HC Deb 12 March 1998 vol 308 cc815-31
Mr. Greenway

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.

Mrs. Ewing

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

Mr. Greenway

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.

Mr. Allan

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.

Mr. Syms

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.

Mr. George Howarth

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.

Mr. Greenway

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

8.17 pm
Mr. Straw

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.

Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull)

Can you name six famous Canadians?

Mr. Straw

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.

8.22 pm
Sir Brian Mawhinney

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.

Mr. Straw

For Westminster.

Sir Brian Mawhinney

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.

8.35 pm
Mr. Allan

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.

8.39 pm
Mr. Sayeed

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.

Mr. Straw

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

Mr. Sayeed

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.

Mr. Mike Hancock (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?

Mr. Sayeed

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.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

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

Mr. Sayeed

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.

Mrs. Ewing

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

Mr. Sayeed

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—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

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.

Mr. Sayeed

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.

8.45 pm
Miss McIntosh

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.

8.50 pm
Mr. Gill

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.

8.52 pm
Mr. Syms

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—

Mr. Hancock

They will come to love it.

Mr. Syms

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.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 87.

Division No. 204] [8.55 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N) Baker, Norman
Ainger, Nick Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Banks, Tony
Allan, Richard Beard, Nigel
Atkins, Charlotte Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Austin, John Begg, Miss Anne
Bermingham, Gerald Iddon, Dr Brian
Berry, Roger Ingram, Adam
Betts, Clive Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Boateng, Paul Jenkins, Brian
Breed, Colin Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Brinton, Mrs Helen Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Burden, Richard Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Burstow, Paul Jowell, Ms Tessa
Butler, Mrs Christine Keeble, Ms Sally
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth) Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge) Kelly, Ms Ruth
Caplin, Ivor Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Casale, Roger Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Cawsey, Ian Khabra, Piara S
Chidgey, David King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Church, Ms Judith King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Clapham, Michael Laxton, Bob
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields) Levitt, Tom
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands) Linton, Martin
Clark, Paul (Gillingham) Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S) Lock, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge) McAvoy, Thomas
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S) McCabe, Steve
Coaker, Vernon McCafferty, Ms Chris
Coffey, Ms Ann McDonagh, Siobhain
Cohen, Harry McIsaac, Shona
Coleman, Iain Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Colman, Tony McNamara, Kevin
Corbett, Robin MacShane, Denis
Corston, Ms Jean Mactaggart, Fiona
Cotter, Brian McWalter, Tony
Cranston, Ross McWilliam, John
Cummings, John Mallaber, Judy
Darvill, Keith Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Davey, Edward (Kingston) Martlew, Eric
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C) Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H) Merron, Gillian
Dawson, Hilton Michael, Alun
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Dowd, Jim Milburn, Alan
Drew, David Miller, Andrew
Drown, Ms Julia Moffatt, Laura
Ewing, Mrs Margaret Moore, Michael
Fitzpatrick, Jim Moran, Ms Margaret
Flint, Caroline Morley, Elliot
Flynn, Paul Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Foster, Don (Bath) Mountford, Kali
Foster, Michael J (Worcester) Mudie, George
Fyfe, Maria Norris, Dan
Gapes, Mike O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Gardiner, Barry Olner, Bill
George, Bruce (Walsall S) Öpik, Lembit
Gerrard, Neil Palmer, Dr Nick
Gibson, Dr Ian Pearson, Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda Pickthall, Colin
Godsiff, Roger Pike, Peter L
Gordon, Mrs Eileen Plaskitt, James
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E) Pollard, Kerry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Pond, Chris
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale) Pound, Stephen
Hancock, Mike Prescott, Rt Hon John
Heal, Mrs Sylvia Primarolo, Dawn
Hepburn, Stephen Purchase, Ken
Heppell, John Quin, Ms Joyce
Hewitt, Ms Patricia Quinn, Lawrie
Hoey, Kate Rammell, Bill
Home Robertson, John Rapson, Syd
Hope, Phil Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Hopkins, Kelvin Rendel, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E) Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N) Ruane, Chris
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N) Ryan, Ms Joan
Hutton, John
Sanders, Adrian Tipping, Paddy
Savidge, Malcolm Todd, Mark
Sawford, Phil Tonge, Dr Jenny
Sedgemore, Brian Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Shaw, Jonathan Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Smith, Angela (Basildon) Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch) Vis, Dr Rudi
Southworth, Ms Helen Walley, Ms Joan
Spellar, John Wareing, Robert N
Squire, Ms Rachel Watts, David
Starkey, Dr Phyllis White, Brian
Stewart, David (Inverness E) Wicks, Malcolm
Stewart, Ian (Eccles) Wills, Michael
Stinchcombe, Paul Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Stoate, Dr Howard Worthington, Tony
Straw, Rt Hon Jack Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Stuart, Ms Gisela Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro) Tellers for the Ayes:
Timms, Stephen Ms Bridget Prentice and
Janet Anderson.
NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey) MacKay, Andrew
Arbuthnot, James McLoughlin, Patrick
Atkinson, Peter(Hexham) Madel, Sir David
Boswell, Tim Maginnis, Ken
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W) Malins, Humfrey
Brady, Graham Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Brazier, Julian Moss, Malcolm
Burns, Simon Nicholls, Patrick
Cash, William Norman, Archie
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet) Ottaway, Richard
Clappison, James Page, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Paterson, Owen
Colvin, Michael Pickles, Eric
Davies, Quentin (Grantham) Prior, David
Day, Stephen Randall, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Robathan, Andrew
Duncan, Alan Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Evans, Nigel Ruffley, David
Faber, David Sayeed, Jonathan
Fallon, Michael Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Flight, Howard Soames, Nicholas
Garnier, Edward Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Gibb, Nick Spicer, Sir Michael
Gill, Christopher Spring, Richard
Gray, James Streeter, Gary
Greenway, John Swayne, Desmond
Grieve, Dominic Syms, Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Tapsell, Sir Peter
Hammond, Philip Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Hawkins, Nick Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Heald, Oliver Taylor, Sir Teddy
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David Trend, Michael
Horam, John Tyrie, Andrew
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot) Viggers, Peter
Jack, Rt Hon Michael Wardle, Charles
Jenkin, Bernard Wells, Bowen
Kirkbride, Miss Julie Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Laing, Mrs Eleanor Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Leigh, Edward Woodward, Shaun
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter Yeo, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham) Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Luff, Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John Tellers for the Noes:
McIntosh, Miss Anne Mr. James Cran and
Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. John McDonnell (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—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

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.

Mr. McDonnell

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Is it another point of order?

Mr. McDonnell

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

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

Mr. McDonnell

I am much obliged.