I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in

Clause 17, page 9, line 26, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 29 and add

'may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

The amendment covers ground that we have covered before with respect to the subject matter of the regulations under clause 16. Clause 17 states that a statutory instrument containing such regulations shall be subject to annulment. I have just said something that surprises even me. I am astonished that a provision of this importance should be subject to the annulment procedure. It is obvious that it should be subject to affirmative resolution at the very least. The people of Gibraltar have no opportunity to participate in the debates in the Committee, on the Floor of the House or in the other place. Again it comes back to the Government's overbearing attitude.

I am truly astonished—I say that not out of synthetic concern—at the bloody-minded arrogance, if I may use the word, that lies behind the provision.

That is three words.

Yes, it is. It is three words, and each one is meant equally. It is astonishing that a matter of this importance should be subject to annulment. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) tittering a bit at the back.

I hope that he appreciates that it is a matter of great importance, relating to people who could affect his constituents or mine, if we were to translate the territory of Gibraltar to an equivalence with our own constituencies. We would be truly concerned if these procedures were applied to our constituents. The hon. Gentleman has been a good Constituency Member of Parliament in relation to a matter on which he and I worked together closely recently. He was anxious to protect the part of his constituency that was affected by certain development proposals. I am sure that if the situation of the Gibraltarians were translated to his constituency, he would not be sitting at the back of the Room and tittering. I am making an important point.

The hon. Gentleman has known me for only a short time, but I guarantee that I have never tittered in my life. I may have tottered a few times. For the record, I was nodding in agreement with him that bloody-minded, being hyphenated, counted as one word, but he seems to be bloody-minded about people who agree with him.

I am delighted to hear that, as on a previous occasion, despite our political differences, we

agree on such an important matter. It is not important in the way that some parts of the Bill affecting Gibraltar could be described as lying on tectonic plates, but it is an extraordinary procedural aberration to make the provisions subject to annulment.

The Government have a huge Majority in the House of Commons. If they get their act together and apply the constructive dialogue that we have asked for, sometimes perhaps a little abrasively, but, in general, in a good-humoured and constructive fashion, they will get the centre of gravity in the Bill right. They must not go down this colonial route, which should stir some thoughts in the minds of Labour Members. To say on top of that that these order-making powers should be subject to the annulment procedure is quite extraordinary.

I think that I understand the reasoning behind the provision. Many of the regulations will contain provisions that could give rise to the hybrid instrument procedure—I trust that the Minister's advisers are listening—which is applicable only to statutory instruments. I happen to know a little about it. That affects the extent to which the provision would operate in practice. It is therefore part and parcel of my objections to Clause 12(8).

Clause 17(1) states:

''This section applies to regulations under section 16.''

Therefore, the hybrid instrument procedure may not be excluded for the purposes of clause 12, and we need to look into that further. Having said that, I stand by my general comments about the need to ensure that all the statutory instruments in clause 16 are subject to affirmative resolution, not only those containing regulations under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, which, as clause 17 says,

''are subject to approval in draft under section 13(2) of that Act''..

I have made my point. If I have been a little vehement about it, it is because I cannot imagine that the regulations could go so far in procedural terms as to exclude the affirmative resolution. I simply do not believe what I read.

Clause 16 contains a regulation-making power that gives full effect to clauses 13 to 15. It fills in the details about the Gibraltar register, the franchise and the entitlement to register in Gibraltar. As drafted, regulations under that clause are subject to the negative resolution procedure unless they are to be made with the European parliamentary elections regulations, which is what clause 17(4) sets out.

It will be necessary to make new regulations under section 7 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 for the United Kingdom generally for the 2004 elections. That would be the case even if Gibraltar were not being enfranchised, in order to address such matters as the rolling register, universal absent voting and so on. That is why we intend that most of the secondary legislation that needs to be made under clause 16 to cater for Gibraltar's inclusion in the elections should be made in the same instrument. That makes sense. It is for the convenience of everyone and ensures that electoral registration and returning

officers in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar have all the necessary detail in one place. In practice, the regulations will be subject to a debate in both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure, because we intend that the regulations under clause 16 should be broadly included in regulations that include the European parliamentary elections regulations as set out in clause 17(4).

The reason for allowing the negative procedure to apply to further regulations that might be required under clause 16 was simply to enable issues that we have not yet anticipated to be included with the European parliamentary elections regulations, such as those involving minor amendments or smaller details that had not previously been considered. It makes sense to be able to consider them through the negative procedure.

Has the Minister finished?

I have not completely finished.

I must come back to that by way of reply later. It may require a little more than an Intervention would allow. I am astonished by the way in which the Minister is presenting the case.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's Intervention of astonishment. He has not asked any question to which I should respond.

We intend to combine these regulations with the European parliamentary elections regulations, which would enable them to be dealt with by the affirmative procedure. We consider it appropriate to allow for further detail to be addressed through the negative resolution procedure. Many of the issues relating to the register are important and therefore should be considered as part of the affirmative procedure, which is why we shall take them with the European parliamentary elections regulations. However, some issues are likely to be minor and to contain details that may need to be followed up. That is why Clause 17 has been drafted as it has.

I am happy to consider the matter further, to ensure that the House gives appropriate consideration to any orders that are put forward. However, we must bear it in mind that the orders must be in place in time to meet the 2004 deadline.

I remain astonished, for this reason. I listened with care to what the Minister said, but it bears no relation to what is in the Bill. I accept that, under the bureaucratic intentions behind the arrangements, the power to make regulations subject to affirmative resolution under the 2002 Act may be thought to be a convenient vehicle for dealing with these questions. I am looking at the Bill and I see that regulations under Clause 16, not the 2002 Act, are stipulated under clauses 13 to 15, which takes us back to a huge swathe of stuff in the Bill: it is three pages of provisions. The regulations made under clause 16 apply to a vast array of potential changes. The Minister blithely tells us that the intention is that most of that will be done under the 2002 Act. She referred to minor points, as I am sure the transcript will reveal. That is not exactly what I would regard this behemoth as achieving.

Furthermore, the Minister lightly passes over the fact that under clause 17 the supplementary arrangements relating to the regulation-making power in clause 16—this goes back to a question that we discussed earlier—include the modification, exclusion or application, with or without modifications, of any provision

''made by or under an Act''—

any Act—

''or any provision of the law of Gibraltar.''

In other words, it is open sesame, yet we are told in response that the clause is only to deal with minor points and that all will be dealt with by affirmative resolution under the 2002 Act. It simply defies belief that I should be given an answer of that kind.

Either the Bill means what it says and can be used, or it does not. The Minister tells us by way of a parenthesis that the 2002 Act is likely to be used. In the light of my concerns about the draconian and colonial way in which the Government are treating the Gibraltarians in this context, even she, smiling as she is at the moment, must realise that I am not likely to take on trust her assertion that such a matter will simply be dealt with under the 2002 Act.

However, I always look to the future with optimism and I trust that the serious question that I have raised about the difference between annulment and affirmative resolution will be resolved along the lines of my Amendment. The idea that the United Kingdom Government, using their Majority in the House, will bring in an order through the unelected Lord Chancellor to exclude provisions of any Act in relation to the subject matter of the Bill, or any provision of the law of Gibraltar, by annulment procedure is unthinkable.

I am sure that somewhere in the heart or bosom of the Labour party somebody is prepared to say ''This is not the right way to go about it''. We are not just sitting here in a Committee. Some thousands of miles away, or however far it is to Gibraltar, there are people who will be affected by the Bill. They do not have the benefit of being heard. For heaven's sake, is it not possible for somebody, even privately when we finish these proceedings, to say to the Minister, ''I don't agree with a great deal of what the Shadow Attorney-General says on a number of matters, but on this one I think he has a point''? If the Government do not have a point to consider in the light of what I have just said, I feel very sorry for them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock till Thursday 16 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.