Clause 2 - Recommendations by Electoral Commission relating to changes in number ofUnited Kingdom MEPs
European Parliament (Representation) Bill
9:25 am
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
Thank you, Mr. Cook, and good morning.
The amendments could be construed as having a bearing on a later group of amendments tabled in my name: amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 10. Those deal with the consequences of having a small number of MEPs elected for a specific European regional constituency and the implications of that for proportionality under the election system that we have. One remedy for that defect, if indeed it is a defect, would be a boundary change.
I do not want to rehearse now arguments that will properly be made later but it is important for the Minister to explain whether any flexibility is offered to the Electoral Commission on that matter. The definitions of the regions are currently dependent on the Government's regions as defined in other enactments for the purposes of administration in Whitehall and elsewhere. There is no obvious reason why, for electoral purposes, the regions should be coterminous with those. The Bill does not make it clear whether there is scope for that to be amended. It would be a good thing if there were. There is otherwise a risk of having gross anomalies between the different regions of England in terms of population, which would have an effect on the electoral system.
If there is to be no change whatever and the position is fixed in stone, any consultation with the boundary committee of the Electoral Commission or with the boundary commission will be otiose and have no possible effect on the outcome. I hope that the Minister will be able to engage with that argument and explain the situation.
Amendment No. 29 defines consultation. I find defining consultation in legislation a novel concept. I can think of all sorts of reasons why that might be a very good idea, some of which we explored in the Chamber yesterday at Lord Chancellor's questions. The amendment goes even further, having a requirement for the publication of reasons. Again, that is desirable. It would provide an opportunity for challenge if the Minister or the commission were making unsubstantiated assertions or acting
unreasonably in using the powers conferred on them through the Bill.