I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in

Clause 13, page 7, line 13, after 'Gibraltar', insert

'who shall be ordinarily resident in Gibraltar, following consultation with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.'.

The amendment is pretty straightforward. The clause specifies that there must be

''a register of European Parliamentary electors in Gibraltar . . . maintained by the European electoral registration officer for Gibraltar.''

It continues:

''The Governor shall appoint a fit and proper person to be the European electoral registration officer for Gibraltar (and may at any time revoke such an appointment).''

The appointment

''must be published in the Gibraltar Gazette.''

We have already discussed some of the constitutional functions that the Governor performs and the Conservatives are not suggesting that he would not be the right person to appoint a fit and proper person to be the European electoral registration officer for Gibraltar. However, the person who is appointed should be ordinarily resident in Gibraltar. We should not just parachute in somebody from Whitehall to perform further supernumerary and directed activities. This is all part of the same problem—the straitjacket problem—that returns again and again in relation to the Bill.

It would be inconceivable to have an electoral registration officer who was not ordinarily resident in Gibraltar. It is not as if Gibraltar does not have elections; there are people who know how to do such things. Even if there were any doubts about how matters should be dealt with in relation to the complementarity between the electoral legal systems that we have discussed, we have ironed out all these matters in extensive discussions. It would be inconceivable to have a person who was not ordinarily resident in Gibraltar. The fact that the idea is not specifically excluded suggests that the Government are not saying that it would not be a person ordinarily resident in Gibraltar. However, the Conservatives think that such a person should definitely be selected. That is the balance of the argument.

The question is important to the Government of Gibraltar, so we also suggest that any appointment should follow

''consultation with the Chief Minister''.

The clause states that the Governor

''may at any time revoke such an appointment''.

I find that especially odd. It is offensive because it could give draconian power to the Governor. It is almost as if it were anticipated that the Gibraltarians will get up to constitutional mischief. They have already caused us a great deal of trouble with Spain and they could get into a situation such as the one we just heard about with regard to political donations, so we must ensure that they cannot raise questions in the normal fashion through Select Committee procedure. One way or another, they have all the potential of being thoroughly troublesome.

To put the icing on the cake, whoever will be made a fit and proper person to the be the European electoral registration officer—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

I think I had finished what I was saying. I was merely making the point that for the Governor, who is unelected, to have the power to determine who the European electoral registration officer for Gibraltar should be, if that person were not an

ordinary resident of Gibraltar, without consulting the Chief Minister, seems to be over-egging the pudding.

If the Governor has the power to revoke such an appointment without giving reasons, that smacks of colonialism at its worst. It is like something Viscount Curzon might have done. It is almost beyond belief. The objection is coming from the Tory side. Will the Committee wake up sufficiently to recognise that I am a Tory Shadow Attorney-General addressing a mostly Labour Committee that is totally silent on every aspect of the Bill? Labour Members should reflect on the fact that they are putting through ultra-colonial powers. It is inconceivable, if I step back for a minute and think about it.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made intelligent observations about the Bill. His questioning added to the proceedings. This is not just an exercise in negative investigation. The people of Gibraltar have no voice in the Bill's parliamentary consideration. That is an inevitable consequence of the constitutional relationship between Britain and Gibraltar. Gibraltarians understand and accept that. They have said that, as far as they are concerned, the sovereignty of the United Kingdom is not in question and have made it clear that a balance should be struck between the functions of the two Houses. All that is fair.

We are not talking about the shadow Attorney-General and/or the Opposition trying to be difficult on a party political matter. This is a matter of objectivity in defence of the rights of people who are not here. Any remarks that I make can only be addressed vicariously by way of reply through the people of Gibraltar. I may be wrong, but for the purposes of European elections, in which I happen to be involved in my Constituency, the region to which Gibraltar is combined may not turn out to be the one to which it becomes engaged—or married.

Divorced.

I have just heard the word, ''divorced''. It is wonderful to hear that word from a Labour Member. I pay my respects to some of the hon. Members who have contributed from time to time.

The important point is that subsection (2) is, by any standards, draconian. It is no good to say, ''Oh well, we know that it will be exercised responsibly.'' We do not know that it will. Our job, on behalf of the people of Gibraltar, is to question whether the wording is correct. A power that allows the Governor of Gibraltar to revoke the European electoral registration officer's appointment without giving any reasons smacks of ultra-colonialism. That that provision should come from a party that purports to be democratic is a great shame. We find the Labour party repeatedly to be intrinsically undemocratic on constitutional matters.

I cannot say any more than that. I say with regret that the provision is not democratic, and I am bound to put that on record. I hope that the Minister will change subsection (2) in line with the Amendment.

I concur with the hon. Member for Stone that it would be advisable for a person who is

normally resident in Gibraltar to act as the electoral registration officer. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances about that. I also noticed the rather draconian provision that to revoke such an appointment was in the hands of the Governor.

Usually, I assume that normal employment practices would be maintained. However, I have two reasons to be concerned. First, there is no provision for remuneration for the post. I assume that that will come in secondary legislation. The Minister may be able to confirm that. The financial provision later in the Bill allows money to be paid from the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar, presumably for that purpose.

Secondly, a Secretary of State would execute that function. We are clear that employment law applies to Secretaries of State. I am less convinced that it applies to the Crown, in the person of the Governor. Can the Minister confirm that there is no strange procedure by which a governor of a colony—as Gibraltar is clearly identified under the terms of the Bill—is outwith normal employment law? So long as that is not the case, there would have to be proper grounds for revoking such an appointment, should a decision be made to do so.

The hon. Member for Stone is so enthusiastic in his desire to brand the Bill colonial that he has not checked his facts. Clause 13(2) has been drafted to mirror the arrangements that are provided for the appointment of the House of Assembly electoral registration officer. It was felt important to ensure that the same person could, were it thought appropriate, hold the two positions. The person appointed to compile the House of Assembly register could also be appointed to compile the European Parliament electoral register, because the job is sufficiently similar. If someone has the expertise to do that job, why reinvent the wheel and create an entirely different job?

To achieve the same results, clause 13(2) establishes the same arrangements as those that are in place for the appointment of the House of Assembly electoral registration officer. Those arrangements are provided for in Gibraltar's House of Assembly ordinance, which was passed by the House of Assembly. In effect, therefore, that decision was made in Gibraltar, not by this House. All that we have sought to do in clause 13(2) is to mirror entirely the arrangements that the House of Assembly chose for its own registration requirements.

I should be happy to reconsider the matter if the House of Assembly and Government of Gibraltar wanted to change the arrangements for compiling the House of Assembly register. We have no particular view on that or stake in it; the intention was only to mirror Gibraltar's arrangements. If the Government of Gibraltar feel strongly about the matter and want us to reconsider it in time for the Report stage, we will be happy to do so, but the principle that we should attempt to mirror the arrangements that Gibraltar has chosen to put in place for its elections is perfectly sensible. That explains the drafting of that subsection.

The Amendment would create a disparity between the arrangements for this register and those for the House of Assembly register.

Does not my hon. Friend the Minister agree that to include the Amendment against the wishes of the Gibraltarian House of Assembly would be profoundly colonialist in thrust and intention?

My hon. Friend makes a fine Intervention. Clearly it is right to ensure that the views of the Government of Gibraltar and the House of Assembly are taken into account. I shall happily reconsider the subsection should they believe that their arrangements should be amended. Until we have a view from them to that effect, the current drafting will remain.

The Minister is having a little fun at the expense of Opposition parties here, and I do not blame her. However, an ordinance from the House of Assembly in Gibraltar applies only to Gibraltar. This provision applies to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. The applicability of the two is different, so they are not directly comparable. I accept entirely, however, her view that it is helpful to have the same wording where possible.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the ordinance applies only to Gibraltar, but the intention here is purely practical. It should be possible for Gibraltar to appoint the same person to do both jobs, because that option will cause much less stress for those involved.

When was the House of Assembly ordinance passed?

The advice, which officials are rapidly passing to me, suggests that it was passed at least before 1984, although we have not heard any proposals for it to be changed. If the House of Assembly wishes to change it, we will be happy to discuss changing the Clause accordingly, but the matter rests in its hands for the time being.

Actually, the matter rests in the hands of Parliament for the time being. I was suspicious that the arrangement might have existed for some time, and 1984 is about 20 years ago. At that time, the relationship between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, and indeed other overseas territories, was substantially different.

I have not had an opportunity to go through the constitution order of 2001, which sets out the House of Assembly's ideas on the future constitution of Gibraltar, but the bottom line is that it is highly likely that it was to be implemented by the United Kingdom along similar lines to those used in the Falklands in terms of methodology and consultation. I suspect that the Minister's debating point will evaporate because the House of Assembly would ensure that arrangements were made which brought the whole thing up to date.

The Minister mentioned in passing that there should be consultation with the Government of

Gibraltar as well as with the House of Assembly. The Amendment states:

''following consultation with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar'',

who is, for all intents and purposes, the Government of Gibraltar. We therefore anticipated her point in the amendment.

The Minister has not dealt with the intrinsic question. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has pointed out the lack of symmetry between the arrangement vis-à-vis Gibraltar and the way in which the order-making power will affect the United Kingdom in its relations with Gibraltar. She has also failed to answer this fundamental point: a person should not simply be faced with a possibility of revocation at short notice. We have been through that, and all I can say is that I cannot regard the matter as one that should simply go through unchallenged. She has not appreciated our points and has not come up with satisfactory solutions. I therefore propose to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.