Mr William Cash (Stone, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No.26, in

clause 5, page 3, line 39, after 'Act', insert 'or any other Act'.

This is no more than a small probing amendment. An order made under clause 4(3) may include ''provision modifying any Act''. Clause 5 states:

''This section applies to orders under section 4.''

It also refers to an

''order which contains amendments to section 1 of the 2002 Act.''

If clause 4 contains the power to modify an Act by order, why should we not include the words ''or any other Act'' in this case? It is a small point, and I hope that it is a drafting issue. If there is a substantial reason, an ingenious parliamentary counsel's reason or a departmental reason for that, I would be glad to hear what it is.

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

The reason for the wording is that, under clause 5(3), any order that affects the number and distribution of MEPsthe key issues in the Billmust be taken under the affirmative resolution procedure.

The clause allows for consequential and supplementary amendments that are made by order to be taken under the negative resolution procedure, as long as they are not to section 1 of the 2002 Act. That is the standard procedure, and it is not unusual for simple consequential provisions to be dealt with in that way.

It is important to clarify, however, that even consequential amendments to section 1 of the 2002 Act—in effect, clause 1 of the Bill, which relates to the important issue of the number and distribution of MEPs—should be taken under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr William Cash (Stone, Conservative)

I understand what the Minister says, but it rather makes my pointwhich is that distinctions are made based entirely on whether it is exclusively a section 1 amendment order that is being dealt with. The bottom line is that other quite significant provisions flow from the arrangements, yet they do not attract the affirmative resolution procedure, and are relegated to the bottom of the pile by way of annulment. However, having said that, I do not want to make too much of an issue of the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Pontefract & Castleford, Labour)

In discussing the amendments, we have debated extensively many of the issues raised by the clause. It provides that the relevant order must be a statutory instrument and be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. It also provides a mechanism for altering the draft order should either House fail to approve it, so that an alternative redistribution of MEPs can be arranged. No amendment to the draft order could be made without consultation with the Electoral Commission and, in the

case of amendments dealing with the redistribution of MEPs, without their consent.

Mr William Cash (Stone, Conservative)

Having already withdrawn my amendment relating to the power of recommencing the procedure, and because I want to make it clear that we are not attempting to make the entire machinery grind to a halt, but merely want to improve the way in which things are being done, I do not propose to oppose clause 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Four o'clock till Tuesday 14 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.