Orders of the Day — European Parliamentary Elections Bill

House of Commons, 12 March 1998.

REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE VOTING SYSTEMS

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out from 'cast' to end of line 2 and insert— 'in one of the following ways— (a) for a registered party; (b) for a candidate listed as a member of a registered party; or (c) for an individual candidate not listed as a member of a registered party.'. No. 9, in page 2, line 2, after 'candidate', insert ',whether or not the candidate is a member of a registered party,'. No. 11, in page 2, line 4, after 'candidate', insert 'not listed as a member of a registered party'. No. 12, in page 2, line 4, at end insert ',with votes for candidates listed as members of a registered party counting towards the total vote of that party.'. No. 13, in page 2, line 16, leave out from 'filled' to end of line 18 and insert— 'as follows: (a) a quota for each party shall be determined which is equal to the total number of votes cast for the party divided by the number of seats to be allocated, plus one; (b) votes cast for the candidate at the top of the party list shall be compared with the number of votes cast for the registered party to which that candidate belongs; (c) where the candidate has more votes than the quota, that candidate is elected without transferring any surplus votes; (d) where the candidate has fewer votes than the quota, the votes for that candidate shall be added to until the quota is reached, the candidate is elected, and the number of votes cast for the party is reduced accordingly; (e) this process continues until all seats have been allocated for each candidate in the order in which they appear on the list until the number of votes cast for the party is zero, except where there are insufficient votes in the number of votes cast for the party to bring a candidate up to the quota, in which case those votes are allocated to the next person on the list with sufficient votes; (f) if it is not possible to bring another candidate up to the quota required for election, the candidate with the highest vote who has not been elected shall be elected; (g) where there is one seat to be filled and two candidates have the same number of votes, the candidate placed higher on the list shall be elected.'.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The new clause and amendment No. 9 reflect our belief that the first-past-the-post system, which we currently use for European elections, has many advantages, and is certainly far better than the system that the Government propose in the Bill. We know that we have many allies in this, and we think that we may have some of whom we were not aware earlier but who may not be prepared to reveal themselves to us. However, we know that there is a widespread feeling that the first-past-the-post system has served the House well, and that it also serves the country well for the European elections. The more we learn about the Bill, and the more we see of the Government's approach to it, the more we think that a review will eventually be called for and that it will be beneficial. It will prove that the first-past-the-post system does indeed have significant advantages over that which the Government are putting in place, not least because of what has happened with regard to closed and open lists. These are one of the least desirable features of the Bill, although it has many undesirable features. When the Government first unveiled their proposals last October, there was widespread criticism of their adoption of the model with closed lists, whereby electors would not have the opportunity to express a preference between individual candidates of different parties—something which happens in some other systems which use a regional list. I shall quote one of those comments, which I think puts the matter rather well. The Times stated: This is bad for democracy and will be bad, eventually, for the parties too. The Government plans to introduce the worst possible kind of PR for the European elections." Its 'closed list' system allows voters no say over which candidate they want: they can merely vote for a party, which will then appoint its own placemen to the Parliament. The proposal for a closed list earned few friends when it was debated on Second Reading in November. It was seen as a system whereby the Government were not prepared to allow electors to make a choice between different candidates, any more than they were prepared to allow their own party members the chance to decide the order of candidates themselves, which is something else to emerge during our consideration of the Bill. We were not entirely surprised, given the criticism of and lack of support for the closed list system, when on Second Reading the Home Secretary indicated a willingness to listen to arguments for adopting a different system. The right hon. Gentleman chose to highlight a Belgian system. To be fair to him, he gave no guarantees at that stage; he said that he had an open mind. He put a paper on the Belgian electoral system in the Library. The Home Secretary may now regret some of his comments.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

No.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The right hon. Gentleman says that he does not, but he will recollect that he chose to advance his consultation in a rather partisan way. If I remember correctly, he said that his was a party and a Government who were prepared to listen, including listening to the arguments. Perhaps that was not entirely wise. That seems to be so, given what has taken place since he made those remarks. The Home Secretary might care to address the question why he chose the Belgian system out of all the systems that are available. A debate on that issue took place in part when the Bill was considered in Committee. The Home Secretary mentioned the Belgian system together with the Danish system. We would like to hear a little more from the right hon. Gentleman about why he chose the Belgian system rather than the Danish. The Home Secretary said that he would be prepared to listen to learn how Members on both sides of the House perceived the Belgian system. I can assist him, because every Opposition Member, including probably the Liberal Democrats, thinks that the closed-list system is wretched and rotten. I would be surprised if many voices were raised in support of it on the Government Benches. When the right hon. Gentleman responds to the debate, perhaps he will tell us how many representations he received in favour of the closed list. We apprehend that not even Labour Back Benchers had much of an appetite for a system so alien to our traditions in this country. It is a system that would deprive the electorate of the chance to vote for an individual candidate of a party. We know that some Labour Back Benchers tabled an amendment in Committee. These were the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg).

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

Where are they?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

That is a matter for them. The hon. Members for Stroud and for Southgate tabled an amendment, and argued in favour of it.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

It is interesting that the little rebellion that took place on the Government Back Benches to promote an open list seems to have disappeared now that the Home Secretary has made up his mind.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We know that some Labour Back Benchers originally wanted the Government to think again, and they tabled an amendment to enable the Government to do so. Were the Government listening to them, we wonder. How much weight did the Government give to Labour Members' representations? We suspect that the answer is, not a lot, and we take that view on some rather good grounds. We now learn that, at more or less the same time, when Labour Back Benchers were tabling an amendment to enable the Government to think again about the closed list system and to think instead of having an open list system, the Government were not listening to them, but instead had commissioned a focus group to give them some ideas for the voting process. It is interesting that the group carried out its work at some time around 20 February, according to the documents that the Home Secretary placed in the Library, and reported on 28 February. The mechanics of how the group came about is a matter for the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary looks perplexed. The focus group reported to him on 28 February, and carried out its field work between 20 and 23 February. We do not know why it took place at that time. We wonder whether it was a last-ditch effort by the Government to justify the course they were taking. We shall listen with interest to the Home Secretary telling us about the representations he received in favour of the closed list system. The Government did not listen to their Back Benchers, but chose instead to listen to the focus group. I suggest that, if Labour Members—I know that several of them are deeply interested in electoral reform—want to influence their Government, it is no use tabling amendments for the Home Secretary to answer in debate. They should write to Phoenix Fieldwork Ltd., 71-73 High street, Barnet, Herts, and ask whether they can become part of a focus group. However, I advise them that they had better be careful when they make their application. I have looked at the way in which the people in the focus group were selected—it was helpful of the Home Secretary to place this document in the Library. They were carefully screened, and, when interviewed, were asked whether they were a member of a political party, Charter 88, the Electoral Reform Society, and whether they were a local councillor, union representative or chairman of a professional organisation. The document says: If yes to any of the above—close interview". There is not much chance of them being listened to in the focus group, so they had better be careful what they say when they try to participate in it.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Who paid for the focus group?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

That is a good question. To be fair to the present Government, the previous Government sometimes commissioned focus groups to get responses on particular issues, but this is the first time that I have seen answers given to a focus group being cited as a reason for the Government to pursue a policy. The Home Secretary might correct me on that. The research was carried out at a late stage, and the Government were determined, apparently, to ignore their supporters. This is a Government who set great store by the views of the focus group. The written answer that the Home Secretary placed in the Library shows that he and the Government relied on the group as a reason for continuing with the closed list system. His reply clearly shows that he was relying on its findings. He said: the NOP study demonstrated most people vote for parties rather than individuals. I am not an expert on focus groups or electoral research, but, as I read the group's document, I began to doubt whether that was the view of the focus group. Time and again, it seemed that the people who were approached by Phoenix Fieldwork Ltd., who did not include anybody who might possibly have any interest in or knowledge of the subject, wanted a choice. When the systems were explained, the members of the focus group—there were only 48 at most—wanted a say over individual candidates. There were difficulties. I read with some bemusement, in view of earlier debates, the comments of the focus group. It said: Voters are generally unable to appreciate the implementation of the d'Hondt divisor unless a graphic example is demonstrated to them. With a textual description voters struggle. Many hon. Members will say, amen to that. Someone plucked off the street in the west midlands or Surrey, which is where the survey was conducted, and told about the d'Hondt divisor would think that the questioner had taken leave of his senses. 4.30 pm Notwithstanding the difficulties the focus group evidently had, I was struck by the fact that, time and again, it was in favour of being given a choice. I do not want to be partisan about this, and I am not an expert in focus groups, so the Home Secretary will be pleased to know that I consulted Professor Ian Maclean of Oxford university. I hope the Home Secretary will not mind, but I took the step of sending him a copy of the focus group document for his views as someone learned in these matters. I asked Professor Maclean whether he shared my surprise at the Government's conclusions, and whether he thought that the Government were right in their assertion that the NOP study demonstrated that most people vote for parties rather than individuals. He said: I cannot see that it demonstrated that, as it was not designed to demonstrate that one way or the other. The quoted remarks of focus group members include some on each side of that question. As it was a qualitative, not a quantitative, survey, adding up the responses on each side and taking the side which received more to be the majority would be an unsound procedure. He went on: The NOP study was designed to test which of the two systems focus group members preferred. It showed that they preferred the Belgium system to the closed list system. That left me even more perplexed. I await the Home Secretary's considered views on the matter. I do not know which is worse—a Government who are so arrogant that they trust exclusively the views of focus groups rather than the House of Commons, or a Government who are so incompetent that they get the views of the focus group wrong. The Government do not understand their own focus group, so heaven help us.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Does the hon. Gentleman share my impression of the outcome of that survey, which is that a significant number of people wish to vote for a party, but that those who get involved with a system want to vote for individuals, and the Belgian system will satisfy both groups because it gives the option of party or individual?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I hope that I will not disappoint the hon. Gentleman too much when I give him our standard health warning, which is that we think that the first-past-the-post system is the best. We said that at the beginning. From the rest of the systems, the Government have chosen the worst, without any reason or justification in logic. The Home Secretary's logic is no better than his maths. His reason for not wanting the Belgian system is that it does not necessarily translate preferences for individual candidates into electoral success. It is somewhat strange that he should think that not necessarily translating preferences into electoral success is a defect when the system he proposes will never, by definition, translate individual preferences into electoral success, because it will be impossible to express any individual preferences. We should like to hear the Home Secretary's justification for that logic. We would also like the Home Secretary to justify the exercise that he has been carrying out, which he described as consultation. If we strip away the NOP survey, there is precious little else in the way of justification for the course taken by the Government. The Home Secretary's written answer refers to what he describes as the "incurable weakness" of the Belgian system, which I have just described. However, he knew full well about that on Second Reading, and he told the House so. The Home Secretary looks puzzled, but I have here his comments on Second Reading. He made it abundantly clear that he was fully aware of that feature of the system. Discussing voter preferences, the right hon. Gentleman said: On the other hand, that is marginally more complex than the present simple system that we propose, and it is possible for a candidate low down on a party list to receive many personal votes—perhaps more than those of his or her party colleagues—yet still not be elected, because the weight of party votes helps those higher up the list."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 814.] That is the self-same reason that the Home Secretary gave, in his written answer last Monday, for not adopting this system, yet he knew that all along, and told the House about it on Second Reading. The Home Secretary has engaged in a consultation, and it seems that nobody wants the system he was consulting on. I am certainly aware of no expert opinion or surveys of public opinion in favour of it, and no such opinion has been expressed in this House. We wonder about opinion among Labour Back Benchers. Not even the Government's focus group wants the system he has prepared, so to whom has the Home Secretary been listening during the consultation period? We appreciate the Home Secretary's good intentions, but the longer we look at this matter, the less wise we think the partisan comments about consultation were that the Home Secretary made on Second Reading. He might now wish to reconsider those comments, because the consultation has produced nothing in the way of change or additional justification for the steps that the Government are taking. Just for once, the Government should eat a little humble pie, if they can manage to do so. I say that with some sadness, because, after the wild goose chase on which the Home Secretary has embarked, we have ended up with a system that is unique in Europe because of the power that it gives to the central party machine. The Home Secretary looks puzzled. I made the same assertion in an earlier debate and explained that no other country in the European Union uses such a system because it involves the use of a closed list system at a regional level. Having made inquiries about that, the Home Secretary will have found that no other European country has such a system. The centralised party control that such a system gives is the feature that matters most to the Government. From beginning to end, in every conceivable way, the Government's real priority has been to put power in the hands of the party machine. We regret the fact that they have abandoned a good system that worked well—that of individual candidates and constituencies. That is alien to our traditions. For the first time, when voters cast their votes they will be confronted with a ballot paper containing just a party name. The individuals who will represent them regionally will be back-room people chosen as party placemen. We shall have a uniquely bad system of party control. It is well worth voting for the new clause, which will give the House an opportunity to reconsider that thoroughly bad and centralised party system at a later date.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The speech of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), to which the House has just listened with interest, was not compelling in its advocacy, and was personally abusive of the Home Secretary. He suggested that the consultative exercise in which the Home Secretary engaged was a sham. That conclusion is not justified. I confess to being disappointed with the Home Secretary's conclusions on this matter, which is why I tabled amendments Nos. 10 to 13. The system proposed in our amendments, to which the Home Secretary has undoubtedly given some thought, avoids the less attractive aspects of the system proposed in the Bill, which would prevent voters from voting for a candidate on a party list. However, the electoral system proposed in the Bill is immeasurably preferable to the current system, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was speaking out of both sides of his mouth in attacking a closed list system, for we currently have a closed list system of one, with no voter choice at all. He is not in the best position to argue for the kind of changes that we have advocated.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether he is saying that the present system, under which a local party's election candidate is chosen from a group of candidates by its paid-up members, is a one choice system?

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am saying exactly that. Internal party democracy may apply to the selection of a single candidate, but the electorate at large have to accept the activists' choice. Partly for that reason, we enthusiastically endorse a list system which would allow greater choice. Still greater choice would be allowed if the Government accepted an open list system, in particular the one that we advocate: the Belgian system, which is semi-open and allows choice of party or of individual. The Home Secretary said on Second Reading on 25 November that he would consider arguments for adopting the Belgian system, and I have no doubt that he has given the matter careful attention, in good faith. Many representations, from my hon. Friends and from others, have been made about that system, but we know from the written answer given by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), on 5 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) that no representations were made in favour of closed lists. It is incumbent on the Government to say why they came down so heavily against the weight of those representations. Evidence in support of open lists was submitted by Charter 88 and the Electoral Reform Society, and by a number of other respected organisations. Between Second Reading and the recent announcement of the Home Secretary's decision, polls and focus group studies have been carried out to assess public attitude to the open list system. The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to a focus group study commissioned by the Home Secretary. The largest survey was carried out by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London School of Economics, who questioned 1,130 people. It concluded: it is likely that a clear majority of voters in the 1999 elections would prefer to see an open list. The McDougall Trust commissioned National Opinion Polls to run eight focus groups in January, and it concluded: although voters claim to vote on the basis of a party, they react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves". The NOP survey for the Home Office found: voters can react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves, even if they tend to vote on the basis of party". The Home Office and McDougall Trust studies state that voters react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves". That is important, because voter turnout is a significant consideration. Turnout at the 1994 European elections was about a third of those eligible to vote. If the finding that voters "react strongly" implies reduced voter turnout, there is a risk that turnout will be less than a third in the elections next year. It is our duty to do all we can to ensure a greater turnout, and it is our view that some voter choice in the election of candidates is one way of achieving that.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

Is it the right hon. Gentleman's understanding, as it is mine, that the Government justify the Bill by saying that it will lead to greater voter participation than does the current system?

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The Minister will no doubt explain his thinking, but that is one of the arguments that moved my party to advocate a change of electoral system. There is a serious risk of that benefit being eroded, and the hon. Gentleman obviously agrees with me. In a written answer, the Home Secretary stated that the Belgian system suffers from a fundamental and incurable weakness, in that voters' preferences for individual candidates are not necessarily translated into electoral success."—[Official Report, 9 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 17–18.] That is true, and it was known last November, when the right hon. Gentleman agreed to consider the Belgian system. However, voters' preferences can lead to a change in the candidates who are elected. That would not happen in every case, but the system provides for voters to overturn the decision of a political party. Other systems are available. The Home Secretary knows that we prefer the single transferable vote system, but he said on Second Reading that he would consider only the Belgian system, which allows limited voter choice. An open list system with candidates listed alphabetically or randomly would be preferable, and would overcome what he described as a "fundamental and incurable weakness". The Home Secretary also justifies his decision by saying that the NOP study shows that most people vote for parties rather than for individuals. Whether or not that is true, it is not supported by the work carried out by NOP, and I agree with the hon. Member for Hertsmere on this point. NOP concluded that voters can react strongly to the removal of the right to select a candidate for themselves, even if they tend to vote on the basis of party". The NOP study also concluded that, when understood, the Belgian system is considered fairer, but ensuring it is understood is likely to be more difficult". That is a fair point, and I want to be utterly fair to the Home Secretary in my arguments. However, Professor Dunleavy's report found that 80 per cent. of people were able to fill in the Belgian-style ballot paper immediately, and without explanation. We hope that an explanation will be provided, although the Government have not given their views on that. The Home Secretary also says in his written answer that the system in the Bill is used by the majority of European Union citizens to elect MEPs. It is true that closed lists are used in Germany, France, Spain, Greece and Portugal, but in all those countries the regions used are far larger than in the United Kingdom, and have at least 25 Members—it is up to 99 members in Germany. The system in the Bill provides for between four and 11 Members per region. A closed list system might be more appropriate in Germany because it would not be reasonable to expect voters to know the candidates when they are electing from 99 members. In most European countries where regions are small, as in the United Kingdom, or where national delegations are small, some form of open list is used. The arguments in support of open lists are overwhelming, and is confirmed by the polling and focus group research. That is why I urge hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 10 to 13, to allow voters an opportunity to influence the election of candidates to represent them. This is not the final stage of the Bill's consideration by Parliament, and I profoundly hope that the arguments we are deploying will be considered carefully by the Government, not only this afternoon but between now and the Bill's later stages. I hope that the Government will, as hitherto, approach this with an open mind. I hope that they do not firmly close the door to all the representations that have been made and seek to justify something that appears to have no parentage—an argument for closed lists—and which no one other but they appears to be prepared to support.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I remember the current Home Secretary during the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was a firebrand for democracy. He constantly asserted the rights of the individual, and complained about the arrogance of Government. Despite his political allegiance, then and now, I sometimes find myself in agreement with him. Let me say to him publicly what I have said to him privately; in the face of his recent personal difficulties, I believe that he has acted with considerable dignity. Anything that I say later in my speech is not said out of any personal animosity. It is said that in the youth one can see the man. The Home Secretary's decision to opt for a closed list makes me doubt that truism. No one who has held true to their beliefs in democracy or who believes in the rights of the individual would be proposing a system so pernicious, undemocratic and contemptuous of the people. It allows the party machine, and only the party machine, to decide who is selected, the precedence of that selection, and, consequently, who is elected to represent the people of our country. No amount of bluster, which we heard a great deal of on Second Reading, no amount of statistics, which were used a great deal in Committee, no examples from foreign lands, more of which we will probably hear today, and no bombardment of partial statistics, which we have had throughout the Bill's consideration, can deny one central point—that the closed list system reduces the individual voter to mere voting fodder. It is Tammany Hall writ large. There is no need for a Member of the European Parliament elected under the closed list system to consider the wishes of their constituents, and there will be no need for them to attempt to inform or persuade the electorate. The only thing an MEP elected under that system need do is keep the party manager sweet. That means toeing the party line. It means that anyone who does not toe the party line will be relegated to a low place on the list, and consigned to electoral oblivion. I must tell Labour Members—I am sorry that there are not more democrats in their places today—that anyone who contemplates rebelling or becoming a member of the awkward squad had better beware. What the Government intend to do today for European parliamentary elections may happen tomorrow for Westminster elections. Those who believe that dissent, debate, discussion and argument are essential ingredients of democracy will not be able to argue against a closed list system for Westminster elections if they have supported the closed list system for European elections. Some of our greatest legislators were, at times, members of the awkward squad, including Wilberforce on the slave trade, Shaftesbury on philanthropic causes, Disraeli on the corn laws, Peel and Burke on Catholic emancipation, Churchill and Eden over appeasement, Macmillan on economic policy, and even Kinnock, Crossman, Bevan and Thorneycroft. Had they been subject to this form of legislation, they would never have been re-elected. The decision to break the constituency link and divide our nation into 11 enormous regions, with the absurdity of an individual being elected to represent 5 million constituents, is bound to damage the bond between the elector and their representative. I believe that, before the general election, no one would have believed that a Government of any political persuasion would be so crass and arrogant as to change government for the people, by the people into government by the party clone, for the party machine. Perhaps as depressing as anything else is the craven and slovenly attitude of the fourth estate, which seems to take no notice of what is happening in this country. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) contemptuously saying that those in the Press Gallery were like the hallelujah chorus because of their parroting of the Government's praises. I wish that my hon. Friend was present today, because I could tell him that at least they used to use their own words. Now they seem to regurgitate the Labour party's spun doctrine. Cannot the fourth estate understand the damage that is being done to our constitution—the one-sided settlement in Scotland, the lack of support in Wales, the decision to change the upper House without proposing anything that might be better, and now the decision on the closed list system, which is a denial of democracy? The press seem to be almost drunk on the nectar of Government patronage, and have forgotten that they have a responsibility to educate, inform and explain to the people of this country that they are losing rights that they have cherished and protections that they have enjoyed.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

There are many views on both sides of the House about the open and closed list systems. If the hon. Gentleman is so interested in democracy, will he explain how, under the present system, in the last European election over 4 million people, accounting for about 27 per cent. of the total vote, managed to elect between them 2 per cent. of the MEPs?

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I think that I need notice of that question to answer it properly. As I believe in giving clear answers to proper questions, I am sorry that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question. What I am clear about is that the first-past-the-post system is better than the system that is being proposed. I issue a warning to the Labour Government. They had better beware, because what is done by them may at some stage be done to them. The arrogance that they are displaying with their proposals may come back to haunt them, because they will, at some stage—I hope sooner rather than later—lose an election. This denial of democracy, contempt for people's views and arrogant assumption that any form of dissent is wrong, will be used against them by others who equally disdain democracy. Other hon. Members have mentioned that only one third of the electorate voted in the last European election. If voters are convinced, as they will be by this measure, that they are only voting fodder, used to endorse the yes men of a party system that they dislike, that figure will fall even further. To refuse to allow every voter a choice of which individual to support is wrong. It diminishes the value of their vote and reduces their respect for parliamentary democracy. The closed list system puts the party first. Anyone who believes in the dictum, "My country first, my constituency second, my party third," must oppose this anti-democratic measure.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

I support new clause 4. As I said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), my understanding is that the Government are justifying the Bill not least on the basis that it will generate greater interest and greater public participation in European elections and in the European Parliament. Of course, it has to be said that, in the three European elections since direct elections to the European Parliament began, public participation has left much to be desired. As has already been mentioned, the prospect is that participation in the forthcoming European election will be even less. That is a serious consideration. If participation in next year's European election is less than in the previous European election—I predict that it will be, an opinion that seems to be shared by other hon. Members—there must be an opportunity to conduct a review after that election of the workings of the Bill, which will almost certainly reach the statute book because of the Government's enormous majority in this place. After the election in 1999, there must be an opportunity to seek the public's views, not least on the erosion or destruction of the geographical link between a Member of the European Parliament and the area he represents. We need to give the public an opportunity to tell us how that has worked in practice—what the practical effects of destroying that link have been. We also need to consult the public on the removal of an MEP who, post the election in June 1999, proves, for whatever reason, to be unsatisfactory. That person, who is elected by this arcane system, may turn out to be thoroughly unsuitable and perhaps even corrupt. The public's view should be taken about a system that effectively takes away from them the right, which they have had for hundreds of years, personally to remove an unsatisfactory representative in their Parliament. In the light of those two features that I have mentioned—the ending of the geographical link and the Government's failure to answer the question of how the electorate get rid of an unsatisfactory MEP—after next year's election we have to be prepared to give the public an opportunity to comment on how the MEPs perform under the new system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has said, we are creating a regime that is unique in the degree of power that it gives to centralised party control. That is totally alien to all our traditions, another point that was made by my hon. Friend. It allows the MEPs, who will have been elected by this system of proportional representation, to treat the electors—the people who put them there—with total indifference. Labour Members may feel that they can condone that situation or that it need not concern the House, but the Government are making a terribly anti-democratic step. The removal of the electors' right to select candidates themselves and to hold those people, whom they ultimately select and elect, to account is a departure from this country's traditions of democracy. I genuinely believe that we shall come to regret the removal of that right. It displays an extraordinary arrogance on the part of Government and contempt on the part of politicians who promote and are in favour of the Bill, and who clearly put themselves above the people. They are contemptuous of the people who elected them to Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) made many good common-sense points, and I endorse them all. I hope that the House listened to what he said, because it was correct. I can relate it to my experience. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will bear with me if I relate that personal experience, because it demonstrates the way in which the link between a Member of Parliament and a constituency, and the relationship between Parliament, the Member and the people he represents, are all-important. In November 1994, the party Whip was withdrawn from me and seven of my colleagues. We were without it for six months. What happened was not what the Government had anticipated. They had, I am sure, anticipated that those eight Conservative Members would disappear without trace and never be heard of again, but what happened—I want the whole House to hear this, because it is important and relates directly to the question of democracy—is that my constituents and those of the other seven Members made it clear that they supported the people they had elected to this Parliament, and not the Government. Therefore, those eight Members of Parliament were sustained by the electorate who had put them there in the first place. The relationship between a Member of Parliament, the people who elect him and his duties and responsibilities in Parliament are finely balanced. If we take out of the equation any one aspect of that, we destroy the democratic process that we have known for so long. The Bill is taking out of the equation the most important factor—the right of electors to select their candidates.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

If the hon. Gentleman believes that his position was sustained by the electorate of Ludlow, can he explain how it was that Labour and the Liberal Democrats won 55 per cent. of the vote and he won only 42 per cent.?

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

That is the British system of parliamentary democracy. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would allow me to answer that question without ruling me out of order, as it takes us into a different argument—that between proportional representation and the first-past-the-post system. I am quite content to argue that point, but I am trying to confine my remarks to new clause 4, which proposes that a review procedure should be written into the Bill to allow us to revisit the matter after the next European elections in June 1999, when we shall have an opportunity to review the outcome of those elections. I am not alone in believing that the turnout at those elections will be even lower than in previous European elections. New clause 4 would also provide a chance to look at other aspects of the system. Will it be apparent at that stage whether MEPs are becoming indifferent to the people who elect them? Will the new system of being answerable only to the party—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire—rather than the electorate lead, as I believe it will, to corruption in politics on a scale that we have never known before? In spite of what the general public might be led to believe by the less responsible organs of the press, British politics is very incorrupt. We have a very honest system of government. We have honest politics because we are all answerable to the people who put us here, and they hold us to account. If the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) were here this evening, I am sure that he would agree with that. My colleagues and I rail against the fact that the Bill removes the direct link by which an MEP is answerable to his electorate. As in the instance I gave earlier, on occasion a Member of Parliament is sustained by the electors if he goes against the Government or takes a stand on a matter of principle or an issue that he considers vital to the country and which must come before his constituency and even his party. New clause 4 should be included in the Bill as a guarantee that the Government will provide an opportunity to re-examine the way in which the Bill works in practice.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I support the amendments referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), which seek to include in the Bill the concept of an open list. The Liberal Democrats seek two broad objectives from any electoral system. First, it should be generally proportional, as that is essential for the democratic process, and non-proportional systems can never achieve our democratic goal. Secondly, it should seek to maximise voter choice. The proposed system goes a long way towards our first objective of increased proportionality, and for that reason we support it. However, if the Government do not accept the amendments in respect of an open list, they will have failed to take an important step towards increasing voter choice. The best system to achieve both our objectives is the single transferable vote, and we remain committed to that, wherever possible, but clearly it was not to be included in the Bill. The crucial point is that the proposed system does not take us further away from voter choice than the first-past-the-post system. Although it makes no progress, it is not a step backwards. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) condemned the pernicious nature of the proposed system, but I would challenge him to say that the current first-past-the-post system is not equally pernicious. Once a group of party members have selected a candidate, if voters wish to vote for a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat member, they have only one choice. Many decent, honourable Conservative Members lost their seats because of swings that were identical to those against other hon. Members who may have been slightly less popular.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The hon. Gentleman should have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), whose position was sustained by local support. Hundreds of people select one representative from a group. I stood for selection for the seat of Mid-Bedfordshire against the former Attorney-General, so I was probably not my party's first choice, but the decision was made by hundreds of local people. The problem with the proposed system is that it would be not the people, but the party managers who chose the candidate.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman seems slightly confused about his own party's selection procedure. It is my understanding that only members of the Conservative party selected a candidate for the election. The Liberal Democrats follow an identical system. It is not the electors who choose the candidate, as we have no system of primaries. However, that brings me to my next point—how parties select their candidates. My understanding is that the new Conservative party—or the newCs—are following the example of the Liberal Democrats and moving towards the one member, one vote system and that you will select your candidates on that basis. It is certainly acceptable for all the Conservatives in a region to continue electing a rebel or a particularly difficult character. Under your system, as under ours, party managers will not be able to prevent local party members from making a selection, so we will be no worse off than we are under the current system. It will remain for local party members to decide whether they want people who toady and toe the line, or whether they want people who are slightly more independent. In our party and, I think, in yours—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps using the words "you" and "yours". He should try to use the correct parliamentary language.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding me of the correct terms. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats like candidates to show some independence. I would expect that to continue. We shall return to the issue of selection, and I would be interested to hear how the Labour party intends to select its candidates for the list. As political parties have a democratic system for selection to the lists, the closed list system does not take us backwards. The source of regret for the Liberal Democrats is that the Government failed to take the opportunity to move us forward towards greater voter choice in the electoral process. We hope that the Home Secretary and his team will return to the issue as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, give further consideration to the objective of maximising voter choice, and, having listened to the arguments so eloquently made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, produce an open list system that will at least enact the spirit of our amendments, if they cannot accept them today.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I support new clause 4, which is a good clause that I commend to the House. Like all Conservative Members who have spoken today, I start with the usual health warning that I support the first-past-the-post system. The speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) clearly showed the advantages of having a geographical base. In many respects, it sustains in this place independent Members of Parliament—perhaps those who are out of favour with their party—and enables them to speak their minds. In the political process, that is sometimes a very important thing. We in this country have a tradition that we elect individuals with party labels; indeed, it is worth reflecting on the fact that party labels did not appear on the ballot until about 1970, so even that is a relatively recent development. Therefore, what is proposed is alien to the British political tradition. I am not saying that all facets of first past the post are good. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) pointed out one of the deficiencies, which is that those in second or third place in many seats tend to get less representation. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) also made a good point, but, accepting the swings and roundabouts of the system, first past the post delivers effective government and effective representation at local level. Most of us have been through selections, when the first question asked is, "Will you live in the constituency?" at which we all beam and reply, "Yes." That answer would be totally meaningless in constituencies of the size proposed; for example, the South West area will stretch from the Isles of Scilly to Tewkesbury and Bournemouth. The local candidate preference would go under the proposed system. We have used in European parliamentary elections a system based on first past the post for nearly 20 years, and it has worked—not perfectly, but reasonably well, given the size of the seats. It has allowed the MEP to deal with a limited number of local authorities, county National Farmers Union representatives and other organisations. By and large, I do not get the impression that people want to change the system. There is some argument that the size of seats is too large, but the Government's arguments in favour of creating vast regional areas go the wrong way. Several of my hon. Friends have spoken about the open list and closed list systems, but I have some sympathy with the Home Secretary, in that that question cannot be considered in isolation; the size of the regions must be considered as well. Unfortunately, the regions chosen are too large for the electorate to have full information in terms of choosing candidates. In the South East area, there are 11 seats and in the North East, 10. Those areas are far too large: it would have been sensible to accept amendments tabled by the Conservatives at an earlier stage which tried to reduce the size of constituencies. An open list system would have been more sensible with a much more limited size of seat. However, there is a general feeling among hon. Members that open list systems are better. A system in which people vote for a political party and which is based purely on a list so that people have no local discretion is not a particularly good thing. New clause 4 is important, as it would place a duty on the Government to review the system after the election. That is fair. It would insist that the Government commence the review within 12 months of the election, so that they could find out how people felt when they went into the polling booths and how they felt about the whole process. Such a review, carried out under the auspices of a Speaker's conference, would not be unreasonable. A party list system is very much an alien concept, and it would be the first time that people on the mainland had used it, so some feedback from the electorate is important. As my hon. Friends have said, there are several tests one will want to apply to the new system—for example, turnout is critical. It is fair to say that if turnout were no higher or if it were lower, that should be a material factor in deciding what to do for the succeeding election. There are several points that should be discussed after the election is over and it would be sensible to have a thorough review—one that takes the temperature of the public and perhaps takes into account the views of the political parties that have to operate the new system. If, after the review, people feel that first past the post—despite its deficiencies in terms of the size of constituencies—is preferable, that should be a realistic option for consideration. That is what is suggested in new clause 4, which is why I support it. I do not like the proposed system. It will upset many people when they see how it operates in terms of party and in terms of the way they vote. It is important that if, as we anticipate, the Government get their way tonight—or tomorrow, or whenever—and the Bill is passed, they are subject to a duty to give full consideration to reviewing the process and perhaps reporting back to the House. Many claims have been made for the system, and a review process would be a useful tool in good government.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I rise to support the amendments in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have only three points to make. First, the Home Secretary must accept that there is little support for a closed system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made excellent speeches, and Conservative Members have made some good points in arguing against a closed system. It is easy enough to rebut them by saying, "Your system is worse"—we are all better at attacking than at explaining our own policies—but the fact that the Conservatives support a bad system does not invalidate their arguments against a closed system, which is a not-quite-so-bad system. There were strong points made that the Home Secretary should address. A closed system will lose much of the potential popularity that an open proportional system might gain. Secondly, as I understand it, my right hon. and hon. Friends initially proposed the Belgian open list system because discussions had suggested that it was the most likely to be acceptable to the Government. It is by no means the best open system in that it does not necessarily put more popular candidates higher up the list. If the Home Secretary thinks that that is a vital argument against the Belgian system, there are many other open systems that either number people one, two, three, four, or put an X opposite one name in a random or alphabetical list and so give the voter more choice. If the objection to the Belgian system is that it is less effectual, the answer is not to scrub all open systems, but to go for a more effectual open system. Thirdly, I should like to support the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam. If the Government insist on having a closed system, would it be possible to put on the face of the Bill that parties had to elect their list in a democratic fashion? That might be considered frightfully wicked, but I find the procedures of this House far more difficult to understand than electoral systems. I might be quite wrong—if I am, I am sure that someone will tell me—but I believe that it would satisfy the public to some extent if an element of democracy was introduced, and if it was put on the face of the Bill that the internal party mechanism that applied in our party, in the Conservative party and, I hope, in the nationalist parties and others, would ensure that candidates were responsible to local party members and not just to the big bad brothers in London.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I shall deal first with the precise points raised by new clause 4 and then cover the wider issues relating to the other amendments, which touch on the Belgian question. New clause 4 would require the Government to establish a major inquiry into the conduct of the 1999 European parliamentary elections. I should explain—I hope it will reassure hon. Members who support the new clause—that successive Governments have regularly reviewed electoral practices following both Westminster elections and other elections, and we intend to continue that practice. The House may know that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is chairing a working group which is reviewing all aspects of electoral procedure in the light of the 1997 general election. That working party involves hon. Members drawn from all the main political parties, including the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. We want the review to be as inclusive as possible. The reviews are not undertaken under statutory authority, and I do not believe that there would be merit—indeed, there are a lot of disadvantages—in tying ourselves to the proposals in new clause 4. It would be sensible—particularly as we are using a new electoral system—not to make decisions about the precise form in which a review should take place until after the election, so we can take account of the experience of holding the election. 5.30 pm I give an undertaking that there will be a review into the conduct of elections. I do not give an undertaking as to the precise form of that review, but we will consult the other parties. It will be for the Government to make proposals for the review and to conduct it, but we shall consult the other parties before proceeding. We shall seek, so far as possible, to gain agreement.

Richard Burden (Labour, Birmingham, Northfield)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is wide support among Labour Members for a review after the election, as concerns have been expressed about the closed list system. May I draw to his attention the fact that much of the support for a more open system has come from Labour and Opposition Members who are in favour of the principle of proportional representation—not just for European elections, but for other legislatures such as the House of Commons, where there is no substantial support for a list system as the basis for any proportional system?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and it will be for us to decide in the light of experience, but we will take account of his points. New clause 4(3) states: The review shall be conducted under the auspices of a Speaker's Conference. This is an old saw, and there are occasions when Speakers' Conferences are suggested as some kind of magic process by which agreement can be achieved. I have a list of the occasions when Speaker's Conferences have been held this century; 1908–10, 1917, 1930, 1943–44, 1965–68, 1972–74 and 1977–78. Scanning the list of dates, I am not aware of these Speaker's Conferences producing any significant change in the electoral system of this country. I can think of no legislation on elections—except the European Assembly Elections Act 1977—that coincided with any of those Speaker's Conferences. I happen to know that the 1977 Bill was not prompted by a Speaker's Conference.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I served on two of those Speaker's Conferences, and I can fully fortify the Home Secretary's argument that they did not lead to significant changes. Indeed, the Speaker's Conference which concluded its deliberations in 1968 recommended votes at 20 for young people, but the Government of the day decided simply to ignore that and to proceed with votes for young people at the age of 18.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I were speculating earlier about the right hon. Gentleman's secret of eternal youth. He has sat in this House continuously since 1966, and he looks little older than I remember him 30 years ago. He wears his age very well. I thought that there was a sting in the tail when the right hon. Gentleman talked about the Labour Government in the 1960s ignoring the decision of the Speaker's Conference to go for a voting age of 20, but he omitted to mention the fact that the committee under Mr. Justice Latey, which reported in 1968, recommended a voting age of 18. As I recall, that was the reason why the then Labour Government chose it.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

rose—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am going to be corrected again.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

There was no sting in the tail of my previous intervention, but there might be in this, for I was also on the Latey committee. The committee did not have it within its terms of reference to recommend anything about public rights—it was entirely devoted to private rights, and the age of majority for civil purposes.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall be careful before mentioning any other committee in case he has sat on it.

Martin Linton (Labour, Battersea)

There is a sting in the tail in the suggestion from the Opposition of a Speaker's Conference, which is that such a conference can proceed only on the basis of consensus. As the Opposition have said that they are committed to the first-past-the-post system, the new clause would clearly have the effect of a wrecking amendment.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Whether it would be wrecking or not, there is a great deal of sense in what my hon. Friend says. I ask the Opposition to think again. A Speaker's Conference would be an unwieldy piece of machinery. I have given an undertaking about a review and the Opposition will be consulted. They are certainly involved in the current review, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will take that as a statement of good faith. I now come to the issue for which the British public have been waiting—they talk of little else at my open-air meetings in Blackburn—whether this House should go for the simple, British-manufactured list system, or the Belgian list system. I wish to refer to two preliminary matters raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and a separate one raised by the hon. Member for Hertsmere about the system proposed by the Bill. The hon. Member for Ludlow made important points about the independence of Members of Parliament and their freedom to speak out and vote according to their conscience, and how that independence derives from our system of election and, above all, from our connection with our constituencies. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I hope that that is not too much of a shock for him. The hon. Member for Ludlow was in the Chamber on 25 November for the Second Reading debate, where I set out at some length my belief about the way in which the Commons operates, and how one of the enormous strengths of our system is that, however high and mighty we think we may be, the fact that we have to go back to our constituency on a Friday evening, sit in a community centre and receive representations from our constituents, gives us a direct link to our constituents in a way that it is impossible to replicate under a system of multi-Member proportional representation."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 804.] I believe that passionately, as does the hon. Member for Ludlow. The view is widely shared in the House. However, the hon. Gentleman was advancing an argument about this Chamber—a legislative Chamber which sustains a Government. That is not what we are talking about in respect of the European Parliament, and that is why it causes me no difficulty—notwithstanding my views about the importance of the way in which the representation of the Chamber is rooted in our communities—to propose the Bill. The difference is that the European Parliament is not a legislature. It is a representative body. It does not sustain a Government and, moreover, the constituencies with which we have ended up are very large—so large, in my view, as to lead to an artificial and distant relationship between the Member and the elector. It follows that, as the function of a Member of the European Parliament is primarily representative, we need to move to a more representative electoral system.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Does the Home Secretary agree that the European Parliament now has a legislative role, which the Labour party has consistently—well, certainly for two years—supported? The Single European Act 1985, the enactment of the Maastricht treaty and the legislation to implement the Amsterdam treaty, which the Prime Minister steered through the House, have given legislative powers to the European Parliament, where the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), served with great distinction. The real comparison is between the European Parliament and Congress in the United States—there is a similar system of checks and balances, and a similar constituency size in terms of electors' and MEPs have forged links with their constituents as strongly as Congressmen.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I accept that the three Acts to which the hon. Lady referred—two of which were passed under the Conservative Government—have given the European Parliament legislative functions, but those functions are limited and they are shared with the Council of Ministers and the Commission. I do not want to go down this path in any detail—that would not be in order—but I point out that sovereignty rests with the Westminster Parliament. Parliament can, at any time in the future, decide that the United Kingdom should not be a member of the European Union. That remains the case for each of the other member states. That is what makes the profound difference.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

I accept that there is a difference between the Westminster Parliament and the European Parliament—indeed, many of us feel that the European Parliament is not so much a Parliament as an assembly. I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise the fears among Conservative Members that the Bill represents the thin end of the wedge, and that it will encourage Labour Members to bring forward another Bill to introduce proportional representation to elections to the Westminster Parliament, which would be entirely inappropriate.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I do not think that the Bill is the thin end of the wedge—it deals with a very different institution. I have always taken the view that, on voting systems, there must be horses for courses. Under the Labour Government—we made this absolutely clear in our manifesto—there can be no change in the voting system for the House of Commons without the explicit approval of the British people in a referendum. I have one set of views, which I have expressed. One of the reasons why I have supported the proposal for a referendum is that I believe that it is time for the argument about the electoral system that applies to the House of Commons to be brought to a conclusion. Either the British people will give the current system new legitimacy and approval or they will vote for a change. I shall not speculate about what will happen, but I say that as an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

The right hon. Gentleman misleads himself, if not others, if he seriously thinks that, under the co-decision procedure and the system of majority voting in the Council of Ministers, the House of Commons is not bound by the decisions that are taken. The further that we move towards European government, the worse the situation becomes—it is bound to affect the votes in the ballot box of people making a free choice. In practice, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make a distinction that cannot be made. On the question of individual choice in the ballot box, there is no real difference—especially given the increasingly grand functions that are conferred in the European arena—between what is decided in the House of Commons and what is decided in the European institutions, which are increasingly seen as a superior sphere of law.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the issue, but I repeat that it is ultimately a matter for the Westminster Parliament whether we accede or remain subject to any treaty. If we accede to a treaty, we are bound by its obligations for as long as we accept them, but ultimately sovereignty rests with Parliament. The hon. Member for Hertsmere claimed that the simple list system that is proposed in the Bill would be unique in Europe in terms of the amount of power that would be placed in the hands of the party machine. I tried to persuade him that that was incorrect.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way on that point, as I want him fully to understand my argument. The evil of a proposal for such a concentration of power lies in the fact that there will be a closed list system at a regional level. As far as I know, no other such system exists in Europe—in the European Union, at least; I do not know about eastern Europe—but I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us if he thinks otherwise. I have been unable to discover a system that so concentrates power at such a level within the party machinery.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The hon. Gentleman makes my next point for me. He has accepted, by implication, that there are a number of other countries that operate closed or simple lists—they include France, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain, which contain more than half the voters of the European Union. The system is far from unique. Which is more democratic, a regional list or a national list? The system in France, where each party centrally determines all the 87 members on a list, must be subject to greater central control than the system that we are proposing, whereby the component parts of the parties—in Scotland, Wales and the English regions—will determine who will be on the lists. I do not accept the conclusion of the hon. Member for Hertsmere—indeed, the reverse of what he says is true. I shall now deal with the Belgian system, which is central to the issues raised in the new clause and the amendments. The hon. Member for Hertsmere was good enough to remind the House what I said on Second Reading, when I spelled out our support for the simple list system. I said: it has been suggested, both by the constitutional group Charter 88 and by the Liberal Democrats, that we could introduce an electoral system of the kind that operates in Belgium and Denmark, whereby voters can vote either for a party as a whole or for an individual candidate from the party list—or, of course"— as is common to all those systems— for an independent candidate. I discussed the merits and demerits, and said: I am prepared to listen to the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system and to give them careful consideration."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 813–14.] As the hon. Member for Hertsmere was good enough to accept, I did not suggest that we were committed to going down the Belgian route—as things have turned out, that has certainly been the case. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for accepting that I have acted in good faith. I have listened to the arguments carefully, and I have also studied the system with greater care than I was able to before Second Reading on 25 November. On Second Reading—I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere—I mentioned some of the obvious differences between the Belgian and the simple list systems. The key difference—voter choice may operate in such a way that a candidate may receive more personal votes but still not be elected to the list—was certainly known, and I acknowledged it in my speech. However, none of us had then had the opportunity—I certainly had not—to go into further detail about exactly how that factor would work out; nor were we able to determine what weight should be given to the various advantages and disadvantages of the systems. That is what I have sought to do in the three months since the debate on 25 November. I have also sought to assist right hon. and hon. Members in assessing the system by placing in the Library an explanation of its operation and, more recently, some examples of how it sometimes, in my judgment, operates capriciously by implying that candidates with the highest number of personal votes have won when they have not. In addition, in December we decided that it would be sensible to commission some research into what is a complicated matter and we retained NOP. The results were passed to Opposition spokespeople and placed in the Library as soon as we received them. The hon. Member for Hertsmere chided me about the time that that took, but I chided NOP, because the delay was frustrating and we might have been able to make decisions earlier had the information been available. The difficulty first arose in finding a research house that was able to do the work, which then had to establish its focus groups.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The Home Secretary is now talking about the mechanics of the system, but he has not yet dealt with the principle. The principle of a closed list system is that the party organisation makes the decisions—albeit slightly devolved in some cases. The Home Secretary knows that many valuable Members, on both sides of the House, belong to the awkward squad. Do not his proposals for the European Parliament mean that any Labour member of the awkward squad would never get high enough on the list to be elected?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Exactly the same factors apply to Westminster. Within living memory, the Conservative party was the most centrally controlled party of all, and Conservative central office's writ was strong. That period coincided with a time of strong Conservative Government. The party then entered an anarchist phase and we have seen the results in the past four years, as the Tory party fell apart and all sorts of people who were born with two left feet caused huge trouble to the party whip. The result was that the Conservative party fell to the biggest defeat in its electoral history.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

But we won the argument.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point, because he is still part of the anarchist tendency and obviously enjoys it. If a party contains two irreconcilable groups, it must have a loose system of discipline to try to keep them together. The Labour party went through an anarchist phase, with equally disastrous consequences, and we have now chosen to introduce some discipline. I make no apologies for that. I can tell the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) that even 30 years ago, when I occupied a different position, I recognised the importance of discipline, as one or two hon. Members can testify.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

rose—

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I will not give way, because I must get on, and I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I wish to deal with the questions raised about the Belgian system. In balancing the Belgian system against the closed list system, we must give great weight to the need for simplicity. We are moving to a new system and, although such systems are well understood abroad, they are not necessarily well understood in this country. Every hon. Member who has read the NOP report will agree that British electors are remarkably ignorant about the European Parliament and what Members of the European Parliament do. We hope to see an increase in interest following the change in the electoral system, but the new system must be simple. NOP had problems—which were one reason for the delay—in setting up focus groups. It tried to create groups at least half of whose members had definitely voted in the previous European parliamentary elections, but that proved impossible. Instead it had to make do with people who were assumed to have voted in those elections, because they claimed always to vote. That may be regrettable, but it is something that we cannot ignore. We need an electoral system that, while meeting the basic goal of proportionality, is as simple as possible and does nothing to discourage people from voting. In my judgment, the Belgian system does not deliver that. The overriding problem with the Belgian system is that apparent preferences do not translate into electoral success. As I said when I announced the Government's decision, it is not necessarily the candidates with the most personal votes who are elected. It has taken me some time to assess the weight that should be given to that factor, but I have placed in the Library several examples of what could happen under different patterns of voting, comparing votes for a party list and for individuals on a list. Even when as many as 40 per cent. of voters express a personal preference for an individual candidate—which is unlikely to happen—in almost all cases the first three candidates on the party list are elected. For those hon. Members who have a copy of the report before them, that is shown in example I. Votes can be cast for candidates in inverse weight to the order of the list, so that candidates at the bottom of the list get the most personal votes and those at the top the fewest, but the candidates at the top of the list are still elected. Therefore, while one can see the attractions of the system before the election because it might seem to offer voters an extra element of choice, we might find that after the election we would reap a whirlwind—[Interruption.]

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. I do not know which hon. Member is responsible for that electronic noise, but Madam Speaker takes a serious view of such happenings.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Unfortunately, some of the Whips are unable to communicate by words, so they have to rely on other means.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Some of them cannot read, either.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

My hon. Friend should know, because she was once a Whip.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

As my right hon. Friend has mentioned me, will he give way?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Yes, I will.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

As a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad, I assure my right hon. Friend that my affection for him will remain undiminished, but why does he assume that less control will be exerted over a regional list than over a central list? Is he aware that, under the German system, candidates can be defeated by the electorate but still return on the list? If that is not anti-democratic, I do not know what is.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I believe that there is potential for more democratic control by parties regionally rather than locally. The argument runs that there is most democratic control by the party at local level, as the smallest unit, and the least at a national level. The regional level is in between. I am happy to explain that point in more detail to my hon. Friend later.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The Home Secretary will know that the Conservative party has decided that its members in the regions will be able to select the candidates for nomination. I understand that the Labour party will choose its candidates for every region centrally in London.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The hon. Gentleman is ill informed about our system, as he is about his party's system. According to a speech made in the House recently, the Conservative party proposes to hold a mass meeting in each region of all Conservative party members to choose the candidates for the list, and rank them in order by some sort of open outcry system. Some serious objections were raised to that procedure by a Conservative Member because it would be difficult to get members from the south-east region, which ranges from Berkshire to Gravesham, in a single hall to conduct that process. Plenty of halls are small enough, but that is another point. I fancy that, if the Conservative party wants to put up a coherent list of candidates, it will have to take some lessons, from the Liberal Democrats and perhaps from the Labour party, about how to run parties by an internal democratic system. 6 pm Opinions about the report differ and it is fair to say that it came to no firm conclusion either way. But it exposed electors' concern about the way in which the Belgian system could operate. One member of the public said: Candidate F could still poll more than the top candidate, and still not get in. Another member of the public said: I don't think it's fair. The person at the top might have less votes. The person at the bottom might have a lot more votes but if they haven't got the quota they haven't got any chance". Another person said: That's not a fair system". As I have explained, one of the points that I considered was how often the result would fail to reflect voters' personal preferences for candidates. Those who support the Belgian system argue that that happens very rarely and that, in three successive elections in Belgium, the Belgian voter has sought to overturn the party' s list on only three occasions out of 75. The argument is that, in practice, the result of the Belgian system will be little different from that of the closed list system, but the Belgian system looks better. Superficially, I understand the nature of that argument, but I believe that it rests on dangerous foundations. The foundation of the argument is that the British voter will behave in the same way as the Belgian voter. I know of no basis for such a proposition. We do not know what proportion of voters would choose to vote for a candidate down the list rather than for the party or the candidate at the head of the list. We do know that, on a wide range of possible voting patterns, voters may end up with a strong sense in some cases of almost being cheated. That will happen when they see a candidate with the fewest personal votes being elected and a candidate with the most personal votes not being elected.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

May I press the Home Secretary on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)? Will an individual member of the Labour party have an opportunity to determine the order of candidates that his party will be putting to the electorate?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

There will be ballots within our party, and party members will be able to express preferences about which candidates should go on to the list for further consideration.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

We must regard as the nub of his argument the proposition that the British voter would be disposed to be different from other voters. No one would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being insular, but he seems to be embracing some sort of curious national stereotype. The only significant evidence that we have is that of actual elections—as well as the conclusions of the focus groups, which, looked at not anecdotally, as he has done, but in the round, showed a clear propensity of view favouring open lists.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I was not making a chauvinist point, but I was, by implication, making a point about the nature of Belgian politics, which is very different from politics in many other countries in Europe, because the Belgian nature is split between the Flemings and the Walloons. That affects their politics in a way that outside, Northern Ireland, our politics, thankfully, is not affected.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I shall not give way, as I have given way many times and I want to conclude my remarks. I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome. I hope that Opposition Members will weigh the words I believe that this is a fair and balanced system that will produce a representative outcome with great care, because they were not my words or those of any Labour or Liberal Democrat Member, but those of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) when he was Prime Minister and he was advancing the case for this system for use in the Northern Ireland peace forum elections. They are recorded in Hansard, 21 March 1996, volume 274, column 498. I have to say to the hon. Member for Hertsmere that the simple closed list system using the d'Hondt divisor that he described an hour or so ago as a rotten and wretched system is precisely the system that he, as a member of the Government, supported when it was introduced with the broad consent of the House by his right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister. Were that system rotten and wretched, and the worst possible system, as the hon. Gentleman now proclaims, it would not have been used by him or by his right hon. Friend for any election for any sort of institution. But it was used for the elections to the Northern Ireland peace forum, which was an important part of the peace process, because what was sought was a system which was proportional and produced a representative outcome. In our judgment, that is what is needed for elections to the European Parliament—a system that is proportional and simple, and that produces a representative outcome. That system was good enough for the previous Prime Minister; we also believe that it has every merit for the European elections. I ask the House to oppose the new clause.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

I wish to register my deep objection to any sort of proportional representation. Listening to the Secretary of State ducking and weaving in and out of the policies that have been prescribed for him by No. 10 is astonishing. He knows perfectly well that he prefers the first-past-the-post system, but he has been given his instructions and is carrying them out to the letter. I strongly recommend that the Home Secretary reads Burke's "A Letter to a Noble Lord" in which the cleric, the Abbé Sieyès, is described as having come up with a range of different constitutions. I heard the Home Secretary refer to patterns, the bottom and the top, and helping everything to look better. I recommend that he reads the description of the constitutional contortions of the Abbé Sieyès. He will then discover that many lessons were learned many years ago about the way to run a proper democracy. The direction in which the Government are taking the British people is directly contrary to the principles and traditions on which free votes have been held for generations and should continue to be held.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I apologise to the Home Secretary and to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was dealing with a constituency matter, but I took advantage of the television cameras—against which I voted when the House decided on their introduction—and was able to observe the debate. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me, because the measure is one of a series of measures that will introduce huge constitutional changes to our country, sweep away Britain's constitutional landscape and create a wholly new and alien one in the same way as did the hurricane that swept through the south of England in 1987. I recognise that Labour Members feel that they have a mandate for the changes, but they are not being debated out there among the British people, because newspapers, even the broadsheet newspapers, are not interested. They are interested only when Mr. Murdoch feels that his reporters' ability to pry into the lives of public citizens is threatened and that part of the Government's legislative programme might create, through the back door, a privacy law that would impair his ability to play his newspapers in the way that he wants. We are debating only one of the measures, but it is part of a pattern, which is why I support new clause 4. It is essential that the system should be reviewed within 12 months of its coming into operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made a strong case for a Member of Parliament or a member of the European Parliament having direct association with those who returned him to this place or to the European Parliament. The Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I hope that the Home Secretary will be kind enough to listen to me for a minute. He made a good point in response to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow: he entirely agreed with him regarding elections to this place. The only point of departure was that he felt that the European Parliament does not sustain a Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) pointed out, it is the contention of those of us who oppose the drift towards federalism that the European Parliament and European Commission are taking powers away from the House, and that therefore they are assuming the role of a Government. The Home Secretary knows as well as I do that our continental partners want a single European state, a single Government and a single Parliament, and he is creating a voting system that could, in theory, apply to a European Government of the future. I urge the Home Secretary to think again about what he is creating. I hope it will not damage him when I say that I have no doubt that he is sincere in his view that the pattern that he proposes for European elections will not be extended into elections for this place, but I do not believe that his colleagues on the Benches behind him are all of the same view. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, I disagree with the Home Secretary: I think that it will be the thin end of the wedge. In the south-east, we shall have a constituency of 5.5 million electors. It is bad enough at the moment, with a constituency of 500,000 electors. At least Graham Mather, who represents me in the European Parliament, is an excellent Member of the European Parliament. He is a Tory—I am not sure how many others there are—

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Excuse me.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

My hon. Friend, of course, is a Tory Member of the European Parliament, but she does not represent me and she is a very much prettier Tory than Mr. Mather. His constituents know that, if they have a problem, they can turn to him for help. Incidentally, the people of his constituency and my constituents have increasing problems because the House is losing its powers to determine legislation; increasingly, decisions are taken on the continent. Mr. Mather's constituents know where to turn. Where will they turn if the system that the Government propose is introduced? It is absolutely right and proper that we should be accountable to our constituents individually, and in this Parliament my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow and for Stone (Mr. Cash)—formerly the Member for Stafford—and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are proving the value of being able to speak out and knowing that they are accountable not to the apparatchiks of their parties, but to those who returned them to this place. The Labour party is already demonstrating a very unattractive, Stalinist approach to all this. Ken Coates and Hugh Kerr were drummed out of the Labour party merely for disagreeing with the Government's policy on the electoral system. The Bill will give more power to the party apparatchiks and, although some of the party apparatchiks in my party are some of my best friends, I nevertheless believe that they would agree that their power should be contained. I am proud to be a Conservative, and part of the essence of being a Conservative is that one believes that a thing should be changed only when necessary; otherwise, one should conserve what is good. The Home Secretary and the Government are sweeping away some of the pillars of the United Kingdom constitution, and some of those things for which this country is the envy of the world. That is why I shall stand here to fight for what I believe should be conserved. I will not defer to anyone in that. If the Home Secretary can make a case to justify the change that he is proposing, let him make it. He has a duty to make a case that change is needed. Instead of making that case, he has proved the point that the new electoral procedure that he proposes for the European elections will be deeply damaging, because it will remove the connection between the elected Member and those who elect him or her. The only case that the Home Secretary might make is that there is little public interest in the European election. I do not believe that the Bill will increase public interest in European elections. Indeed, I believe that, because it will be even more remote, there will be even less interest in future than there is at the moment. I conclude by urging the Home Secretary to take on board the significance of the responsibility that rests with him and his Cabinet colleagues. They must not—they have no right to—inflict on the British people the destruction of some of the traditions that we hold dear in this country, which the public are not aware are under threat from the Government. It is the duty of those of us who do not believe that this is the right way to go, to warn the Government of the whirlwind that they will reap with the Bill and the raft of other measures that they propose.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I have listened carefully to the debate. I welcome what the Home Secretary said at the start of his speech about consultation, and I welcome the spirit in which he said it. Before I discuss the substance of his other comments, which I am afraid did not assuage my concerns, I pay tribute to some of the excellent speeches that we have heard, especially from the Conservative Benches, by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms), for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Stone (Mr. Cash)—formerly for Stafford. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire spoke feelingly, in a very thoughtful speech; my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow made a speech which his record entitled him to make; and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole made a typically well-informed speech. I hope that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) will not mind my saying that I was perplexed by his speech, because he attacked my speech and then agreed with all my arguments. I suppose that that is another example of the Liberals not being prepared to press their convictions. Apparently they will do almost anything to curry favour with the Government and will not raise a peep of protest even when they have been given a humiliating rebuff—which they have been by the Government's refusal to listen to a word that they have said about the Bill and about open lists. The Home Secretary's comments reveal that he has not fully grasped my argument about the uniqueness of the system that he proposes. The unique feature is the use of a closed list at a regional level. The closed list discriminates against individual candidates. It is impossible for the electorate to express a preference for an individual party candidate, and, at a regional level, it makes it much more difficult for a small party—or individuals who wish to form a small party—to get elected. The system is a double whammy for the party machine, and the most centralised form of party control in Europe. No other country has such a system. It does not help the Home Secretary's case for him to talk about the selection of candidates, because he is on somewhat dodgy ground there. He did not give a complete answer to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, although he was pressed on the subject. The method of selecting candidates is not the only important issue. The crucial aspect, in a list system, is the order of candidates on the list. I say that without making a party concession. It will not avail anyone greatly to be No. 10 on the Conservative list in the north-west or No. 4 on the Conservative list in the north-east. What is important—[Laughter.] I contested Bootle for the Conservative party, so I believe that I am entitled to say that. What is important is the order of the names—who appears high in the list, for all parties in different parts of the country.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

indicated assent.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The Under-Secretary has grasped that point. It is significant that the Labour party, for its own internal reasons, is not prepared to give individual party members the opportunity to put the candidates in order under the list system. Individual members are deprived of that opportunity, which members of the Conservative party will have. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made a good speech, complaining about the ridiculous size of the regions; we say amen to every word of that. Although I welcome what the Home Secretary said about consultation, I do not have great confidence in his comments, given the background of the way in which consultation proceeded. The Home Secretary told us that he had seen no new evidence in support of the course that he wishes to take with closed lists. He had heard no new representations or new arguments. Apparently, it turned out that, although he chose the Belgian system from those available, the Belgian people have characteristics that make them different from people in the United Kingdom. It remains a bit of a mystery why the Home Secretary chose the Belgian system when he could have selected any one of a number of other systems. It shows that the Government are unwilling to consult and to listen. They have chosen not only a bad system—we think that first past the post is much better—but a bad system of the worst form. They are not prepared to listen to argument; it is another example of the way in which power has gone to the Government's head. That is why we shall press new clause 4 to the vote.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A written question tabled by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) relating to the siting of the Welsh assembly was due to be answered today. However, the Library has made it clear that it has not been answered today, but is likely to be answered tomorrow. We have been told that Opposition spokesmen will be telephoned before the announcement of the siting of the assembly, but no Conservative spokesman on Welsh affairs has been contacted. A Welsh journalist has told me that the announcement is expected tomorrow and that it will be made from the Welsh Office in Cardiff. Has the Secretary of State for Wales told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he wishes to make a statement first to the House of Commons on the siting of the Welsh assembly—which is one of the most important announcements that he is likely to make to the House—so that hon. Members of all parties can question him on his decision? If he has not, is not this yet another backward step and proof of the Government sidelining the House on an important issue?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

I have no knowledge of any statement that might be made on the matter.

NUMBER OF MEPs, ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, after '(4)', insert 'Subject to subsection (4A) below,'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 20, at end insert— '(4A) As soon as possible after 16th February in each pre-election year the Boundary Commission shall— (a) ascertain whether the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same for England, Scotland and Wales, and (b) make by order such modifications to any of the number of MEPs specified in subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c) as may be necessary to ensure that result.'.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The amendments are designed to explore the future distribution of seats between England, Scotland and Wales. The Bill contains a mechanism for redistributing seats between the 11 regions in England, but there is no such mechanism for redistributing seats between England, Scotland and Wales. That feature of the Bill has attracted some comment and led to questions in some quarters about whether it was an oversight by the Government. If it is not an oversight, and if there is a reason for the difference, perhaps the Minister will tell us what it is. Many people who have examined the Bill have wondered why the Government have chosen to deal with the distribution of seats in the way they have. We want to hear about the Government's approach, against the background of fairness and equity, in the Bill and in all such legislation affecting the redistribution of seats. We look forward to hearing the Government's explanation.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The amendments would require the boundary commission to perform a calculation to determine whether the division of seats between England, Scotland and Wales ensured that the ratio of MEPs to electors across Britain was, as nearly as possible, the same, and, if not, to make an order to make the necessary adjustment. Clause 1 sets out the number of MEPs that each part of the UK will return: England has 71, Scotland eight, Wales five, and Northern Ireland three. I listened carefully to the brief speech that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made in support of the amendments, but he has not made much of a case for them. They would require the boundary commission to perform the calculation to which I have referred. There is nothing to be added to what has already been said on that subject. For some reason, the hon. Gentleman has left out Northern Ireland. I do not know whether that was an oversight or whether there was a specific reason for his doing so. In any event, that would create difficulties, because Northern Ireland forms part of the whole. I know that there has been some concern about the division of MEPs between the component parts of the UK. Indeed, that point was debated in different ways at earlier stages of our deliberations. Let me put the record straight on one very important fact: the Bill does not change the allocation of MEPs between the constituent parts of the UK. The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, in its current form, has on its face exactly the division of MEPs for which clause 1 of this Bill provides. Let me enlighten the House about how that division came about. In the early 1990s, as a consequence of German reunification, the number of MEPs to which the UK was entitled was increased from 81 to 87. The then Conservative Government brought forward a Bill to provide for an allocation of 71 MEPs for England, eight for Scotland and five for Wales. That Bill became the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993, and it is those numbers that this Bill replicates. It is worth noting that since the very first direct elections to the European Parliament, the number of MEPs that each part of the United Kingdom will return has always been set out on the face of the statute. We see no reason to depart from this tradition. Dividing up Members between the parts of the United Kingdom is Parliament's prerogative, and we believe that it should remain so. Indeed, the importance of that was demonstrated in the discussion following a contribution earlier in the Bill's proceedings by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) who tried to persuade us that Scotland should have an extra MEP. In the light of what I have said, and because the Bill follows the precedent, I invite the hon. Member for Hertsmere—

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I will give way, but only briefly as I want the hon. Member for Hertsmere to respond to my comments.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Can the Minister tell the House the highest and lowest ratios of electors per MEP that currently appertain?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

No, not without spending five minutes looking it up. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that, under the current system, the ratio is about 500,000 electors per MEP. There is some variation, in the tens of thousands, each side of that figure. Clearly, as we are having a regional list system, that will vary considerably. I return to my earlier point. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

This is an important issue. Apportionment between countries goes back partly to the 1944 Speaker's conference, when certain guidance was given on the distribution of seats between Scotland, Wales and England. Under the first-past-the-post system, account can be taken of some degree of sparsity of population and geographic conditions. That is, in effect, the basis of the present system. I have been present for most stages of the Bill's consideration and I have heard words such as "proportional", "fair" and "inclusive". However, we end up with a Bill where England has 83.3 per cent. of the electorate of the United Kingdom but only 81.6 per cent. of the UK's MEPs. The reality is that England is 1.7 MEPs under quota. If there were ever an opportunity to equalise the electorate across the United Kingdom, or certainly Great Britain, as the amendment would, it is before us. No one has yet explained to me why England does not have fair representation. I accept that when we subdivide 87 seats, we do not end up with a perfect quota. The figures do not emerge perfectly. However, there is certainly a claim for one additional seat in England, and possibly two. It is odd that a Bill that is built on fair votes, proportionality, inclusiveness and fairness to everybody succeeds in producing arrangements based on 83.3 per cent. of the electorate having only 81.6 per cent. of the votes.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend is making an important point. In an attempt to try to find some middle ground between the two Front Benches, the Opposition, have not challenged the number of seats in the 1999 election, although a case could be made for England to have another seat, as my hon. Friend is showing with great eloquence. We are seeking to put in place a fair and impartial mechanism for the future so that, when there are transitions of people, it will be possible for an independent organisation to make representations and give advice to the House about future numbers, rather than our challenging the numbers for next year.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. However, there is concern that if we do not have fair distribution now, precedents might be set, with the result that future redistributions, future votes and future allocations of seats may be based on an unfair formula between England, Scotland and Wales—the main countries of Great Britain. That would be our concern. That is particularly so because we know, given the terms of the Bill, that the redistribution of seats between regions will be decided by the Home Secretary and not by an independent boundary commission. That being so, the issue is very much in the political domain. As I have said, England has 83.3 per cent. of the UK electorate, but it will have only 81.6 per cent. of the seats. It is worth making it known to the Government that that is of great concern to us. The Minister talked about Northern Ireland, which is excluded from the amendment. Northern Ireland has a quota of 2.7 per cent., which means that there would be some doubt about a third seat. However, we all appreciate that there is a special circumstance for the Province. From a political perspective, three seats would, in effect, allow two Protestant seats and one Catholic to have representation within the European Parliament. That is a somewhat crude division, but the withdrawal of one seat, even in the absence of qualification for quota, might lead to political problems in Northern Ireland. In the context of what is good for the United Kingdom, we all might agree that there could be a persuasive argument for a third seat for Northern Ireland. There is certainly not fair distribution. If the Bill means anything, it is about equality of votes. As a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, I stress that it would not be my overwhelming argument, but I have heard Ministers say that the Bill is about fairness of votes, inclusivity and proportionality. Yet we do not have proportional distribution. What has gone wrong? As we said earlier, the Government have allocated seats on the basis of an English quota and have then added the seats of Wales and Scotland. No United Kingdom quota has been put forward, so there is not a fair allocation of seats within the countries of the Union. I do not wish to pursue the point. I wish only to emphasise that there will not be a fair allocation. I stress also that our concerns are for the future. There will come a stage when shifts of population will mean that seats have to be reallocated. When the new system takes effect at the first election, we do not want proportionality for everyone except the English.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

When debating the Scottish Parliament, many of us have complained about over-representation by Scottish Members in this Parliament. We asked the Government to reduce that representation so that there would be a balance with English Members. The Government refused to do that. They said, "You will have to wait for the regular report of the boundary commission." They did not explain why we would have to wait for it. Equally, they did not explain why a report could not be produced earlier. We shall have to wait, and we all know that that could mean that there will not be even representation between English and Scottish Members for about 12 or 15 years. Why should we be asked to trust the Government on this issue? The amendment is fairly simple; it is asking only for equity. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) said. I recognise that we did not over-press our position and that perhaps we started off from the wrong position, which means that England is almost two seats under-represented. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain to me later why we did not push the matter a bit harder. However, the decision has been made. The two simple amendments before us are designed to try to produce a system of equity. That is all. They are designed to increase representation so that it is up to date, and to keep it up to date. We all know that demographic changes take place in the United Kingdom or Great Britain. People move from one area to another. Given the enormous areas that have been suggested by the Government—regions—the problems of depopulated areas no longer apply. Therefore, there is no reason for there not to be an even balance with an equal number of electors per MEP under the new arrangement. Earlier, there might have been a reason, because of depopulated areas, to have slight imbalance and favouritism towards, for example, depopulated areas in Wales and Scotland. However, under the enormous regional areas for electing MEPs, there is no reason for that approach. In equity and fairness, the Government should accept the amendments, because they are fair. They say, "Let us have the same number of electors per MEP throughout Great Britain."

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I have listened carefully to the debate, including the response from the Under-Secretary of State. Well-informed contributions have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). The Opposition wanted to know why the redistributive mechanism should be different in England, Scotland and Wales. The question has been raised by many others who have considered the proposed legislation. We wanted an answer. We wanted to know how the Government proposed to deal, as the Bill stands, with future population changes, in whatever direction, between Scotland, Wales and England. I was not entirely satisfied with the Minister's response. We were justified in asking whether the Government were responsible for an oversight. We are still pondering why they have chosen to make a distinction within the redistributive mechanism for future population changes. We are still concerned, but, bearing in mind the lateness of the hour and the need to make progress, I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 41, after 'State', insert ', save that the day appointed by the Secretary of State shall not be a day of the week or a date of special religious significance on which the holding of an election would be incompatible with the historic teaching and practices of any Christian or other principal religious tradition represented in Great Britain'. I welcome the assurance given by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), in an earlier debate, that there was no prospect of the 1999 election being held on a Sunday. That was a positive comment. She accused me of being churlish—or some synonym—in my response, so let me start by welcoming unequivocally the fact that there will be no election on a Sunday next year. Having said that, we want to come back to this issue, for it raises longer-term issues. There is no legal requirement for elections in this country to be held on a Thursday. No doubt somebody, on behalf of the Minister, has looked at history to see when elections started to be held on that day. It seems that it became the practice in the 1930s, and it has served us well for 60 to 65 years. I can only speculate that it might have had something to do with early closing day, or some other matter, in the 1930s and 1940s. Whatever the reason, it has become established. One can approach the issue another way and say that it is clear why elections were not held on other days. It is a matter of regret to many—but we are not here to make moral judgments—that the influence of religious belief in society 50 or 60 years ago was unquestionably stronger than it is today, so the idea of holding an election on a Sunday would never have crossed the minds of my grandfather's generation. Similarly, there was at that time a strong Jewish community in this country, so it would not have crossed the minds of many that it would be a good idea to hold an election on a Saturday. The truth is that we live in a different world, up to a point. We live much more flexible and mobile lives than people lived then. People now are as busy at weekends as during the week. Members of Parliament are not the only ones affected in that regard. Indeed, as a result of the nation's increased prosperity, far more people are able to enjoy the weekends in a variety of ways, with various activities, and to enjoy them further from home than my grandfather's, or, indeed, my father's, generation could have. The prima facie assumptions that turnout would be higher if we voted on a weekend, that it would be more convenient for people to vote then or that people would have more time to walk to the local school to vote seemed perfectly fair ones for the Government to make, but those are aspirations. They are a reflection of political will, rather than of real life. I return to the sensitivity of people's religious beliefs, as it is at the heart of the issue. I am grateful to the Minister for not calling into question my sincerity, even if we did not have a meeting of minds on this issue. I think that the Minister without Portfolio said that there are six major religions in this country and that the beliefs of all of them will be reflected in the millennium dome. I shall choose three of those religions. I went to the "Larousse Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions", because, if I can convince the Government that this is not some personal quirk and that I am reflecting a well established tradition among three of the six major religions, that might be a more persuasive argument than my oratory. I looked up Islam. Under the heading "Friday Prayer In Islam"—those are not my words, and I am not attributing Friday to that great religion—the dictionary says: Taking part in prayer…five times daily is a fundamental responsibility for Muslims. The five daily prayers take place at sunrise, noon, late afternoon, sunset, and after dark. The Friday noon prayer is of special significance. It is performed in a large mosque in the presence of a congregation of 40 or more. During the Friday Prayer an Imam or other competent preacher delivers an address lasting about 15 to 30 minutes. Attendance at the Friday Prayer is considered a duty for Muslim believers if they are free at that time, and business during this hour is forbidden, although it may be conducted at other times during the day. Friday is the Muslim day of assembly". There has never been an argument that those who have strong religious beliefs and convictions spend all day, from morning to evening, in prayer, worship and contemplation, so that, by definition, they are not free to do anything else. The argument has always been that beliefs and religious convictions for all the major religions are focused on one day a week that is special. Friday is clearly that day for Muslims. I then looked up the Jewish faith, and the heading "Sabbath". The dictionary says: The seventh day of the week, which in Jewish belief is designated a day of rest and cessation from labour, beginning just before sunset on Fridays and lasting until nightfall on Saturday, when candles are lit to signify the end of a holy time. The laws of Sabbath observance derive from a short ban found in the Pentateuch"— Exodus 20 and 31 for those want to check my source of reference— and from God's own rest in the Genesis creation account. Even in more liberal Reform Judaism the Sabbath is mainly a day of worship. Therefore, the Jewish religious day starts on Friday evening and goes through to Saturday evening, and it is considered to be a holy time. I then turned to the paragraph headed "Sunday". It states: The day of the week set aside by the Christian religion for divine worship mainly in commemoration of Christ's resurrection. As early as New Testament times it replaced the Jewish Sabbath, when Paul and the Christians of Troas gathered on the first day of the week to `break bread' (Acts 20), and it is called 'the Lord's day' (Rev 1). This is not meant to be, nor will it become, a sermon or a theological treatise.

Malcolm Savidge (Labour, Aberdeen North)

It could become a bore.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Only for hon. Members with minds like the hon. Gentleman's. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not take quite so kindly to his insensitivity to their religious beliefs as others in the House. Britain has a tradition which has stood us in good stead for 60 odd years in that major elections are held on a Thursday. Britain has an even more important tradition, which is that people have freedom of religion and freedom to practise their religion, and around that has grown a sensitivity to the religious beliefs of others even when we may not ourselves share those beliefs. I am at a loss to understand why a Government who rightly—I have no difficulty with the Government's position—talk about acting appropriately in a multicultural society, which is also a multi-faith society, have so much difficulty in recognising the sensitivities of millions of people on this issue.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Can the right hon. Gentleman advise us—I ask that in a genuine spirit of inquiry, because Liberal Democrats hope for a free vote on the matter—on the meaning, in amendment No. 3, of the phrase a date of special religious significance"? I understand the points that he has made about Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, but what does that phrase encompass?

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I have tried to set the matter out not in my words but in those of a more independent and scholarly framework, to remove from the debate any element of partisanship. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) thought that I had been less than generous and gracious in my response to the Minister on the last occasion. Her comments came as something of a surprise, so I have made a determined effort this time not to create any sense of partisanship. We are talking about the need to be sensitive to one of the most fundamental rights and privileges that the House is established to preserve.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

It was in a genuine spirit of inquiry that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) put his question. The right hon. Gentleman has used in the amendment, not a term of art but a form of words that covers a wide range of possibilities, and its lack of precision is one of the difficulties that we face. To take a brief example, the Roman Catholic Church has a number of holy days of obligation, which are undoubtedly days of religious significance, and special. They do not happen necessarily to fall on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's submission that such a day would be ruled out, and would he wish it to be ruled out? If so, we will have to consider with great care the practices and beliefs of many other religions. The matter is much more complex than the right hon. Gentleman may have acknowledged.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. When the elections fall is not for the House to decide. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as part of our membership of the EU, the week in which elections are to be held is uniform throughout the EU. I shall not use the technical word, but flexibility was given so that countries could choose the appropriate days within—I think that I am right in saying—the second part of the designated week. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Had the House had flexibility to decide when an election should be held, we would have had to be more precise in the wording of our amendment to take account of the right hon. Gentleman's legitimate points. We do not have that freedom. The week is set, and 15 countries have to decide whether to have elections on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. A number, including us, have them on a Thursday, and a number have them on a Sunday. I say that openly, because it is a matter of record which everyone understands. Some may ask whether I am suggesting that there is less sensitivity to religious beliefs in other European countries. I am happy to say that that is not an issue for which we have any responsibility. People have their different traditions, and those traditions have built up. I am not being critical of anyone else: we are talking about Britain, our traditions and practices and our sensitivities to the religious beliefs of others. Therefore, I want to try one last time to persuade the Minister to accept that this is a genuine issue. I am perfectly happy to concede that the world will not stop and the country will not necessarily go any faster to heaven or hell as a result of what the Government ultimately decide should be the election day in Britain. However, I want to impress on the Minister the fact that, in shifting from a Thursday, which affects none of the major sensitivities that the other three days do, he is running the risk of causing genuine offence to people whose religious beliefs will be held to account by that change. It is in that spirit that I ask him one last time to consider stating in the Bill that elections will be on Thursdays.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) raised two points which are slightly off the main point but are of significance. I appreciate the thoughtful and non-partisan way in which he introduced this potentially sensitive subject. He mentioned the tradition of Thursday voting. To my knowledge, it is pre-war. I would not like to say when it started, but I can remember some local government elections as late as the 1960s being held on different weekdays. In Huyton, where I lived, voting was on a Thursday, but in Liverpool it was on a Wednesday. I am not sure what the origins of that were, but certainly there were some variations at local government level as late as the 1960s. The amendment would bar elections from being held on a day of the week or date of religious significance, although it does not define which religions it would cover. It would in effect guarantee that European parliamentary elections continue to be held on a Thursday, and I shall explain why in a minute. We discussed the appropriate day of the week earlier in our proceedings, and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire referred to the debate that he had with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin). Many of the arguments have therefore been fully covered. The amendment is unnecessary, because it is almost impossible to find a better day than Thursday, and I shall repeat some of the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that the wording of the amendment lacked precision. I suspect that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire deliberately worded the amendment in that way because of his sensitivity to various faiths. If we take his argument to its logical conclusion, we must point out that certain religious festivals fall on a Thursday. If we are too precise, we might end up in difficulty. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in his recent journey through the faiths, is aware that the feast of Corpus Christi falls on a Thursday generally in the first half of June. I suspect that that would not be considered to bar Roman Catholics from voting, but it could be construed to be sensitive, because it is an important religious festival. In addition to the significance of Fridays and Saturdays for Muslims and Jews, and Sundays for Christians, there is the Jewish festival of Shavuot, which can also fall in the first half of June. For all I know, there may be other such festivals that are significant to other faiths, so we may find it difficult to pursue the argument to the nth degree.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am encouraged, at least thus far, by the Minister's tone. If all that prevents him from accepting the amendment is its drafting, as the Bill will have to return to another place so that the Government amendments are dealt with, the Government could obviate that problem by helping with the redrafting of this amendment.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I hope to convince the right hon. Gentleman that the amendment is unnecessary. If it were passed, we could find ourselves unable to hold an election at any time within the period agreed by the Council. Whatever position the right hon. Gentleman takes on Europe, I am sure that he would not want us to end up in that difficulty. I repeat a commitment that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made earlier in our proceedings. She said that there was no way in which the 1999 European elections would not be held on a Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that, for the purposes of the next European elections, we shall not consider an alternative day of the week.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Before the Minister finally confirms that he has no intention of introducing an alternative amendment in the other place at some future date to deal with the problem that my right hon. Friend has outlined, will he consider the fact that, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, some sects are not allowed to work or travel at any time during a holy day? All three of those major religions are well represented in this country. The definition of "work" includes voting, so unless the three holy days are excluded, which leaves only Thursday, a sect of a major religion will automatically be disfranchised.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and, by referring to the scriptures of many faiths, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire made that point effectively. I agree that that would create difficulties. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) discussed the problems that some of her constituents would face if we had Sunday voting. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because it is important, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has guaranteed that we have no intention—

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

If the right hon. Gentleman will let me proceed for a moment—

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I wish to be helpful.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The right hon. Gentleman is always helpful.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister. I wanted to intervene now because what I am about to ask may take a moment or two to consider, or the Minister may just rule it out. The Home Secretary is in the Chamber listening to this debate. If the Minister, with the Home Secretary's agreement, were to assure the House that, during this Government's term in office—he will understand that it will last for only one Parliament—they will not shift from a Thursday, I would be happy to settle for that and not push the amendment to a vote.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The right hon. Gentleman made an aside that this Government would be in power for only one Parliament. I am sure that he is right, because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is bound to have a reshuffle in the next Parliament. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members are left long enough, they find anything amusing. I cannot, give the right hon. Gentleman that absolute guarantee, because I do not know what discussions we shall have or what pressures will come along. The right hon. Gentleman has been in government and knows that it is not always possible to give such guarantees on the hoof. However, I shall offer him an option, which is better than guaranteeing what will happen in another place or in the lifetime of this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that I chair a working party on electoral procedures. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are represented on that working party, which also consists of a wide range of experts who take advice from many sources. When the working party's findings are published, they will be the subject of wider consultation. We are looking at the possibility of Sunday voting. As part of our serious review of electoral procedures—there is no partisan slant to our work—I undertake to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are given the fullest possible consideration and that they form a part of our considerations, so that, before we come up with our final recommendations, all those points are considered. The legitimate concerns about the days of the week that are important to those major faiths will thus be fully taken into account. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman finds that helpful, because it is intended in a helpful spirit to deal with his point.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I have been unable to contribute to the debate, because I have almost lost my voice. Will the review consider phasing elections over several days, perhaps from Thursday to Sunday, or has that been ruled out? We must take account of various groups' views, about which hon. Members have spoken with great respect.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

Nothing has been ruled in or out at this stage. The working party's terms of reference are wide enough to enable us to consider almost anything, but I am sensitive to the anxieties expressed by the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire. I hope that my assurance that the working party will give due weight to the arguments will enable him to withdraw his amendment.

Robert Maclennan (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

This has been a good, comprehensive debate. I welcome the Minister's open-mindedness on these sensitive issues, which are matters of conscience for some hon. Members. However, when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) remarked that changing to weekend voting would not produce a higher turnout, I thought of the university lecturer who objected to lecturing on Wednesdays because that interfered with two weekends. I hope that we will not be too sensitive to speculation that the British weekend might rule out voting for some people. My guess is that weekend voting would help turnout, and that it is better not to hold the election on a working day. The Government should consider weekend voting in their review, but I would not advocate change without the fullest consultation with the Churches. People will take different views about the nature of religious obligation: for some people, attending a church or a place of worship may be sufficient to discharge their obligation and recognise the specialness of the Sabbath or of a particular religious day, whereas for others, voting may be incompatible with observing a particular holy day. However, citizens have civic obligations, and they should be rendered, in this case by exercising their vote. We should make that as easy as possible. The Christian religion's injunction Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's allows many Christians to discharge their civic and religious duties without conflict, but that is not a universal view, even within the Christian faiths. I hope that the Minister will solicit information from people who may be touched adversely in their spiritual devotions by a change in the law, and will keep an open mind until the evidence is before him.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I listened carefully to the Minister. I am anxious that, although he said that he would listen to people's views, he did not go a step further and say that people's religious sensitivities could raise insuperable barriers to changing the day of voting to Sunday. Elections are held on Sundays in many other countries in the European Union, and they are no less or more religious than this country. But such countries have a tradition of voting on Sunday: people may go to mass in the morning and have a cup of coffee before they vote. The traditions here are different, and many Protestant communities in this country, especially the evangelical communities, think that the specialness of Sunday is slipping away following the passing of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. They are sensitive about the issue, which the Minister understands, and I am sure that the Government will take those sensitivities into account in the review.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

We have had a good debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for the tone of his response to my points. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) is right about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. But that is not a prima facie case for making it as difficult as possible for people to fulfil both those obligations. I was slightly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, given the tradition from which he comes and which he represents in the House, was open to making that more difficult. Maintaining the status quo would make it less difficult. I genuinely tried to help the Minister. I sat on the Government Front Bench for several years, and understand that he may be loth to enshrine a proposal in statute at this stage because arguments are being put to him and the review is under way. With that in mind, I thought that an interim non-statutory agreement could have been reached. An assurance from the Minister, backed by the Home Secretary, on such an agreement would, in the tradition of the House, have been accepted as binding. That would have seen us through the next few years, and created space for him to conduct his review without presumptions being made about it. However, the Minister did not find that acceptable. Of course I am grateful for his willingness to reflect on the views that have been expressed, and to ensure that they are taken into account in any preliminary consultation document. However, his unwillingness to reach a statutory or non-statutory agreement will make many people, rightly or wrongly, assume that the Government have an alternative agenda. I face a dilemma. When I highlighted disagreements between the Front Benches in a previous debate on this matter, I was accused of being ungracious, so I say as graciously as I can that we do not agree with the Minister, because this is a matter of principle. I seldom use those words in my political life, because they tend to get people into trouble. One of the most fundamental tasks of this House is the defence of the rights of minorities. If this House does not defend their rights, who will?

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I accused the right hon. Gentleman of being ungracious. Does he accept that the 1999 European elections will be held on a Thursday, and that thereafter the matter should be discussed and decided on by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and Westminster?

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is yes, because that is how I started my speech when I moved the amendment. It is tempting, but I will not go down the road of the interrelationships between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and this place, not least because I do not wish to embarrass the Minister, who I am sure has no idea what those interrelationships will be. This issue is easy to dismiss. It may be that an overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members have religious convictions and beliefs but would not find a change in the voting day to be of religious offence. It is probably true of most of us, but it is not true of some in the Muslim faith, some in the Jewish faith or some in the Christian faith. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, it is a cause of particular concern to those in the Christian faith from the evangelical tradition, from which my hon. Friend knows I spring. It is with regret and as much grace as I can muster that I say to the Minister that this is a matter of genuine significance. It is a matter of sensitivity and of this House defending the rights of minorities. For all those reasons, and given the Minister's response, I fear that we will press the amendment to a Division.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

We have been treated to the great conviction of the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I am not trying to belittle it, and I accept that he considers this a matter of principle. However, I am a little concerned that, during the past 18 years of Conservative Government, in which the right hon. Gentleman served in various capacities, I cannot remember this great matter of principle ever being raised or legislated upon. Leaving that aside, from his reading the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the difficulties that different days of the week cause for different faiths, and he knows that there is no simple solution. The irony is that the logic of his amendment would lead us right back to Thursday voting. I accept that that is the case. However, if we take that logic further and take into account various religious feast days and so on, it might make it impossible to hold elections on a Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman said that, because of the way in which some people want to celebrate the day they consider to be the day of rest or the holy day, voting on such days would be impossible for them. That is why we have ended up with Thursdays. The difficulty is that not everybody feels the same way. I voted against Sunday shopping, but, being honest, although I go to services at my local parish church most Sundays, I sometimes then go shopping with my wife, because that may be the only opportunity I get to go shopping with her. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire described the life-style differences very well. He said that society has changed and that there is greater flexibility in the way that people live their lives. Those facts have to be taken into account when we consider this matter. I will consider this in the working party on electoral procedures, but I believe that, in pursuing the amendment, the right hon. Gentleman is making a gesture. It would not have any effect even if it were passed. For that reason, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

NEW SCHEDULE 2 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 24, at end insert ', but no such order shall be made until the Secretary of State has submitted a report to both Houses of Parliament giving details of the calculations carried out in the course of the procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.'. The amendment has two clear and vital objectives. One is to achieve greater openness in future decisions about arrangements for European elections, and the second is to ensure greater accuracy in the apportionment of Members of the European Parliament between electoral regions. I am sure that the House will agree that both those aims are essential to our fundamental democratic process. Throughout the Committee stage, Conservative Members sought to draw attention to the serious deficiencies in the procedures leading to the Bill's publication. The Bill is being imposed on the country without any prior discussion, either within Parliament or outside. The Government failed to publish a White Paper outlining their plans. As a consequence, there was no public consultation. As we have heard, there was a focus group involving a maximum of 48 people, but that hardly rates as a public consultation. Despite the Prime Minister's professed faith in the parliamentary boundary commission, it was not consulted, thus denying the public any opportunity to express a view on the arrangements by which their MEPs will be elected. Therefore, the Government have no way of knowing whether voters are satisfied that the allocation of MEPs to electoral regions is fair, and whether the process has been both open and accountable. Clearly, it has not been open and accountable, because the Government have simply imposed their preferred solution and, in so doing, have shown contempt for both the House and the public at large. What of the future? The schedule provides the only mechanism in the Bill for any review of the arrangements. Notwithstanding the Home Secretary's commitment to review the experience of the election next year under this Bill, the fact remains that this is the only provision in the Bill that we can be certain provides an arrangement for such a review. However, that arrangement lies entirely within the gift of the Home Secretary. He will consider whether the ratio of electors to MEPs requires adjustment, and he will make, by order, such amendments to the distribution of seats as he considers necessary. We say that, before the Home Secretary does any such thing, he should at least submit a report to both Houses of Parliament giving details of his calculations. Such a report would not only ensure greater openness, which we think is essential, but allow the House the opportunity to seek a proper explanation of his calculations because we need to test their accuracy. Why should that be necessary? As we have seen, in introducing the Bill to the House, the Home Secretary has already shown that maths is not his best subject. As he admitted in Committee, he made an error in his explanation of the divisors used in the seat allocation and, by consequence, misled the House. Let me say straight away that we fully accept that it was unintentional, but that rather makes our point. It is not that the Home Secretary knew that he got it wrong, but the fact that he did not know that he had got it wrong. How can anyone have any confidence that he or a future Home Secretary, doubtless with access to the same advice, can be relied upon to reach the right decision? There is rather more to it than meets the eye. During the debate in Committee on 26 February, the Home Secretary argued that the eminent Professor Ian Maclean, head of politics at Nuffield college, Oxford, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred earlier, had got it wrong in suggesting that the Government had used a divisor in the process of seat allocation. He insisted: It is a very simple system that does not need divisors."—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 549.] That is not what the eminent Professor believes. Indeed, since that debate, Professor Maclean has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. The House would do well to take note of what he says.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

The hon. Gentleman referred to it earlier.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

No. It is an entirely different matter and I suspect that it is even more important. After challenging what the Home Secretary said at column 549, Professor Maclean writes: The procedure he then outlines in his next paragraph, as he did in a letter to me, is that he takes a dividend, (the electorate of England), divides it by a divisor (71) and gets a quotient (just over 521,000 electors per MEP). He then assigns these quotients to the regions. Each region, of course, is exactly entitled to a whole number plus a fraction of MEPs. So how does the Secretary of State proceed 'in such a way as to ensure that the sum of divergencies in each of the nine regions—ignoring plus or minus signs—was as low as possible'? The professor continues: I think he thinks that, as he and his officials presumably did this by hand, they were not using a divisor. But they were really speaking prose. To guarantee that you get the result of this calculation right, you must use one of three divisors. In the American literature they are the Dean, Huntington and Webster divisors. We have had d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague; now we have the Dean, Huntington and Webster divisors. The professor continues: On different interpretations of making 'the ratio of registered electors to MEPs the same', each one of these is the only correct divisor to use. This is the crunch: Webster is another name for Sainte-Lague. So Sainte-Lague is one of the three divisors that the language of the Schedule mandates him to use. So there we have it. There is a divisor, and it is clearly a political decision which divisor is used. For now, the public appear disinterested in the Government's meddling with our democratic process—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said in an earlier debate, they were unaware of what was happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) referred to the disinterest of the fourth estate, and I agree with him too, but, in spite of the sea of disinterest, the position may change come the election next year. However, that does not mean that the issues are unimportant and do not matter—far from it. The House should require the Government to agree on a procedure that will help the Home Secretary to make a better fist of it next time. I am not seeking to personalise the debate, but in embarking on a system of proportional representation, we have ventured into uncharted waters. We have been asked to accept that the allocation of MEPs is fair, yet few people have the knowledge or experience to know whether it is the best that it could be and entirely accurate. The fact that we appear to have little choice but to accept it for now is no excuse for failing to put on the face of the Bill a mechanism to give everyone the chance of doing a better job next time. Parliament has a right to be taken seriously, and its views and opinions cannot simply be brushed aside out of political expediency. I am glad that the Home Secretary is to reply to the debate. The fact that he did not fully grasp what he was doing should be a warning to the House of the perils of accepting anything at face value. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's explanation of why he might think it wrong to require a future Home Secretary to publish a report on the calculations on which he has based any future changes on the allocation of MEPs between the regions, as that is our simple proposition. It would not delay matters unnecessarily, but it would ensure greater openness and allow the House the opportunity to test for itself the accuracy on which any future changes are based. That is our fundamental democratic right: therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

As I hope the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) will accept, I do indeed take Parliament seriously, and believe that Ministers should be held properly to account, particularly for such decisions. Although I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, I shall not pick him up too much on whether or not a system of calculating the allocation of MEPs to each of the regions follows the Sainte-Lague or Webster divisors, or a different system. I did not say that we did not use divisors to achieve the result—of course we had to do so, as I explained at column 549 on 26 February. However, the Sainte-Lague and d'Hondt divisors use an advancing series of numbers by which various other numbers are then subject to division. D'Hondt uses the series one, two, three, four, five and Sainte-Lague uses one, three, five, seven, nine. As the House now famously knows, Sainte-Lague modified begins with 1.4, which is the square root of two, and then follows the sequence three, five, seven, nine. I am happy for the ombudsman to examine all the files in the Home Office. It may be, as Professor Maclean is claiming, that we reached a similar result to Sainte-Lague, but we did not use that system. We used a system of ascertaining the lowest sum of the divergencies, as I have explained. What is important, and goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument, is that the public and Parliament should be satisfied that the system being used to allocate the number of MEPs to each region is entirely fair and transparent, and that people can see how it operates so that any error or worse can be exposed. It is not true that the arrangement for settling the allocation of MEPs between each region is, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, in the gift of the Secretary of State. Any Secretary of State, whether myself or a successor, will be bound by the provisions of schedule 1(4), which requires the Secretary of State in the year preceding any election to consider whether the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible the same for every electoral region in England and…make by order such amendments of (3) of the Table as he considers necessary"— not desirable, but necessary— to ensure that result That gives the Secretary of State virtually no discretion whatsoever, except to apply the rules of arithmetic accurately. If he fails to do that, he may be subject to account in Parliament and, as this is subordinate legislation, to judicial review in the courts. 8 pm I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). In the amendment, he calls for an order-making power by which a report is made to Parliament before the Secretary of State makes a decision. The Secretary of State can have a decision brought into effect only by order made to the House under the negative resolution procedure, as set out in paragraph (7). No changes come into force unless they have received the approval of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. Then there is the question whether Parliament should be informed of the changes that the Secretary of State has in mind and whether the arithmetic should be laid on the Table of the House in advance of any order being made. That is the point of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I agree with him, and I give an undertaking to the House that the detail of the arithmetic and all the calculations made under that paragraph will be put before the House by way of a written answer as soon as they are made, and well in advance of any order being made. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press his amendment to a vote.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for his response and for the reassurance he has given to the House. Clearly what we wanted—a report to the House before any order is laid—is precisely what he has in mind, and we are grateful to him for that. As a consequence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF SCHEDULE 1 TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT 1978

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 9, leave out lines 15 to 28. Let me say at the outset that this is a probing amendment. The fact that at this late stage in our consideration of the Bill, the last amendment to be considered on Report is a probing amendment says something about the nature of the Bill and its lack of clarity. A parliamentary election based on huge electoral regions under a proportional representation system will be a wholly new experience for the people of Great Britain. More to the point, it will be a wholly new experience for the people charged with the conduct of the election. It is the lack of any detail on the face of the Bill about how the election will be conducted that prompts us to seek clarification of some of that detail through the amendment and the short debate on it. New paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 says that there will be returning officers for each electoral region, but gives no indication of who they will be and how they will be chosen. That has considerable relevance, given the size of the European electoral regions, so perhaps the Minister can tell us how the Secretary of State intends to select the returning officers for such huge electoral regions. The lines that our amendment would delete confirm that, by regulations that the House has not had the opportunity to approve—as far as I am aware, they have not seen the light of day—functions will be conferred on the returning officers and acting returning officers. What are those functions, and what powers will the returning officer or acting returning officer have at his disposal to fulfil them? Will the functions include training, and, if so, how long will that training last? In these days of financial stringency for local government, who will pay for it? New paragraph 4(3) requires local authorities to place the services of their officers at the disposal of the returning officers. Does that mean every local authority within an electoral region? Why are councils given no ability to exclude certain people to whom a summons from the returning officer to take part in the conduct of the election may be both inconvenient and against the public interest? What happens if, for example, the returning officer summons a planning officer who is involved in a public inquiry, or a social services officer involved in a case of child abuse, or an education officer handling an appeal by a parent over school admissions? What of the finance officers working day and night to prepare budgets? Ministers may well say that there is nothing new in that. Acting returning officers have to take account of the other duties of the staff on whom they wish to rely in conducting parliamentary elections now, so what is the difference? The difference is that the acting returning officer in a Westminster constituency is calling on his own colleagues, and he knows full well exactly what their duties and other responsibilities are when assessing to whom he will turn for help with the election; but, with this Bill, we are dealing with electoral regions so vast that they embrace eight or nine counties.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Is that a criticism of the conduct of the returning officer for the referendum in Scotland on 11 September?

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

It certainly is not. My comments are addressed directly to the Bill before us, not to any other Bill. However, the hon. Lady has drawn attention to the fact that the whole of Scotland will be one electoral region. In London, we have 33 London boroughs, so the arrangements are a wholly new departure from anything that anyone running elections—the Scottish referendum was not an election—has previously experienced. The House was entitled to a far better explanation of how the arrangements would work before being asked to approve the Bill. Who is going to pay for the time and travelling costs of all those officers? What impact will there be on the conduct of local government, both in the run-up to and during the elections? Can the Minister tell us what consultations there have been with local authority associations? It would have been better if Ministers had given the House some indication of what they intend to put in the regulations and explained why the whole process appears to be so open-ended. One point on which we can be clear and on which the Government ought to have been more candid is that the conduct of the electoral arrangements set out in the Bill will place a huge administrative burden on the shoulders of local government. Will the Minister tell us how advanced the discussions are with local government officers? Will he tell us what the Government expect of them and how they are to organise an efficient election in which the public, candidates and political parties can have full confidence? The track record to date is hardly inspiring. It has taken three and a half months—from November, when we had Second Reading, until this week—for the Government to make up their minds on one of the most essential features of the proposals: whether to have an open or a closed list. The Minister owes the House some answers to the important questions I have posed, because this is our last opportunity to debate the arrangements. I hope that in doing so, he can give some reassurance that the conduct of the European elections will not be the administrative nightmare that many of us fear.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

We are pleased to hear that the Conservatives are still probing, even at this late stage. We originally took the amendment at face value to mean that council officers and the existing election staff should not be involved in the election. That was a cause for concern. In Committee, there was widespread agreement that our electoral staff do an excellent job, and my party feels perfectly confident in their abilities. We do not envisage the apocalyptic scenario that has once again been painted—a major meltdown of the electoral process—materialising. The vast bulk of the duties that those officers will carry out—getting the ballot boxes out, getting the ballot papers in and counting them—are identical to those that they would have to perform for any European election. The only significant change is in the method of counting, and we believe that that is a small proportion of their total duties. My party does not see the necessity for too much probing, and we hope that we can dispense with the issue and place our confidence in our acting returning officers and their staff.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

In an earlier amendment, we referred to publishing the ground rules for the running of the election. With our existing system, people by and large know how it will operate. One of the difficulties with the new system is that no one has mentioned anything about how the electoral returning officers will interrelate with the party professionals and the volunteers, who have an important role in scrutinising the count. Under the first-past-the-post system, it is straightforward—scrutineers have a sheet saying what they need to do. We will have a count for the south-east region of perhaps 1 million votes, with divisions and divisors. The terms under which returning officers are employed and their conduct of the elections are an important feature. The amendment may tease out the Government's view. The electoral returning officers must interact with the party professionals so that they can tell their workers how the system will work and when the count will occur, and even explain technical problems. For example, at what stage is an announcement of an election of a Member of the European Parliament made? Is it when the subdivision is done, and one person jumps up to become the candidate, or is it done at the end of the count? Those are the little technical problems which the Minister should address. Some £4 million is budgeted to be spent on training the EROS. We have good EROS, and I have the highest opinion of them. I am sure they will do a splendid job, but there has been little neutrality up to now in terms of how they will interrelate with the party structures which, under the Bill, are very important. On a constituency basis, what normally happens is that the ERO knows all the parties and has a relationship with them. Practical matters can be discussed. Given the size of the regions, we may need some formalised structure for the returning officers to deal with the parties who deal with the workers who turn up with their rosettes to the count. They ought to know what is going on, what will happen when and how the system will work. I would be interested to hear the Minister say more about how the EROs will interrelate with party agents, professionals and volunteers.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) let us know that this was intended as a probing amendment, because I was a little surprised that he had tabled it. I have two reasons for saying that. First, the parts of schedule 2 to the Bill which the amendment would remove are not in any sense new. Virtually identical provisions exist already in the current schedule 1 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978, the legislation under which elections have been conducted in the past. The only reason why they are being replaced is that the existing schedule refers to "constituencies", whereas in future we will need to refer to "regions". No one has ever thought to remove the relevant provisions from the existing legislation, and I fail to see—and, in truth, the hon. Member for Ryedale must fail to see—what objection there can be to re-applying the provisions in the Bill. In Committee, I undertook to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on two points that the hon. Gentleman raised today. I still intend to do that, and, if he will forgive me, I shall reply in detail in due course. The second reason why I was surprised is that the provisions which the amendment seems to seek are so obviously unnecessary. There can surely be no doubt that each region will have a returning officer, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Ryedale is not seeking to delete that provision. Equally importantly, because of the sizes of the regions proposed by the Bill, the returning officer will need support and assistance, as he will agree. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made the point very well that the obvious people to provide support are those with experience—electoral registration officers and acting returning officers, who are by and large local government employees. They are responsible for electoral registration, the maintenance of the register and postal and proxy votes, and they have experience of the distribution of poll cards and the administration of polling stations. Clearly, they are the right people to assist. The parts of schedule 2 that the amendment would delete would make sure that those with the necessary skills and experience are available to assist the returning officer in conducting the election. Schedule 2 simply reaffirms the status quo, and is designed to ensure the efficient conduct of European parliamentary elections. The hon. Member for Ryedale referred to the understandability of counts. I do not want to speak for his party, but I am sure that my party's agents and professionals will find out how the system works and will make sure that the party workers know how it works. These are existing, well known and tried and tested procedures, but they will be slightly amended to take in the regional dimension. In light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

As I said, this was a probing amendment, and we do not intend to press it to a vote. The Minister is right—it would leave a hole in the Bill. However, I am not entirely sure that the Minister has answered all our questions. There is a world of difference between the European constituencies we have been used to and the proposed huge electoral regions. Given that the Minister said that he would write to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in response to the points we have made, I am content to let the matter rest at this juncture. I look forward to receiving the Minister's letters and the explanation to which we are entitled. With that sentiment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. We have had many hours of debate—appropriately, on the Floor of the House, as this is a constitutional measure. I explained earlier to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and to the House in November, that I have always subscribed to the view that there is no single perfect electoral system for all purposes. When we consider which voting system to introduce to any particular institution, we need to consider the nature of the powers and functions of the body concerned. The European Parliament is a representative body, and not a Parliament from which a Government are drawn. The United Kingdom can only return 87 Members to it, which means inevitably that Members of the European Parliament can never enjoy the same close links with those who elect them as Members of this Parliament do with their constituents. Moreover—regardless of whether people endorse it—the European Union already works at a regional, as well as at a national, level. Those considerations led a committee, which was chaired by my noble Friend Lord Plant of Highfield, to propose to the Labour party that the most appropriate system for electing MEPs was a regional one, which placed a premium on proportionality. That proposal was endorsed by the Labour party at its conference in 1993; it became a commitment in our manifesto, which was endorsed by the British people on 1 May last year. The change will enable future British elections to the European Parliament to be conducted using a simple proportionally-based regional list system. I am pleased that it will be in place—subject to the decisions of the other place—in time for the next election to the European Parliament in 1999. As I explained to the House, the system that we are proposing is very similar to, and shares the concept with, the one already used by France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Greece for electing their MEPs—the majority of voters in Europe use this system to elect their MEPs. I am grateful to those hon. Members from all parties who have taken part in the debates on the Bill—given the complexity of the subject, many more hon. Members than I had expected participated. I have greatly enjoyed the debates and the stimulation not least to my arithmetical skills—or otherwise—that they have provided. We have covered the composition of regions, by-elections and the role of the Boundary Commission, and we have provided another answer—as I said on Second Reading—to that inevitable but very difficult quiz question at Christmas: name 10 famous Belgians.

John Taylor (Conservative, Solihull)

Can you name six famous Canadians?

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

Naming six famous Canadians is a question of which I would prefer to be given notice. The system used in Belgium has dominated our discussions. It would allow voters to plump for one candidate on each list, unlike the system on which we have finally decided—the simple or closed list system. I shall not repeat the arguments about that. The questions raised by the Bill have been examined in very great detail. The Government had a clear manifesto commitment to introduce the Bill, and I am glad that the Liberal Democrats have joined us in supporting it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

We have had a long and serious debate about the issues raised by the Bill. I agree with the Home Secretary that the debate was rightly and properly conducted on the Floor of the House, as the Bill is one of the most important constitutional matters that the House has dealt with in a long time. Eschewing any bias, I think that I can say that the Opposition have rigorously examined the issues that the Bill raises. We have sought to do so constructively and positively. I am well aware that the Patronage Secretary and those who spend most of their time around him were nervous; they wanted the proceedings to be completed in a quarter of the time—but that is part of what they are paid for. Hon. Members have conducted themselves constructively. We have moved the issues forward, using up an appropriate, but not disproportionate, amount of time. Conservative Members remain of the view that the Bill is bad. It is a leap in the dark, and it contravenes an approach on which, in other circumstances, the Home Secretary and I would agree—"if it ain't broke, don't fix it". One of the most compelling aspects of the debates has been the Government's inability to explain what was so wrong with a system that had stood us in good stead since 1979 that it had to be changed. The Home Secretary rightly said that the Bill resulted from a manifesto commitment. I do not question his right to bring forward the legislation, but I do not think that the case has been made for its argument and logic. The Bill is bad because so much of it remains to be determined. Clause by clause, we have been promised order after order. Whole chunks of secondary legislation still have to be drawn up before the Bill will make any sense. We have no idea what a registered party is, how it will be defined or how it will be implemented. It is not good law-making to leave so much undecided when primary legislation is being scrutinised. Moreover, that is not good for the democratic process. Although the Home Secretary will introduce orders, they will be unamendable and debatable only for an hour and a half, which will preclude them from the in-depth discussion that legislation of such constitutional significance deserves. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) blew the most important hole in the Bill. She said that the current system had one enormous advantage over the one envisaged in the Bill— the connection between elected Members and their constituencies."—[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 804.] That connection has been at the heart of British democracy for generations, and for 20 years even in terms of the European Parliament. All of us feel a sense of significance as we walk through our constituencies, knowing that the people belong to us and that we belong to them, regardless of whether they voted for us. We think, "This is my patch. These are my people. I serve them whatever they may have done on election day. All of them have a right to look to me." That has been part of the bedrock of our democracy, but the Government are tearing it apart, destroying what has worked so well for such a long time. I understand that there are conventions in the House whereby Back Benchers will not say what they think—they do not want to embarrass the Government. That was true, for the most part, in previous Parliaments. The Home Secretary should not think, however, that Labour Members have not approached Conservative Front Benchers in the past few weeks to make it clear how unhappy they are that that fundamental link is being broken. For that reason alone, the Bill deserves to be opposed, but there is worse. The Bill introduces another phenomenon new to British democracy. In future, electors will not be asked to vote for individuals; they will be asked to vote for parties. The link between voter and a person—with personality, gifts and disadvantages—is also to be broken. Given the tenor of our debates, it seems that Labour Front Benchers are prepared to break the link with almost simplistic ease. We have a clearer understanding of why that is than we did before the debate. The Government are pre-eminently concerned about control, and the list system will give them control. It will give the party control, and it will give control to the manipulators. I pay tribute—I do not do so often—to the Liberal Democrats, because they will employ a democratic system to determine the candidates and the order for their lists. The Conservative party has made it clear that we will also follow a democratic principle and allow our members in the regions—if we can find halls big enough to accommodate them all—to decide the order of our lists. However, the Labour party will go into a smoke-filled back room, with a few manipulators and control freaks, the Minister without Portfolio and a few trade union leaders, and they will decide. The people who lecture us about the people's party will not let their members, never mind the people, decide who will go to Brussels. Lest there should be a smidgen of a thought among Labour Members that I exaggerate, I remind them that three serving Labour Members of the European Parliament have already been expelled from the party, because they would not kow-tow to the control freaks who will organise the operation. We do not need to look into a crystal ball, because we know already what to expect from the Labour party. Whether the Bill is good for the Labour party does not concern me—well, only a little, because if it is not good for the Labour party that is an advantage. My concern this evening is that the Bill is not good for the country, although that will not bother the Government. Although it introduces a fundamental change, the Bill gives no information to voters. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for trying to persuade the Deputy Prime Minister that they were heading for the rocks unless £20 million was spent on helping the people to understand what was about to befall them. However, he lost the argument. No rationale will be revealed and no defence made of the change. Constituencies will have 4 million, 5 million, 6 million or 7 million people, with no sense of identity and no sense of ownership of the process. The Liberals love the Bill. They want it. We understand why, and we are not fooled by high arguments of principle about the common good or what is best for the people. The Liberals want it because it will give them an opportunity to win a few seats that otherwise they could not win. It will be good for third parties. The Home Secretary has told us before, and he has repeated it in debates on the Bill, that he is against PR.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

For Westminster.

Brian Mawhinney (Conservative, North West Cambridgeshire)

Well, I have noted newspaper reports that the Home Secretary may be hedging his position. He is now briefing the press that he might be willing to accept an alternative vote system. It is being put about on his behalf that the reason is that it at least retains the constituency link. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, because I believe that he is genuinely sincere in attaching importance to the constituency link. However, he has failed to explain why it is so important to him at Westminster, but is not important to him for another parliamentary system, another democratic expression. Why did the Home Secretary introduce the Bill? Was he pushed to do so by the left wing of his party? He was not, because the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) told us on Second Reading that the whole idea was political suicide. Was the Home Secretary pushed to do so by the Prime Minister, who—whatever else he is—is not the ringleader of the left wing of the Labour party? Well, as Magnus Magnusson might have said, "I've started, so I'll finish with the same view." As I reminded the House on Second Reading, the current Prime Minister said, in 1994—interestingly, after the Labour party conference had adopted the Plant recommendations, as the Home Secretary has just reminded us— I have not been persuaded that under PR one does not end up with a disproportionate power being wielded by small parties. There is no perfect electoral system. Each has its problems and I simply do not believe that the problems one gets with PR are less than those one gets with the existing system.''"'—[0fficial Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 818.] The Bill drives forward a political agenda for the Government and for the Liberal Democrats: it does not drive forward a democratic agenda for the nation. The Bill will become law, imperfect though it is. When there is democratic uproar next year, we will be able to point out that it was the Conservative party that argued the people's case and voted against the Bill.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill. The Liberal Democrats take as our starting point the fundamental imbalance that was caused by the 1994 European elections—an imbalance in British representation that meant that our constituents were not represented proportionally and also caused an imbalance in the European Parliament itself. We recognise that, in many ways, the Labour Government have been brave to introduce a Bill which appears to damage them in comparison with the current electoral situation. I am sad that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) is so uncharacteristically cynical about our motives. We engage with several million people in this country who wish their Liberal voice to be heard in all the bodies of power. It is our duty to ensure that that voice is heard. We engage with people who are frustrated at having spent their lives voting for parties and never being represented. Many of those people are members and supporters of other parties who end up—legitimately—voting tactically for us because their vote for their first party of choice will never count. Many of those people will also welcome the introduction of the Bill. We have had fascinating debates throughout the Bill's progress. I never thought that I would hear so many Conservative Members appear so familiar with the terms of proportional representation systems, such as the various divisors. I hope that the experiences that they have had in our debates will lead them to an understanding of why those systems are fairer, and of the way forward. We have all learnt from the experience, and I hope that we will continue on the journey to constitutional reform, which is most welcome to the Liberal Democrats. The Bill still has features about which we are not 100 per cent. happy, and they have been thoroughly rehearsed in the debates. I thank the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire for his recognition of the fact that we have instituted a democratic process in our party to do our best to cope with the unfairness and possible problems that the closed list system may cause. However, we do not believe that the Bill is a backward step: it is a missed opportunity to move forward. We hope that the Labour party will also introduce measures to try to redress some of the democratic deficit, because the electors will have a problem if all the parties do not behave fairly. The Bill is an enormous step forward. We hope that it will be part of a process that introduces fair voting. It started in Northern Ireland, with the fair voting systems that it has had for years. It will take us through the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, on to Europe and, eventually, to local government and Westminster. While I recognise that the Home Secretary and others in his party hope that the Bill is so far and no further, we hope that it is the thin end of wedge, and that the days of the first-past-the-post system are numbered in this country. The Liberal Democrats will vote joyfully and willingly for the Bill and we look forward to going to our party conference, which starts this weekend in Southport, and telling our members that next time they vote in a European election every vote will count towards electing a Member of the European Parliament—the first time that they will have been able to say that about a UK-wide election in the history of this country.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I am not normally given to violent language in any debate. When I disagree with something, I normally debate more in sorrow than in anger, but the proposals are so partisan and undemocratic that the Labour party should be ashamed of them. We were promised a White Paper, but we have never had it.

Jack Straw (Labour, Blackburn)

The House was not promised a White Paper, but a Bill.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

By "we" I meant the country. Before the election, we as a country were promised that there would be a White Paper, but there was not. A White Paper would have allowed the whole country to discuss and consider the measures, but because we have had a Bill that has been bulldozed through the House by a Labour Government with an enormous majority, we have not had that opportunity. Parts of the Bill are clearly unpopular, not just with Conservative Members, but with Labour Members. I have had a number of discussions with Labour Members who clearly do not like parts of the Bill. I doubt whether they will vote against it; they will probably just abstain if they feel strongly enough. There is no doubt that parts of the Bill are so undemocratic that a large section of the Labour party dislikes them intensely. I hope that they will convey those feelings to their supporters in their constituencies. I am not sure whether even the Home Secretary likes the Bill very much, as I noticed that he seemed to giggle his way through a great deal of the Second Reading debate, and I understand that that even happened in Committee. I wonder whether he is comfortable with the Bill. I am sure that the Labour party machine likes the Bill because it gives it enormous power. I accept that parts of the Bill were contained in the Labour party manifesto; it contained proportional representation—I think that that was a deal cooked up with the Liberal party. I think that it may well be the precursor, as the Liberals want, to PR for the Westminster Parliament, which I profoundly regret.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the democratic process. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Conservative Member of the European Parliament who represents the part of Hampshire in which I live, Mr. Roy Perry, is complaining that his constituents and party members who might want to vote for him on the list system have to come to London to cast their vote. They are not even allowed to have a postal vote. What is democratic about that process?

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I shall explain it clearly to the hon. Gentleman. The problem is that we have been forced into a difficult position because the regions are so large that they are unmanageable—[Interruption.] I was asked a question and I shall answer the hon. Gentleman. Because the regions are so large, people have to travel long distances to listen to every one of the candidates and then make their decision. That is what is called democracy; that is the democracy that we have got to have because we have been forced to have the regions—[Interruption.]

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. There are many conversations taking place in the Chamber, but I can listen to only one speaker.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

From a sedentary position, I heard the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) ask, "What about the highlands and islands?" I agree with the hon. Lady, who has a good point. It is because we have been forced to have enormous regions that people will have to travel long distances if they are to hear the various candidates who want to be selected and elected as Members of the European Parliament.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Is it not the responsibility of the candidate to go to the people?

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Of course it is the responsibility of the candidates to go to the people, and no doubt they will do so, but in a democratic process there has to be a selection conference. The Labour party is not going to have a selection conference as we understand it; they are going to have a—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is dwelling on the subject of the selection of candidates, which is a matter for political parties. The Bill is not about the selection of candidates; it is about enabling people to stand for the European Parliament. The subject of the selection of candidates is outwith the scope of the Bill.

Jonathan Sayeed (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your advice. I was trying to explain the dangers of a closed list system. We know that the enormous regions will break the constituency link, which I regret; I think that many hon. Members regret it. The aspect of the Bill that makes me so angry is that the closed list system was not contained in the Labour party's manifesto. Instead of having government by the people and for the people, we are going to have government by the placemen and for the party machine. That is not democratic, which is why I have the greatest pleasure in opposing this awful Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to have been called to contribute to the Third Reading debate. I should like to start by saying why I think the present system is satisfactory. Along with distinguished Ministers, I have experienced the present system, and I know that it has provided a direct constituency link. It gives an identifiable elected Member the right to take up cases and push legislation through on behalf of his or her constituents. It provides a clear, identifiable accountable link between the Member of the European Parliament and the elector, and it allows voters to express their choice of candidate. The Home Secretary was clearly right to say that the European Parliament does not form a Government, but it does play a greater legislative role than the original unelected Assembly that existed prior to the direct elections of 1979. Those powers were vested in the European Parliament through the European Single Act, the Maastricht treaty and the Amsterdam treaty. The European Parliament plays a similar role to Congress in the United States. I think that the Home Secretary must accept that the size of the Euro-constituency is similar to that of a congressional seat—half a million people. The European Parliament imposes a similar system of checks and balances on the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Perhaps the Government fear that system of checks and balances being played against the Government as President in office of the Council. I also have great reservations about the system proposed in the form of a closed list. It is profoundly undemocratic and leaves Members of the European Parliament unaccountable to their electors. Earlier this evening, the Home Secretary said that he would do nothing to discourage people from voting in the European elections. It is the fervent wish of Conservatives to encourage people to vote in the European elections. Does the Home Secretary accept that several different systems for elections will fall within the two months of May and June next year? There will be one system of proportional representation operating for the European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland; under the present proposals—if they are adopted—a different system will operate for the European elections in England, Wales and Scotland; a different system is envisaged for election to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly; and the normal first-past-the-post system will apply for local elections in May. I invite the Home Secretary to stick to the original agreement, which was formally agreed between the Labour party and the Liberal party, to introduce a system of proportional representation that would be valid for all forms of election, but not the European parliamentary elections before the year 2004. Is it not profoundly wrong of the Government to try to introduce what we Conservatives have described as a bad Bill, which has not been thought out properly due to lack of time? If the proposed system of proportional representation is so good, why is it not being chosen for all the elections in the two-month period May to June 1999? Will not the system confuse electors—especially first-time electors, and perhaps older electors—so much that they will be put off casting their vote? The Home Secretary said that he would oppose any weakening of the sovereignty of the House. Are not the Government proposing to weaken it, with the creation of a federal state? They are already committed to introducing a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly, and the Deputy Prime Minister has said that we will have directly elected members of regional assemblies in due course. The Bill would introduce a list system of party-controlled lists without any democratic link or any accountability of the elected MEP to his or her constituents. I wish it to be noted tonight that Conservatives want to preserve democracy and the direct link between the elected Member and the voter, whereas the Bill makes it clear that Labour wants to create the federalist socialist super-state that Conservative Members have consistently opposed. It gives me great pleasure to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Christopher Gill (Conservative, Ludlow)

Many motives have been ascribed to the Government for introducing this sad and unfortunate Bill, but in tonight's debate no one has mentioned the fact that the terms of the treaty of Maastricht oblige the Government to introduce proportional representation. Once again, Europe is driving the agenda. I oppose the Bill. My principal objections to it are that, as many colleagues have said, it ends the direct link between Members and their constituencies, and puts parties before people. Moreover, I believe that, if the electoral system is changed, we shall witness in the European Parliament—I fear that, if we get proportional representation in this Parliament, it will occur in this place, too—the emergence of party apparatchiks instead of those people who, over the years, have truly and consistently represented the interests of the people who put us in this place. The Bill stands democracy on its head. It removes people's right to select their own candidates. It destroys the delicate balance between Parliament, the parties and the people that they represent. It eliminates all the essential checks and balances that have stood democracy in this country in good stead for so long. It is a bad Bill, with little or no democratic justification. There is no disguising the greater party patronage and the greater central control that will result from the Bill, and there is no denying the scope it creates for dishonest politics and corrupt politicians. Finally, I very much regret the fact that an opportunity has been missed to enfranchise 18,000 people living in Gibraltar. That is very sad. The people of Gibraltar cannot understand it, and nor can I. The Government continually tell the House that they are altering our constitution to make it more democratic, and to make it more accountable to the people. The Bill provided the Government with an opportunity to put their words into action. They have missed it, and that will not be easily forgotten in Gibraltar.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

I shall be brief, because I know that hon. Members wish to get away after a long week. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that he hoped that we had learnt something about proportional representation. The more we learn, the less we like it. I am sure that, as the British electorate appreciate what they will have to deal with at the next European election—

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

They will come to love it.

Robert Syms (Conservative, Poole)

As a defender of the first-past-the-post system, I believe that the experience of the new system will be a great ally to us, because, when the electorate see how the new system works, they will start to appreciate the representative democracy that they have had for so many years. We have heard much about proportionality. There are advantages in a proportional system, but some very proportional systems in use in Europe produce answers that are not always the ones that sensible, moderate politicians want. The Front National in France benefited greatly from its national list, which gave it a boost domestically. We have heard a great deal about Belgian politics. Anyone who visits Antwerp sees the influence of Vlaams Blok, which often wins a fifth of the vote and has an influence. It is somewhat nasty to immigrants and has a political pedigree that none of us would want to see reflected in the British political system. We should be wary. Proportional systems can throw up people with whom hon. Members would not especially like to share a platform. I finish by remarking on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). We have seen part of the pudding in the Bill. We have not seen the registration of political parties, which will be key to the way in which the Bill works. At the start of this process, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked several very sensible questions about lists. What happens under a list system when an MEP switches party? What happens when there is a list that is to continue for five years, until the next election, and a candidate switches party and inherits a seat? All those key issues will be debated on the Floor of the House. Conservative Members will make constructive comments, but also stand up for what we believe to be right, in terms of representative democracy and the rights of individual electors.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier today during business questions, I requested a debate on the human rights record of my predecessor, Mr. Terry Dicks, who had visited Iraq and subsequently supported the hanging of Fazal Barzoft, a journalist with The Observer. He also cast aspersions on the veracity of the gassing of Kurds in the village of Halaji. While I was out of the Chamber, meeting constituents involved in a dispute at a local factory, I believe that a Conservative Member returned to the matter, on the basis that I was repeating a libel which I settled out of court. I raised the matter, not to repeat any libel but on the basis of information contained on the record in Hansard of the previous Member for Hayes and Harlington. He said that the Conservative Government, without any evidence being available at all, were quick to condemn the Iraqi Government for "allegedly" gassing the Kurds living in the north of Iraq. That comment followed an Amnesty International report confirming the gassing. In a newspaper article, which has been supplied by the Library, he went on to support the hanging of Fazal Barzoft—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot let him continue, because that is not a point of order. These are personal matters and personal views. They are not matters for me.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

rose—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Is it another point of order?

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I seek to put the record straight on the accuracy of the statement that—

Michael Martin (Deputy Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

Points of order should not be used to put the record straight.

John McDonnell (Labour, Hayes and Harlington)

I am much obliged.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

NORTHERN IRELAND

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT