HL Deb 14 February 1994 vol 552 cc18-26

Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may he for the convenience of your Lordships if we discuss also the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1994, laid before the House on 20th January, and the European Parliamentary Elections (Change to the Franchise and Qualification of Representatives) Regulations 1994, laid before the House on 2nd February. I shall deal first, if I may, with the two constituencies orders.

These two orders give effect to the recommendations, which are contained in the reports of the European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee for England and the European Parliamentary Constituencies Committee for Wales respectively. The two committees were set up under the provisions of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993. They had to determine how England and Wales should be divided so as to accommodate the additional six seats in the European Parliament, which were approved at the Edinburgh summit in December 1992.

It was agreed at that summit that the European Parliament should be enlarged. The primary reason for this was the reunification of Germany, and an extra 18 seats were allocated to Germany to take account of the increased electorate. A number of the other member states were also allocated extra seats, including six to the United Kingdom. Of these six, five have been allocated to England and one to Wales.

The two special committees were set up in July 1993. They followed, as far as possible in the time available, the practices and procedures which are used by the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions. Indeed, of the six members of the committees, five were commissioners of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions and the sixth was an assistant commissioner. Their provisional recommendations were published in September of last year, and one month was allowed for representations and counter proposals to be made. Copies of all the counter proposals and representations were placed on deposit in offices in every district in England and Wales and a further period was allowed for representations to be made about them.

The committees made their final recommendations to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary just before Christmas. In making those recommendations, they have taken account of the views which were expressed to them. At the same time, they complied with the statutory requirement which was placed on them that they should aim to recommend European Parliamentary constituencies with, as nearly as possible, equal electorates. Although, of course, the committees will not have pleased everybody, I think that they have carried out their tasks in an admirable and impartial way.

I now turn to the regulations. These regulations extend the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament to citizens of other member states of the European Union. Our present legislation relating to elections restricts the right to vote and to be a candidate to British and other Commonwealth citizens, and to citizens of the Irish Republic.

Under the terms of Article 8b.2 of the Treaty on European Union, though, citizens of the Union, who live in a member state without being a national of that state, have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament.

The draft regulations, therefore, make a number of technical amendments which extend these electoral rights to citizens of the other member states of the European Union who are resident here and who satisfy the other criteria which British citizens must satisfy. That is the overall aim of these draft regulations.

The regulations are themselves, I am afraid, long and complex. That is because our electoral legislation, very rightly, often goes into minute details of prescription and practice. Effecting even simple changes can, therefore, require a whole host of legislative minutiae, and this accounts for the complexity of the document which is before your Lordships.

The general principle of Article 8b.2 of the treaty is that non-national residents should be treated for electoral purposes in exactly the same way as are the nationals of a member state. This, too, is the main principle behind the draft regulations, and we are not introducing, of our own accord, any requirements on citizens of other member states which we do not require of our own citizens. So, for example, in order to register to vote, a citizen of another member state must have been resident in Great Britain on the qualifying date of 10th October, or 15th September for Northern Ireland, in exactly the same way as do British or other Commonwealth citizens. Similarly, citizens of other member states who wish to stand here for election to the European Parliament must conform to the same nomination procedures as have other candidates hitherto.

But one or two small differences of procedure will apply to European Union citizens. These stem from the provisions of the European Community Directive which implements Article 8b.2 of the treaty.

In connection with the directive, I repeat the regret which has already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, about the handling of this document. By a most regrettable oversight, the directive in its draft form was not deposited with the Select Committee on the European Communities. That was not, of course, intentional but was, I am afraid, due to human error. I can only say that I apologise to the House, to the Select Committee on the European Communities and to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, its chairman, for this error, which was wholly unintentional. I regret that this error should have deprived your Lordships of the opportunity to consider the provisions of the directive while they were still at the stage of being proposals. I apologise that that should have occurred and for the discourtesy which, as I say, was certainly not intended.

The draft regulations introduce some minor differences of procedure for Community citizens from those which we require of our own citizens. Perhaps the main difference from our normal domestic arrangements is that if Community voters wish to vote in the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament in June they will have to apply to their local electoral registration officer by 29th March to register to vote. There will, therefore, be no duty on electoral registration officers to seek out citizens of the European Union for registration. They will have to apply for registration themselves.

The draft regulations also require intending voters and candidates to supply information about their electoral rights in their home member state. Member states will be exchanging information on non-national electors and candidates, so as to prevent double voting or candidacy, and in order to enforce disqualifications which are imposed by a home member state.

The regulations appear very complex but they are, in reality, merely the means of effecting a simple extension of rights to vote and to candidacy, which enables us to conform with our treaty obligations. I commend these draft orders and regulations to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Cornmittee]— (Earl Ferrers.)

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing these complex orders and regulations so clearly. I shall deal first with the constituency orders and then move on to the question of franchise.

The Minister and the House will be well aware that we have not been satisfied with the way in which the process of determining boundaries has been carried out — not that we have any criticism of the commissioners; we recognise that five of them are already Boundary Commissioners and that the sixth is an assistant commissioner. We have no reason to suppose that they have done their job in anything other than a thoroughly professional way. However, because of the delays for which the Government themselves were responsible in the initial introduction of the necessary legislation, it became necessary to go through the procedures, which the Minister has outlined to us, without the possibility of having public inquiries. We consider that to be thoroughly unsatisfactory. Without inside knowledge, it is difficult to know how valid the final outcome is.

I wonder whether it is possible to ask the Minister not for any individual figures of the electorate sizes in the constituencies that are proposed in the orders, but at least for the range. What is the largest constituency in terms of electorate, and what is the smallest? How does that variation compare with the variations between parliamentary constituencies in this country? It is only with information of that kind that we can judge whether the outcome of the commissioners' consultations and deliberations has been entirely successful.

Turning to the regulations which deal with the change to the franchise and qualification of representatives, we recognise that they are in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. We recognise that it is right that the electoral laws of this country should be retained for elections in this country for the European Parliament but, at the same time, that we should now do what other countries did last time, which is to open up the candidacy to citizens of other states of the European Union. I believe that the first British candidate to stand for election in another member state was Sir David Steel, in Italy. Let us hope that candidates from other countries stand here and that candidates from this country stand for election in other countries in the forthcoming elections.

There is a curiosity in the regulations to which I hesitate to draw attention in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We understand that the regulations contain provisions extending the franchise at European parliamentary elections and that they amend paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978. That appears to be a Henry VIII provision, amending primary legislation by regulation. It would be helpful to have the Minister's comment on that. In particular, I cannot see why that amendment to primary legislation should not have been made when we considered the Act determining these matters last year. Is that simply an oversight on the part of the Government or is there— dare I say— something more sinister in its omission from last year's Act?

The Minister has described these matters as largely technical, and I am in no way qualified to challenge that view. The principles on which the provisions are based, with the exceptions to which I have referred, appear to be sound. We shall not oppose the orders and regulations.

Lord Holme of Cheltenham

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for the clear way in which he introduced the orders and regulations.

I begin by saying that we on these Benches have no intention of opposing the provisions but, having said that, I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that the whole procedure of arriving at the constituencies for the European elections reflects very little credit on the Government. It has been spatchcocked together at the last possible moment. However, I suppose that it should be said, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, that by the same token it is impressive that the Boundary Commission has been able to produce the plans at such speed. That is a great credit to the commission, and Parliament should be suitably grateful. No doubt people elsewhere in Europe will be marvelling at our diligence and our ability to produce constituency boundaries at the last possible moment; indeed, almost on the eve of the elections.

That is not to say that everyone will be happy with the Euro-boundaries. It is a shame that the opportunity was not taken to give Cornwall its own constituency. That county has as distinct an identity as any. It also has many of the traditions of a nation— its own anthem, industries, culture and problems. Yet even after the review it remains lumped together with Plymouth West, which is urban, has different industries and is populated by staunch Devonians.

I suspect that in the end the result in both Cornwall and Devon will be a useful reminder to the Conservative Party that the winner-takes-all voting system, which we alone continue to use in Europe for these elections, is a sharp blade that can cut both ways. That was discovered in recent elections by its sister party in Canada. I hope that one result of the European elections in June will be that the Government are provided with a clear reason for proceeding on the basis upheld in March by EC Advocate-General Darmon that Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, calling for a uniform electoral procedure in all member states, should be respected, We on these Benches— and I believe that the same is true of Members on the Labour Benches— expect a fair system of proportional representation to be in place for the next European elections.

Speaking for a party which believes that there is a democratic deficit in the European Community, I welcome the extension of voting and candidacy rights to our fellow Europeans resident in the United Kingdom. It is good to see in a government order the words "citizenship of the Union". Let us see more of that.

Lord Finsberg

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm what I believe to be the case but it needs to be made clear beyond peradventure? Is it correct that in all the other member states of the Union resident British citizens will be in exactly the same position as European nationals here will be if the regulations are passed?

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, I intervene only briefly. I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House a full and clear explanation of these important and complex orders and regulations. I wish to say a few words about the third, the European Parliamentary Elections (Change to the Franchise and Qualification of Representatives) Regulations, which are complex. As the Minister explained, their general purpose is to give effect in the United Kingdom to the European Community directive which was adopted last December. That directive laid down detailed arrangements to enable citizens of the member states of the European Union to vote and to stand as candidates in the member states in which they reside but of which they are not nationals. That implements a significant provision of the Maastricht Treaty.

That extension of voting rights has taken many years to achieve. It is fair to say that the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House has consistently pressed for voting rights in the country of residence in respect of local and European elections. Indeed, full reports were made by the committee to that effect in 1983 on elections to the European Parliament and in 1990 on local elections. Happily, the directive appears to be entirely in line with the views expressed in those reports; in particular, the omission of residence requirements which might have discriminated against nationals of other member states. That I very much welcome.

Unfortunately, as the Minister was good enough to mention, neither the Select Committee nor the House was given an opportunity to consider the directive in draft form after the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and before its adoption by the Council in December. The Minister indicated that that was due to an administrative oversight in Whitehall. I appreciate that that was in no way intentional and was entirely inadvertent.

Last month I wrote to the noble Earl's honourable friend, the Minister in another place, drawing attention to that omission. Soon after the text of the directive and a full and helpful explanatory memorandum were deposited at the House. I also received a full and gracious apology and an explanation from the Minister concerned. Furthermore, I thank the noble Earl for his words of apology, which were wholehearted. I accept his most forthcoming sentiments.

I mention that in order to explain why my committee was unable to report to the House or to express a view on the directive before its adoption. I am sure that we all agree that such scrutiny by the House is of considerable importance and in line with the declaration attached to the Maastricht Treaty which emphasises the role of national parliaments. I repeat my thanks to the noble Earl for his gracious words and I too support the third of the three orders and regulations on the Order Paper.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I have one point of detail which perhaps my noble friend will deal with. The constituencies are listed on page 10 of the regulations. Under Hampshire North and Oxford there is included Newbury. Of course, Newbury is in neither of those counties; it is in the Royal County of Berkshire. Therefore, the list reads oddly, as Newbury appears to be allocated to the European constituency of Hampshire North and Oxford.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome, with various degrees of warmth, that the orders have received.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was not happy with the procedures and said that it was the Government's fault that they were published at the last moment and that there was no full public inquiry. In fact, there was a considerable degree of public involvement. The committees were set up in July of last year. In September they published the provisional recommendations which were placed on deposit in the offices of local councils. They were left there for a month in order that representations and counter-proposals could be made. All the representations and counter-proposals that were made were copied and placed on deposit in the district office of every district in the land. I hesitate to say that that used up 4 tonnes of paper. There were 1,500 objections. Two to three weeks were allowed for representations on the counter-proposals, and a month after that the final report and decisions were made. The original recommendations were modified quite a bit. Therefore, although there was no public inquiry, there was a great deal of public involvement.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to the distribution of the six extra seats. At present the average electorate per seat in Scotland is 11 per cent. lower than in England. However, the average in Wales is 1 per cent. higher than in England. Under the new arrangements, the Welsh average electorate will become 13 per cent. lower instead of 1 per cent. higher than that of England and that of Scotland will remain at 4 per cent. lower.

The noble Lord asked also about the range of parliamentary constituencies and how they compare with the European parliamentary constituencies. The largest is South West Yorkshire and has 552,793 constituents. The smallest, North Yorkshire, has 478,111 constituents. The average for England is 512,851 electors per European constituency. There is a variation of 7.8 per cent. The parliamentary range is between 35,000 in Surbiton and 101,000 in the Isle of Wight. The average constituency has 70,000 electors. But all those are under review. That will substantially improve the position.

The noble Lord asked for the smallest and the largest in Wales. The largest is South Wales Central which has 478,392 electors and the smallest Dyfed and Gwynedd which has 400,137. The average is 444,535, of which all are within 5 per cent.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, queried whether it is correct to use subordinate legislation to amend Acts of Parliament. The European Communities Act 1972 enables subordinate legislation to give effect to Community obligations by amending primary legislation if necessary. There is nothing unusual in doing so. For example, the procedure was used for the Firearms Order 1992, which amended the firearms legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that the regulations and the Bill preceding it were patched together. I thought that rather harsh but I can understand why he said it. The noble Lord did not lose the opportunity to mention proportional representation. I knew, as soon as he rose to his feet, that he would do so. I do not blame him at all. But he knows the position. I shall riot chase that particular hare any further.

The noble Lord referred to Cornwall and West Plymouth. Many representations were received from Cornish people to the effect that Cornwall should have its own European parliamentary constituency and should not be forced to join with part of Plymouth. However, the electorate of Cornwall is 27.4 per cent. below the electoral quota. Plymouth was also unhappy about being divided into two European parliamentary constituencies. But the committee could see no other viable way in which to achieve fair electoral equality. Therefore, it has not qualified its original provisional recommendations in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about procedures. The boundaries in the orders will be used only for the 1994 elections to the European Parliament. The parliamentary boundary commissions are currently reviewing the boundaries of the Westminster constituencies and are due to make their reports by the end of 1994. Once those reviews are completed and changes have been approved by Parliament, the commissions in England, Wales and Scotland have a duty to review the European parliamentary constituency boundaries to realign them with the changes made to the Westminster constituencies. In doing so they will undertake a full review and there will be opportunities for representations and for local inquiries.

My noble friend Lord Finsberg asked whether British nationals in other European states would be given the same facilities as are other European nationals in the United Kingdom. Under the European Community directive, United Kingdom citizens residing in other member states will now have the same rights as other European Community nationals in this country. They will be able to vote in European parliamentary elections in the state where they reside.

My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to Newbury. Not for the first time he has stumped me. I cannot give my noble friend an answer. Perhaps he will allow me to consider the matter and take advice upon it. I shall then write to my noble friend arid tell him why Newbury appears in a place in which my noble friend did not expect it to appear.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I should be extremely happy were my noble friend so to act.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for getting me out of a hole. I am grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for being so understanding about the unfortunate mistake which was made with regard to his European Communities sub-committee. I hope that that will not happen again. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.