HL Deb 23 January 1992 vol 534 cc1014-7

7.30 p.m.

Viscount Astorrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said, My Lords, there are two draft orders before you this evening; of these, one affects two European parliamentary constituencies in England and the other seven European parliamentary constituencies in Scotland.

The purpose of the two orders is the same—to ensure that the next European parliamentary elections are fought on the appropriate boundaries. The European parliamentary elections Act 1978, as amended, requires that European parliamentary constituencies, or EPCs as I shall call them, are made up of whole parliamentary constituencies. When the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions have completed a review of parliamentary constituencies and an order is made implementing their recommendations, the commissions are obliged to consider what effect the changes in constituency boundaries have on EPC boundaries and to conduct what is called a supplementary review of the EPCs concerned.

The last changes to EPC boundaries were made in February 1989 before the European Parliamentary elections in June of that year. Since then, both the English and the Scottish Boundary Commissions have carried out interim reviews which affect the boundaries of European parliamentary constituencies. The purpose of these orders is to realign the EPC boundaries with the boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies which comprise them.

The background to the English order is as follows. In February 1990 the English commission completed an interim review of the constituencies of Buckingham and Milton Keynes. This has resulted in alterations in the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies which also affect two EPCs, Bedfordshire South and Oxford and Buckinghamshire. In that review the creation of the new parliamentary constituency of Milton Keynes South West involved the transfer of three wards from the Buckingham constituency into the new constituency. The number of electors involved was 16,523.

The commission's provisional recommendation was that the European parliamentary constituency boundary should be redrawn to include the whole of the Milton Keynes South West constituency within the Bedfordshire South EPC. Hence the whole of the borough of Milton Keynes would be within one EPC. In consequence of this the commission also recommended that the new EPC be named Bedfordshire South and Milton Keynes. Not a single representation was received objecting to the proposed new boundary.

There were, however, several objections to the proposed name of the Bedfordshire South and Milton Keynes EPC and this necessitated the holding of a local inquiry. This was held on 4th April 1991, presided over by Mr. Michael Harrison QC, as assistant commissioner.

At that inquiry the assistant commissioner considered both the current and proposed names for the EPC and a number of alternatives that were suggested. He recommended that the name North Chilterns was the least unsatisfactory. His recommendation was accepted by the commission and this is the name proposed in its report and in the order before your Lordships' House today.

Turning now to the Scottish order, this simply gives effect at the European level to the adjustments to parliamentary constituency boundaries which your Lordships approved on 25th October 1990. The source of these adjustments is the slight alterations which are made from time to time to the boundaries of local government areas. It is important to keep all of these boundaries in alignment with one another but on this occasion only some 500 electors are affected across the seven EPCs and the proposals have generated no comment from either Members of Parliament or from the general public.

These orders implement the recommendations of the two commissions in full and substitute the new EPCs for the existing ones. Once the draft Orders in Council are approved and made by Her Majesty in Council, the new boundaries will come into full effect at the European parliamentary election to be held in 1994. I commend these orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Viscount Astor.)

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I am not going to oppose these orders. The reason is that they are based on the good and well-tried British system of elections; that is, that the elections will be based on parliamentary constituencies and that the Member will represent real people in the European Parliament. That is unlike some other European countries where the representatives are party hacks rather than direct representatives of the people. Therefore, I shall not oppose the orders tonight, although the noble Viscount may know that I am not in favour of a directly elected European Parliament.

I voted against the Bill when it came before the other place. I resigned from government because a three-line Whip was imposed which I was not prepared to obey. I am not in favour of a directly elected Parliament in Europe. If there were to be a Parliament at all, I would very much prefer that the representatives there, as was previously the case before direct elections, were responsible to the national parliaments which could keep an eye on what they were doing and see that they did not become too uppity. At the moment some of the representatives are getting a little uppity. Some of them believe that this Parliament and the other national parliaments should be subordinate to the European Parliament.

I believe that I have already made the point that our constituency system is a very good one. It makes sure that the representatives in the European Parliament represent real people. The reason why I am speaking tonight is that I have a very nasty fear that before long either the European Parliament or the Commission will say, "It is not good enough that the United Kingdom should elect its representatives to the European Parliament by one method and other countries elect them by another".

The European Parliament may very well seek to impose on this country a standard method of electing people to the European Parliament by virtue of proportional representation which is perhaps not based on the representation of real people. I hope I can have the assurance of the noble Viscount that the Government will resist that to the bitter end. I doubt whether the noble Viscount will be able to give me that assurance, but it would be nice to have it. It is an interesting point to raise. I support the orders for the reasons I have mentioned. Long may these orders continue to be brought before another place and this House.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, having heard the excellent explanation for the two orders by the noble Viscount, it is not my intention to say much at all. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Stoddart supports the orders, but, having said that, I do not necessarily support what he has said on other matters. Tonight we are dealing with the very simple matter of two supplementary reviews which refer to England and Scotland and are in accordance with the European Assembly Elections Act 1978.

As far as the Opposition are concerned we want to be satisfied that there is nothing at all in the orders which in any way affects the position of the 1978 Act. I am glad that the noble Viscount has stressed that the number of constituencies in the different parts of the United Kingdom remains unchanged as far as the European elections are concerned and the fact that the constituencies must comprise whole parliamentary constituencies. I am satisfied about those matters.

We welcome the orders because they comply with the 1978 Act and carry out the provisions that we require not only as regards the redistribution of European constituencies but all constituencies. I hope that approval is given to the two orders.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I have a slight feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has just spoken would not wholly associate himself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I have news for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I fear that he will not get a wholly satisfactory answer to the question that he has put to the noble Viscount.

These orders are entirely reasonable. I am tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, down the interesting avenue that he was exploring a few moments ago, but I shall resist that temptation. The orders are perfectly reasonable and we support them.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support for the orders from the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Harris of Greenwich. All I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is that we have heard a great deal recently about the unity of view of the Labour Party on Europe. If his views demonstrate the unity of view in the Labour Party, I hate to think what the views would be if there were to be any disagreement.

On Question, Motion agreed to.