Clause 22 - Financial provisions
European Parliament (Representation) Bill
9:45 am
Mr William Cash (Stone, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
clause 22, page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
This relates to the public funds of Gibraltar. There are bound to be financial provisions in a Bill of this kind that should be marked in italics, having regard to the constitutional position vis-à-vis the House of Lords. Such matters are more properly and effectively dealt with by the House of Commons. The provisions that are listed in subsections (1) and (2) are set in italics. In subsection (3), which is where Gibraltar comes into the equation, matters that pertain to the United Kingdom exclusively are italicised but those that pertain exclusively to Gibraltar are not. I am sure that the Minister will have a note to explain why that should be so.
Let me put forward one or two thoughts on the matter as I read it myself. Subsection (4) states:
''Subsection (3) applies to—
(a) an order under section 11;
(b) regulations under section 16; and
(c) regulations under section 7 of the 2002 Act.''
We have been through those extensively. We certainly do not need to repeat them. They are broad and they have a lot of adverse implications in the context I have already explained. Where the subordinate legislation would bite in respect of the Consolidated Fund in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole, in other words where it would affect this Parliament, I would have no specific point to make. I may reflect on that, but I do not doubt that a proper provision would need to be made in order to ensure that the money that was found related to that part of the Bill that affects the United Kingdom directly.
The problem is that where the Bill deals with the deployment of the public funds of Gibraltar, the UK legislative statutory instrument that would be employed under subsection (3) would require the use of money that is the public funds of Gibraltar. That is rather curious to say the least. The public funds of Gibraltar are deployed and deployable under and in respect of the financial arrangements within the House of Assembly. It does not come back to this Parliament to determine how and where it will spend its money. The Bill seems to be making provisions that are constitutionally unexpected and unreasonable because
they impinge on deployment of the Gibraltar public funds.
As I understand it, no United Kingdom statutory instrument, order or other legal provision has purported to deploy or commit Gibraltar public funds since decades before Gibraltar acquired its first modern constitution in 1964. We are talking about something that goes back an extremely long way. That is a reflection of our deep concern that, in order to deal with the hybrid situation of a combined region, powers are being taken that invade the constitutional propriety of Gibraltar in an unnecessary fashion.
The Minister has raised the question of proportionality on a number of occasions. For example, when discussing the name of the combined region, she mentioned size and we discussed the question of proportionality and why the words ''and Gibraltar'' would be conveniently put after the name of the electoral region, which has yet to be decided upon. I do not know the exact number of people in each of the regions—it will vary, because there is no fixed number. However, when considering the relatively small number of people in Gibraltar, I ask myself how much money will be charged to the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar in proportion to the combined region as a whole; I am thinking of taxation and the amount of money that would need to be found for the Gibraltar end of the equation.
We require a clear explanation of that. It seems to me that a case can be made the Gibraltarians not having to pay any money out of the consolidated fund of Gibraltar. I have said what I need to say for the moment, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.