultation by anyone. The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition should have consulted, but right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches are the Government. There should have been a boundary commission review. There is not even any provision for such a review after the first elections take place next year. Nothing in the Bill provides a mechanism for change. For that reason, we believe that it is correct—

§ Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield)
The hon. Gentleman has told us why he believes that the regions that have been chosen may be inappropriate. Does he accept that, for the purposes of European parliamentary elections—as far as I am aware, those elections are what the Bill is about—it could be relevant to match those boundaries with the regions that are responsible for the distribution of European funds?

§ Mr. Greenway
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. The Government have imposed regions upon us but have failed to give the Committee proper justification for the regional electoral boundaries that are set out in the schedule and elsewhere. Furthermore, the Minister of State, Home Office did not give a satisfactory answer when the Committee discussed those matters previously.
The Under-Secretary has a new opportunity to offer the Committee a more convincing explanation. In particular, we invite the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee why he thinks that North and North East Lincolnshire should be part of Yorkshire and why Cumbria should be in the North West region and not in the North East. As far as we are aware, there has been no consultation with voters in those areas. I cannot recall any previous occasion when such electoral boundaries were imposed by Government diktat without proper public consultation.

§ Mr. Hutton
I wish to correct the misapprehension under which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is clearly labouring, about Cumbria and its position in the United Kingdom. It is not true, as I tried to tell him, that Cumbria is regulated by the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. Neither is it true that only a "tiny part" of Cumbria, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, is outside the Northern and Yorkshire RHA. Instead, we are talking about two parliamentary constituencies. As the hon. Gentleman will know, representing as he does one of the largest constituencies in the United Kingdom, those two constituencies cannot be described as representing a tiny geographical area.
Neither is it true that Cumbria is part of the northern region in terms of its utilities. My constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) receive water from North West Water, and we receive electricity from the North Western electricity board, both of which are north-west-based utility companies. It is clear that the hon. Member for Ryedale has not done his homework satisfactorily. That undermines some of his arguments.
The hon. Gentleman's amendments are misguided and inappropriate for Cumbria, for two principal reasons. The hon. Gentleman implied that it is the Conservative view 1222 that Cumbria should be part of the North East. That assumes that there is a consensus in Cumbria about which region we should be in, whether the North West or the North East. There is no such consensus in Cumbria, and certainly not in my constituency. I suspect that that is the position in some of the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends in Cumbria, whose support for the amendments has been noticeably absent.
The hon. Gentleman has done something of a disservice to his argument in criticising the Government for lack of consultation when the Conservative party has undertaken no such consultation of its own. The Opposition, without any consultation, propose that a county should be moved from one region to another. That is superficial and unhelpful.
For another reason, the amendments are mistaken. They are divisive and they rake over previous ground when no useful purpose can be served by so doing.
A decision must be taken. As I have said, my remarks are directed to Cumbria and not other parts of the United Kingdom. It is clear that the Government had to take a decision on the region to which Cumbria should belong. It is worth saying, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), that, when it comes to European issues and the Government office of the north west—of which, under the Conservative Government, Cumbria formed a part, it being part of that office's remit—Cumbria is part of the north-west as a whole. Notwithstanding the sensitivities of other areas of Cumbria, there is a strong rational case for Cumbria to be in the North West region.
The amendments are unhelpful and do not serve a useful purpose. They rake over ground where a decision has had to be taken. Worse than that, they distract attention in Cumbria, and in the north-west as a whole, from the future. There is no doubt—look at how regional development agencies and the European Union are evolving—that the best way for Cumbria to have an effective voice in Europe, Parliament and elsewhere is for Cumbrian MEPs to be part of the North West region. That is my view. It is also the strong view of my constituents. If the amendments are pressed to a vote, I look forward to voting against them.

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that there was confusion in the Government's mind when they drafted schedule 1, and referred to Government amendment. No. 32, which proposes to change the name of the county of The Wrekin to Telford and The Wrekin.
Before the Committee is invited to vote on the amendments, will the Minister say exactly what the Government have in mind for the county, because what is proposed is confusing? The original proposal to refer to The Wrekin as a county under the electoral arrangements was intelligible in the sense that The Wrekin district council will, on 1 April, become a unitary authority. However, the situation is further confused. If the Minister proposes to call the new county Telford and The Wrekin, he must bear it in mind that the name "The Wrekin" also applies to a Westminster parliamentary constituency. Notwithstanding the fact that The Wrekin district council becomes a unitary authority on 1 April, the parliamentary constituency of The Wrekin will remain part of the administrative area of the county of Shropshire. One 1223 would have thought that the original terminology was probably correct. The proposed amendment will simply add to the confusion.
The people of Shropshire who live in the parliamentary constituency of The Wrekin believe that they are, for administrative purposes, in the county of Shropshire. If the amendment is passed, the people living in the parliamentary constituency of The Wrekin will be very confused indeed.
Can the Minister clarify exactly what was in his mind when he proposed the amendment?

§ Mr. Damian Green (Ashford)
I have followed the debate with particular interest, and some care. I am not surprised that hon. Members disagree severely about the relative proportionality of d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague, about modifying Sainte-Lague and so on. I am fascinated to discover that the Committee can disagree over which television stations people in Cumbria watch, and which health authorities cover which areas. The regional boundaries that the Government are trying to draw—for electoral purposes in particular, and therefore for purposes of identification—are inevitably artificial.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said that decisions have to be made. If the best that can be said is, "You have to define a boundary, so you have to take a decision," that tells us that the definitions in the Government's amendments are artificial, open to controversy and therefore open to improvement, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).

§ Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle)
I am confused about the Conservatives' position on Cumbria. The two Conservative MPs for Cumbria support the North West. My own feeling is that the Conservative party's amendment has been moved for political gain. The Conservatives believe that they will gain seats by putting Cumbria in the North East.

§ Mr. Green
I should not wish to comment on the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in moving the amendment, except to say that they would have been for the best. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with his hon. Friends on the Government Benches, that merely illustrates my point that the Government are confused. They are not sure where all parts of Cumbria properly belong. Any division that they try to draw is inherently artificial. Therefore, the regions have no validity.
The amendments illustrate a wider point. If the Government are seeking to introduce a proportional system for the elections and are getting into such trouble in defining the regions—not just their size but the boundaries—I am not sure why they did not start with a national list system. If they want a fully proportional system, that is available through national lists. The Government destroyed the constituency link anyway, so they may as well have a national list. The Government could have avoided the problems that they have caused themselves through those inadequate boundaries. Indeed, it would be easier to preserve proportionality, if the 1224 Government regard that as all-important, with a national rather than a regional list. I should welcome the Minister's comments on why the Government did not accept the logic of their own position. Although Opposition Members would not accept it, perhaps the Government should have done so.
Of all the points raised so far, possibly the weakest is that the Government's lack of consultation in creating regional boundaries is justified because the Opposition did not consult before tabling the amendments. Apart from the naivety of suggesting that, with the full resources available to the Government, which allow them to consult, there is an equivalent responsibility on the Opposition parties, we oppose the Bill. It is not our responsibility to make it perfect. We are trying, through the amendments, to make it slightly better than it is, but to suggest that every Opposition party should run its own consultation exercise on a bad Bill introduced by the Government is simply absurd. I hope that the Minister will not try to support that line of argument.
We also heard the argument that the regions are sensible because they broadly coincide with the regions covered by the Government offices, and that that will help MEPs to act on behalf of their constituents. That would be a logical argument had the Government preserved the constituency link. The idea that MEPs representing a wide region will act en bloc, across party, is absurd. In the South East, for example, much of the competition for European funds will be inside the region. They will not be looking only for money to go to a particular region. Distribution within the region will be equally important.

§ Mr. Syms
The Government have already crossed the regional boundaries, because the North West region covers Merseyside and the North West. They have already accepted the argument and are not keeping strictly to the regional boundaries.

§ Mr. Green
My hon. Friend is completely right. It is merely one more illustration of the fact that, even under the Government's terms, the Bill is defective.
I am simply attempting to address the points, which seem rather weak, made by hon. Members on the Government Benches. In practical terms, MEPs in the various regions will have to compete with each other if they have a constituency to represent, but they will not have a constituency. It will not be like existing MEPs, who, to some extent, try to replicate the job that we in the House do—represent the people of a particular area. The job of an MEP would be different if the constituency link were broken, so it is invalid to argue that electoral regions should coincide with regions covered by Government offices.
The Government's proposed system is deeply flawed. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale would improve the system slightly, but would not make it acceptable and democratic, and would not improve the job or the job description of MEPs. Nevertheless, I support them, because they would ameliorate some of schedule's worst effects.

§ Mr. Allan
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that confusion would be reduced if the lump of Humberside that lies south of the River Humber were taken out of the Yorkshire and The Humber 1225 region and put into another. Although Humberside was unpopular as a local government unit, it was recognised as an economic unit by the previous Government, who created the region of Yorkshire and Humberside. The hon. Gentleman's proposition does not make sense: taking a lump out of a region covered by a Government office would enhance confusion, not reduce it.
I would lend support, however, to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there should be an independent review after the election, and hope that one will take place. Issues that arise during the election should be considered subsequently by an independent body, such as the boundary commission, but we are up against a deadline. The boundaries of the Government offices for the regions make most sense. Under the Bill, the North West and Merseyside regions have been merged—lumps were not taken out of one and put elsewhere, which would have caused a problem.
Comments were made about the fact that MEPs currently work en bloc, and it was suggested that they might work against each other. That would be disastrous, and we want the regions to be integral precisely to avoid that problem. We do not want half a dozen MEPs going off in different directions and losing European funds in the process: MEPs and their regional development agencies must speak with one voice to secure funds for the region.

§ Mr. Gill
People living in Gibraltar will be disappointed that my two amendments have not been selected for debate. They will think that the Minister has been leaned on by Foreign Office Ministers to ensure that the 18,000 people living there are not enfranchised for European Parliament elections.

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I would not want the Minister to make any mention of which amendments have and have not been selected for debate.

§ Mr. George Howarth
I accept your ruling, Mr. Martin. The hon. Gentleman will have to find other ways in which to raise that matter, which has already been discussed.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) let the cat out of the bag. Conservative Members have learnt nothing, and the public think that they are completely out of touch. It is no good the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) waving his hands in the air. It was silly of the hon. Gentleman to say that MEPs from the same region may not co-operate. In the House and in the European Parliament, Members of all parties co-operate for the good of their constituents. I hope that he did not mean what he said, and that he accepts that after the next election, MEPs, whatever party they represent and whatever list they have been on, will automatically work for the good of their communities, as we all do.

§ Mr. Green
My point was that the Government are breaking the constituency link. MPs work together 1226 because we have constituency interests, but breaking the constituency link will change that for the European Parliament.

§ Mr. Howarth
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has corrected the impression that he gave.

§ Mr. Gill
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Howarth
I shall give way when I have finished my point. The hon. Member for Ashford, perhaps inadvertently, created the clear impression that he did not expect MEPs from the same region to co-operate. If he is saying that he did not mean that, I accept it.

§ Mr. Gill
rose—

§ Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead)
rose—

§ Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)
rose—

§ Mr. Howarth
I am inundated with requests, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman first, because he was the first to ask.

§ Mr. Gill
The Minister said that MEPs will work hard for their constituents, as Westminster MPs do, but he has no grounds for saying that. What evidence has he that that will be the case, given that the close link between MEP and constituency will no longer exist? I invite the Minister to answer a question that has not been dealt with: how will the electorate get rid of an MEP whom they consider to be unsatisfactory? That has been within their gift, because they could organise constituency affairs to get rid of an MEP, which they will not be able to do under the list system.

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go wide of the amendments. The question how to get rid of an elected representative has nothing to do with the group of amendments before the Committee.

§ Mr. Howarth
I am not clear what point the hon. Gentleman was trying to make that has not already been debated.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that we are proposing a regional list system. We are not saying that such a system is the same as a constituency system. It will become more apparent as time goes on that Europe operates at a regional level, and that we should not pretend that cobbling together seven, eight or nine parliamentary constituencies will give an MEP a constituency that makes sense. The truth is that it is currently impossible for MEPs to represent the interests of individual constituents in the same way as Members of this House when their constituencies contain 500,000 people.

§ Miss McIntosh
I am concerned by the inferences that have been drawn from comments made to the Minister by my hon. Friends. Conservative Members are concerned that breaking the constituency link will have consequences for how future MEPs will behave. People who have been elected to Parliament or to the European 1227 Parliament, in which I have the honour to serve, have a code of conduct and etiquette. Representatives from other member states who are on the same side and of the same nationality have no constituency link and no code of behaviour. How will future MEPs work together without treading on each other's toes, and how will they behave towards the media and their own party?

§ Mr. Howarth
The hon. Lady has direct experience of these matters, but I do not believe that we are letting loose on the country a horde of MEPs who are about to tear each other limb from limb. Whether they are elected from a list or as an independent, and whichever party they represent, those people will co-operate sensibly. I do not share the hon. Lady's gloom.

§ Mrs. May
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Howarth
Yes, but then I should make progress.

The First Deputy Chairman
Before the hon. Lady intervenes, I remind hon. Members that we are debating electoral regions. The amendments propose taking part of those regions out of the equation. Therefore, we would be going far too wide if we were to discuss the conduct of elected MEPs after the European elections.

§ Mrs. May
I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Martin, and I shall endeavour to keep within the rules that you have just set out. Does the Minister accept that some of the electoral regions that will be created under the Bill are so large that there will be distinct differences within them? The South East, which will be represented by 11 MEPs, includes my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). It is clear from the Government office for the south east that the region is so large that it will be difficult to represent every interest. For example, Kent and the Thames valley have different interests and Thames valley councils are increasingly working together rather than as part of the south-east. Does the Minister accept that that problem may arise?

§ Mr. Howarth
I shall return to that point, which was raised in a different way by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan).
It has already been explained to the Committee how the electoral regions provided for in the Bill came about. As has already been conceded, they are the regions that are served by the Government offices for the regions, with the single exception of Merseyside, which includes my constituency. Merseyside is too small to be a region on its own, so it has been combined with the North West. Some hon. Members may be aware of the origins of the exception for Merseyside, which would take too long to explain now.
When the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was Secretary of State, he created a particular way in which to deal with the problems that existed in Merseyside at the time. The Government office for Merseyside developed from that. The regional development agencies that will be created by the Regional 1228 Development Agencies Bill, which has just completed its consideration in Committee, will have exactly the same regional boundaries. Many of the European issues will be dealt with by regional development agencies and there is a clear cross-interest in respect of matters concerning MEPs and regional development agencies.
We deliberately selected regions that were well known and well established so that there could be no suggestion that electoral boundaries were being manipulated for party advantage. Let me say to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who skirted around the issue, that it was not appropriate for the boundary commission to decide the boundaries because they were already well established. The boundary commission has great expertise and does a very good job in trying to average out the size of constituencies, while reflecting the interests of different communities within constituencies. However, that is not an appropriate skill in these circumstances as we are dealing with a regional system.
The boundaries were established by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and confirmed by the Conservative Government in 1993. Conservative Members now allude to one or two anomalies that should be put right, particularly in Cumbria, Yorkshire and Humberside, but a great deal must have happened since 1993 for them to say that the entire system should be changed. I am confident that Cumbria will be well served as part of the North West electoral region.

§ Mr. Martlew
It should also be considered that Cumbria has never had its own MEP. It was always represented by the MEP for Cumbria and Lancashire, North, so there is probably some logic in my hon. Friend's argument. However, I would find it offensive if the same argument were used in respect of regional government as there is less enthusiasm for being part of the North West in the northern part of the county than in the southern part. In respect of Europe, we have always been connected to the north-west, but in respect of regional government and unitary authorities, the logical approach would be to include the north of the county in the north-east and the south of the county in the north-west.

§ Mr. Howarth
I can assure my hon. Friend that at this stage, I am not addressing what might happen in any future system of regional government. I recognise his knowledge, but no decisions have been made.
In respect of Cumbria, the argument put by the hon. Member for Ryedale was completely demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who showed through his knowledge of his own part of the county the appropriateness of what is proposed rather than the Opposition's amendments. Similarly, I believe that people who live in North and North-East Lincolnshire will be well served as part of Yorkshire and The Humber. Although the county of Humberside no longer exists, over the years, and helped by the existence of the Humber bridge, close ties—both economic and otherwise—have been built up across the river. The experience of the Government offices for the regions has shown that Cumbria sits well in the North West region, while the region of Yorkshire and The Humber is well established.
The Opposition have argued that rural interests will not be represented properly in areas with large urban concentrations. In a proportional electoral system such as 1229 we are proposing in the Bill, all votes count. Targeting is no longer an appropriate campaign strategy. It is, therefore, in the interests of all parties, in order to maximise their vote across a region, to ensure that they achieve a geographical balance in the composition of their lists so that all parts of a region are equally represented. Similarly, once elected, MEPs simply cannot afford to neglect any part of their electorate.

§ Mr. Gill
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Howarth
No. The hon. Gentleman has spoken several times in the debate and I have already given way to him.
I have said that the regions in the Bill—including the North West, which encompasses Cumbria, and Yorkshire and The Humber—are the standard administrative regions used by the European Union for all manner of purposes. It therefore makes good sense to use the same regions for electing MEPs.
A number of hon. Members asked whether, at some point in future, it might be appropriate to reconsider the boundaries. That option is always open to Parliament, and if Parliament wished to do so after the application of the new procedures, it would not be out of the question. However, it would have to be on the basis that there was something wrong with the existing regions, and I do not believe that to be the case. There is no good case for departing from well-established existing boundaries, as Opposition Members accepted as recently as five years ago.
Finally, the three Government amendments are simple drafting amendments which make no substantive alteration to the Bill.
In answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), a number of newly created local authority areas have adopted new names. Perhaps I should point out, as the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of it, that The Wrekin has decided to change its name to Telford and The Wrekin, and for that reason, we have tabled an amendment to the schedule. We are merely reflecting a decision that has been made locally. We have consistently used in the Bill the names that are used or are about to be used in the local authority areas.

§ Mrs. May
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Howarth
I will give way briefly, but I want to make progress.

§ Mrs. May
I am grateful to the Minister; I have a very brief point. I hope that he will not forget the question that I asked earlier. I have been listening hard and I do not think that he has responded. Does he accept that large regions, such as the South East, will have diverse interests in their different parts? That may be a problem for Members of the European Parliament trying to represent the whole region.

§ Mr. Howarth
I have covered that point in two ways. First, it is possible for elected representatives to represent the diverse interests of a region. Our constituencies show that. There is a substantial rural part of my constituency as well as a highly urban area. Secondly, it is open to Parliament to revisit the issue, although I do not think that that will be necessary for some time.
1230 I am sure that the Committee will have no difficulty in accepting Government amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32. I do not intend to detain us any further on that. I urge the Committee to reject amendments Nos. 59 to 67.

§ Mr. Greenway
I assure the Committee that we had no intention of being divisive when tabling our amendments. The purpose was to question and test the evidence of popular support for the regional boundaries and their appropriateness. The debate has shown that they are artificial and that at the margins there is no consensus.

§ Mr. Hutton
The Conservatives imposed them.

§ Mr. Greenway
Yes, but we did so for a different reason from that in the Bill. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) put his finger on the issue. There is a lack of consensus in various sub-regions about which region they belong to. If the Government accept the regional boundaries that we proposed for a wholly different reason—the setting up of regional offices—and say that they are cast in tablets of stone, not just for European elections, but for regional development agencies and, eventually, regional government, without the opportunity for a proper review, we shall continue to oppose them. Proper consultation is needed.
Given that the hour is pressing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.