I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in

Clause 8, page 5, line 5, at beginning insert 'Subject to section 10,'.

Clause 8 is extremely important. It reads:

''Gibraltar is to be combined with an existing electoral region in England and Wales to form a new electoral region (''the combined region'') for the purposes of European Parliamentary elections taking place after 1st April 2004.''

Inserting the phrase ''Subject to section 10'' at the beginning of that clause draws attention to the provisions of clause 10. Subject to my attempts to have him substituted by the Secretary of State, even more so after yesterday's debate on criminal justice, under clause 10

''The Lord Chancellor may by order . . . specify the existing electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar to form the combined region; and . . . make provision establishing the combined region.''

That is the essence of the point that I want to make and I have quite a lot to say about the manner in which clauses 10 and 11 and the supplementary arrangements set up under clause 12 will interact. In a nutshell, the effect of this apparently innocuous amendment would be to provide a more efficacious manner in which to combine Gibraltar with the existing electoral region.

One thing that has come to my notice has caused me a great deal of concern and I ask the Minister to give the House of Commons, let alone the Committee, an explanation. According to the reports—this may be of some satisfaction to the Government qua Government—up until June 2002 when the Home Office was dealing with the matter, things were proceeding in an extremely orderly fashion. Admittedly, there were serious disputes about the question of a referendum. Foreign Office Ministers were making all sorts of statements and there were counter-statements from Gibraltar. We know the history of that. The bottom line is that it was about whether the people of Gibraltar should be allowed to have their say on the extremely vexed question of relations with Spain.

I am not privy to what goes on behind the scenes in the Government; I can only put the most perceptive interpretation on it that I can, based on the information that I receive. The Minister may be able to explain why, when the Lord Chancellor's Department took over the arrangements, everything suddenly went completely off course, by which I mean that there was no further consultation. The Minister may say that she and the Minister for Europe had

meetings in December, but despite everything that the Government have said about pre-legislative scrutiny, the reality is that, at that point, everything went silent. There was no further consultation and, as I understand it, Gibraltar was not consulted about the proposals in the Bill at all. That seems unbelievable.

We are talking about citizens who will be voting in a combined region and whose democratic rights will be affected by the manner in which the arrangements operate. There is an established system of government in Gibraltar through the House of Assembly. There is a vast tradition of loyalty to this country, extending back to Rooke's famous taking of Gibraltar in 1702—I am sure that someone will correct me if I am wrong.

1704.

1704—the same year as Blenheim.

The fact is that, against that background, the people of Gibraltar, the Chief Minister and others in that territory are simply being snubbed—that is the only word that one can use. Let us imagine that a Bill was introduced that affected people in a similar fashion, but that was outside the domain of the foreign policy questions tied up with Gibraltar and Spain. I would imagine that if there were already an established electorate and an established form of government, it would be inconceivable for there to be no discussions. I may be entirely wrong: that may be how things have been going on for centuries.

I await with interest what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has to say, but first let me give a direct example. Were not the ex-colonies, when they were brought to independence with the wind of change, consulted extensively about the manner in which they were to be governed? I expect the answer to be yes. I think it inconceivable that they were suddenly presented with a Bill that said, ''This is the way, and you're going to have to accept it.''

There is an important constitutional question in this regard, because after all the Lord Chancellor has been given, or has taken to himself—I am not quite sure about the relationship between master and pupil in these matters—a huge number of additional responsibilities relating to constitutional affairs. If he falls at the first hurdle, which is to consult properly people whose democratic rights are affected, that is just another accumulated mortal sin.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman: he raises an important point and it will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about the lack of consultation between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Government of Gibraltar. He may be interested to know that there were no consultations with that Government before the beginning of last year, either. That is outlined in a memorandum from Mr. Caruana to the Foreign Affairs Committee that is included in its first report of the Session 2001–02, which states:

''No proposals have yet been put to the Gibraltar Government as to the manner and timing of the enfranchisement.''

There was a very short window of opportunity for the Gibraltar Government to comment.

Without disrespect to the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, I must say that there seems to be symmetry in our approach to these seminal questions. We look at what is happening and why and arrive at a similar conclusion about the manner in which these constitutional issues are dealt with. I am most grateful to him for drawing attention to the matter, as I did not appreciate that the situation was so bad. As I said on Second Reading, it raises all sorts of questions about the panjandrums of the 21st century, who are very ready to criticise the United Kingdom's conduct in the 19th century and before. The Committee will have heard of Niall Ferguson's book, which is recommended reading for many people. Treating the people of Gibraltar, and the elected Government and Chief Minister in this manner is inexcusable.

People outside this Room will be more than interested to know the Minister's response. The Minister has a way of not replying to any of my questions. She has a brief, which she sticks to religiously, but there are some important questions that need answers. They must not be ignored because we are in the confines of this Committee. These are important matters that affect the manner in which the Government treat the people of Gibraltar. Some prominent, distinguished and vociferous members of the hon. Lady's party feel intensely about Gibraltar. They should hear the truth about what happened and we will press for that so that the situation can be remedied.

I made a similar point at the start of our proceedings when it appeared that the Electoral Commission had not been consulted on the Bill's proposals on boundary commissions and so on. The lack of consultation is astonishing coming from a Government who apparently put such a high premium on pre-legislative scrutiny, the openness of government and freedom of information. By any standards, there is a whiff of hypocrisy about it. I should like answers to my questions.

Against that background, we have an indication of the rationale and the thinking behind the Government's authoritarian approach. The Minister may say that the Government are doing Gibraltar a great service and providing them with the opportunity to vote in elections for the European Parliament. There are other territories whose view would be that if they were to allow themselves to be drawn into elections, other things might follow that they would find disagreeable. I refer in general terms to the imperial ambitions of the European Commission and all that goes with the Convention and so on. I have already made the point in this Committee, in the Standing Committee on the Convention, on the Floor of the House and in the Scrutiny Committee that I have reason to believe from documents that I have seen that places such as Gibraltar, not to mention the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, are unquestionably in the sights of the European Union's imperial adjutants. I have seen provisions that clearly show that, despite superficial protestations that it will not happen or even that they could not do anything about it, they will be swept into a broader European Union

without the necessary consultation and on a similar basis to what is taking place here. That is the problem.

The Denise Matthews case was the real reason why all this happened. If the Minister says that the hon. Gentleman should not speak about that case, because it was his Government who declined to do the right thing at the time and give her a vote, I agree. There is no virtue in trying to cover up past mistakes, of which there have been many. Indeed, all parties have made mistakes over an extended period. The European Court of Human Rights' ruling that the United Kingdom's failure to enfranchise Gibraltar for elections to the European Parliament constituted a violation of article 3 of the second protocol was about one essential point—that article 3 requires elections to be by universal suffrage.

As I said on Second Reading, the Prime Minister no doubt found himself between the Rock and a hard place. On the one hand, there is his so-called visionary attitude towards European integration, which he said only at the beginning of January was political, as if it could ever have been anything else. I should love to be able to enlarge on that, Mr. Cook, but I shall not do so. On the other hand, there is the fact that the European Court of Human Rights had ruled that electors in Gibraltar had an absolute right to be combined with the United Kingdom for the purpose of the European elections. There is an apparent element of contradiction there. In view of the way in which those discussions went and the background to the referendum dispute, when 98 or 99 per cent. of the people of Gibraltar expressed their views on a referendum, it would not be helpful or wise for this or any Minister, or any member of the Committee, assuming that it was possible to stir them from their silence, to suggest that the Government had somehow done the people of Gibraltar a good turn. They have not. In those circumstances it will be more than interesting to hear what the Minister says about the way in which all that happened.

On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I seek your guidance. The comments of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on the Amendment have gone fairly wide.

I have allowed that.

I just want an indication of whether you intend to have a debate on Clause stand part, Mr. Cook, in which case I shall sit down and allow the Minister to reply, or whether you would wish a wider debate to take place on this group of amendments.

I have been lenient so far in order to allow the hon. Member for Stone to explain fully and comprehensively the point that he sought to explore. He has certainly been allowed to do that and he came close to the mark on more than one occasion. It would not be in my mind to permit a Clause stand part debate after such a discussion, so if the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome wishes to take the Floor, he may do so.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook, I need to know how the Minister will respond. If I wait till Clause stand part, that will be too late.

The hon. Gentleman has moved an Amendment, which I am about to put to the Committee. I have already said that, in view of the length and range of his introduction to that amendment, I do not intend to allow a Clause stand part debate. He will, I am sure, have the opportunity to listen to the Minister and to come back into the debate, as he invariably does.

I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Cook. I hope that I have not caused difficulties elsewhere by having sought that guidance.

The Amendment seeks to put Clause 8 in the context of clause 10. I should like to associate myself with some of the comments that the hon. Member for Stone made in deploring what appears to be a lack of consultation with the Government of Gibraltar on such matters. I must say that I find the Government's position on the enfranchisement of Gibraltar inexplicable. Year after year after year, since the Matthews judgment, they have waited to do anything at all. They first declared that Spain had an absolute veto on the constitutional change, then had second thoughts and declared that Spain did not have such a veto. All the while, they could have been talking to the Chief Minister and the House of Assembly in Gibraltar about how enfranchisement could take place, but they failed to do so.

That displays an attitude to the overseas territories that, I am afraid, is pervasive across the Government. I do not think that that helps our relationship with the dependent territories, as they were formerly called, which rely on the United Kingdom Government for overseas relations and much domestic legislation. Having said that, it is important to understand the Government's thinking on enfranchisement. The Bill contains a very limited provision and the amendment is of limited scope, but following Second Reading, the Minister was kind enough to write to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) explaining the differences that the Department recognises between Gibraltar's position and that of the other Crown territories in that regard.

I should be most grateful if the Minister could provide me with a note, from her Department or from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on the perceived differences between the position of Gibraltar, as a territory in the European Union that is justified in wanting to ensure representation in the European Parliament, and the analogous territories of other member states. I am thinking of the Départements et Territoires d'Outre-Mer, where the position is clear, the Faroe Islands, where it is perhaps less clear, Greenland, which had an MEP until it chose by referendum to leave the territory of the European Union in 1985, the Netherlands Antilles, Aruba and a country that is now seeking re-admission to the European Union—Malta, which at the time of its independence in 1955 was offered three MPs in the Westminster Parliament. That might be held to have set a precedent for the future representation of Gibraltar, were the Government minded to consider that.

A short note setting out the Government's understanding of the constitutional differences between those areas would be of great help in understanding clause 8 and the amendment to relate that to clause 10. We would all then be aware of the Government's thinking. I state plainly my view that clause 8 should go further in providing for the representation of Gibraltar in the UK legislature. The reform of the House of Lords may provide such an opportunity and we can return to the matter at that point. The issue is beyond the scope of the Bill, which is why we cannot debate it further or put down appropriate amendments at this stage.

It would be helpful to know the Government's position. Clearly they have set their mind against the idea, but I remind the Minister that the people of Gibraltar have made it very plain that they will reject a conjunction of administrative arrangements without a conjunction of political arrangements. There can be an integration of both, but there cannot be an integration of one without the other. If that is to be the future status of Gibraltar and if we are to see a closer rather than a more distant tie between it and the UK, implicit in the arrangements must be an enhanced representation of the people of Gibraltar within the European Parliament and the UK legislature.

The Amendment would make Clause 8 subject to the order in clause 10. That is slightly odd because clause 8 sets out a principle; it does not set out any of the detail of the implementation. The clause sets out the very clear principle that Gibraltar should get the vote as part of an existing electoral region. It is right that that should be in primary legislation and not subject to an order because it is effectively the key principle of this part of the Bill. It implements the UK's obligations as a result of the judgment in the case of Matthews v. UK. There is no realistic alternative to combining Gibraltar with an existing region because the size of Gibraltar, which has an electorate of about 20,000 people, compared with regions that have electorates of several million, means that it would be inappropriate for it to have a region of its own; we have to combine Gibraltar with an existing region.

The principle is straightforward and we should discuss it as part of the process of going through the Bill in Committee rather than make it subject to a future order. The order deals with the question of which existing electoral region is to be combined with Gibraltar. Provision is also made for further detailed amendments to electoral law in order to make the election fair and capable of working in practice. The principle is straightforward and should be embedded in primary legislation.

Opposition Members have raised concerns about the consultation of the Government of Gibraltar. I will set out what has taken place. Of course the views of Gibraltar must be incorporated in the process and I will return to that point in more detail in relation to other amendments. It is not the case that there has not been consultation with Gibraltar; on the contrary, there has been extensive discussion with Gibraltar over a long period. The Home Office dealt with the issue

until June 2001, not until June 2002, as the hon. Member for Stone claimed. In June 2001 the issue passed to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and in May 2002 it passed to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Consultation and discussions took place under each of those Departments. Officials met the Government of Gibraltar in January and June 2002, wrote to them again in April and November 2002 and met them again in December 2002.

Extensive discussions have taken place and Government officials have set out the overall approach at several stages in the process. There have been detailed discussions, most recently in December once the Bill was finally published. We are currently considering some of the issues raised by the Government of Gibraltar at that meeting, and there is a case for looking at further amendments as a result of the points that they raised.

We will discuss those issues at a later stage in the process. At this stage, there is not a case for amending the clause because it contains the fundamental, underlying principle in the Bill, which should be clear in primary legislation. There are other issues on which we are keen to take account of the views of the Government of Gibraltar and to ensure that proper consultation takes place over the next few months, as it has done previously.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the process as she sees it. Will she share the Government of Gibraltar's views with members of the Committee to allow us to understand any objections or suggestions that they may have and to interpret any amendments that are brought forward at a later stage?

The Government of Gibraltar are keen to ensure that they and the House of Assembly have the chance to discuss some of the issues. A series of issues surrounds amendments and changes to electoral law to ensure that Gibraltar is part of the register and has the same rules on donations to political parties as other members of the region. There have been discussions with the Government of Gibraltar about the role that the House of Assembly can play in the process, which discussions should take place in Gibraltar and which should take place in Westminster. We are still looking at the detail because many of the discussions relate to the legal position, such as the issue of where Laws apply. As I understand the Government of Gibraltar's position, they are content with the overall approach in the Bill and are understandably keen to ensure that they and the House of Assembly should have a continuing say as the detailed process of implementing the Bill takes place.

The Amendment is therefore unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would write to him on the relationship between Gibraltar and other parts of the European Union, and I will be happy to do so. As he will know, I discussed other Crown dependencies and British overseas territories in a previous letter, but I will be happy to write to him on the broader issues.

Before the Minister finally sits down, will she be kind enough to tell us exactly what consultations on the Bill took place with those in Gibraltar to whom she has referred? She should bear it in mind that elections in Gibraltar are ''a defined domestic matter'' under its constitution. The mechanics, which she has described, are, despite the so-called rule of uniformity, matters that clearly go to the heart of the way in which the people of Gibraltar express their wishes in their elections.

No one is pretending that the mechanics are simple. We are combining Gibraltar with an existing region of the UK. We have a series of Laws and regulations, which do not currently apply in Gibraltar, constraining the way in which elections take place in the UK, such as the rules governing donations to political parties. It is for the House of Assembly, those who live in Gibraltar and the Government of Gibraltar to determine elections to the House of Assembly. If they are to be part of a combined region, however, the rules that apply to Gibraltar need to be the same as those that apply to the rest of the combined region in order to ensure that elections to the European Parliament are fair. That situation is not simple, and no one is pretending that it is. It will require some complex changes, which will need to apply to European parliamentary elections, but not other elections, in Gibraltar.

The Bill's general approach has been set out to the Government of Gibraltar. As soon as it was possible to discuss its full details with them, we did so. As I have said, officials had detailed discussions in December on the Bill's provisions. In the light of those discussions, we are considering whether further amendments can be brought forward. We will discuss such amendments at a later stage, but they do not relate to the Clause, which simply sets out the principle behind the Bill. I therefore oppose the Amendment.

I hear what the Minister says. We have had a thorough debate and appear to be making some progress because, irrespective of errors in the past and the lack of meaningful consultation, amendments may come forward and discussions are likely to take place. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has asked for a paper, which I have no doubt will help to illuminate the matter. Because the Amendment was a probing amendment to get a better understanding before the Minister deals with other matters later in the Bill, I am prepared to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the Clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.