Clause 2 - Recommendation by Electoral Commission relating to changes in number of
European Parliament (Representation) Bill
6:30 pm
Mr William Cash (Stone, Conservative)
All the amendments have one feature in common, which is that they would substitute references throughout the Bill to the Lord Chancellor with references to the Secretary of State. I am well aware that amendments have been made under the Transfer of Functions (Transport, Local Government and the Regions) Order 2002. However, it is important to remember that the provisions of clause 23 state that the functions should be exercised concurrently with the Secretary of State and that the schedule to the Bill, which is referred to in clause 6 in terms of the periodic reviews of distribution of MEPs, refers exclusively to the Secretary of State and not to the Lord Chancellor.
The purpose of the amendments is to point out that the Home Office historically has been responsible for activities to do with parliamentary elections—which are of vital importance to our democratic process—the procedures to be followed and all the paraphernalia that goes with them. I am not trying to do myself out of a job. None the less, considering the matter objectively, I am bound to ask why it is thought appropriate that the Lord Chancellor should take on the role rather than the Secretary of State, leaving aside the order, which I understand perfectly well.
I am not sure that I am in a position to answer that question. It is not to do with the individual who holds the office for a time but whether the Lord Chancellor's
Department has a base of knowledge and experience that is adequate to deal with such matters.
Individuals will transfer from one Department to another. We had that with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the other day. It may be that, to some extent, the transitions are seamless and do not matter from the point of view of those administering the laws behind the scenes. Last night, I watched ''Yes, Minister'' on UK Gold, and had a good laugh. I wondered what Sir Humphrey would have to say were he looking at this Bill from the Home Office's point of view.
I have no doubt that such transfers have been amicable, but they raise various questions. I cannot identify why it is thought that the Lord Chancellor, an unelected member of the Government who is responsible for the judicial process and the administration of the courts, should be given such an exclusive right—or, rather, a pre-eminent right, as it is concurrent with a Secretary of State's—to determine matters that relate to elected representatives returned to, in this case, the European Parliament as well as matters that relate to other aspects of his remit, such as the Electoral Commission, local government and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
I am not sure whether there has ever been a debate on the Lord Chancellor's new accretion of powers, nor any explanation of that ever given. No one has ever seen fit to ask the question that I am now asking. I hope that the Minister will not just give me a flip answer, saying, ''Oh well, it's just tough. Those powers are in the Bill and you're going to have to put up with it''. I would like to know the rationale behind that. Are there any papers? Can I use the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or any other mechanism to discover that rationale?
In particular, I should like to ask whether it is appropriate that the Lord Chancellor should have all the powers in the Bill. If I think that he should not have such powers over parliamentary matters, as I clearly do, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why she thinks that he should, without only repeating that they are in the Transfer of Functions (Transport, Local Government and the Regions) Order 2002 and that that is it.