European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Hansard, 28 October 1993)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, it is well known to your Lordships that this is not a Bill that has just been taken formally in this House. We have not been satisfied with the provisions of the Bill, nor with the way that parliamentary constituencies are to be divided between the three countries of Britain. More particularly, it could have been an opportunity to reform the system by which the British contingent to the European Parliament is elected. The first-past-the-post system is entirely unsuitable for the European Parliament. At the last election it resulted in gross under-representation of minority parties, not only the Liberal Democrats or their predecessors, but also in 1989 the Green Party—it achieved 15 per cent. of the vote but had no representation of any kind.
Our view from these Benches is that the opportunity should have been taken to correct that injustice. It is deplorable that the Government, by delaying the introduction of the Bill first in another place and then here, made it impossible to achieve the reforms which would have been widely welcomed throughout the country. We assent to the passage of the Bill but with considerable regret.

§ Lord Holme of Cheltenham
My Lords, the noble Earl was good enough to inform me that he intended to move the Third Reading formally. I wish to make only one brief comment in regard to the electoral system that the Bill envisages. It is a cobbled-together version of the first-past-the-post system. It has been done in a way that the Government themselves acknowledge is less than satisfactory. But its effect will be to import all the uncertainties of first-past-the-post voting into an election which does not produce a government and is not intended to do so. Many of the arguments advanced conventionally by the Government against electoral reform, therefore, do not apply.
The recent Canadian elections indicate what can happen to governing parties under the first-past-the-post system. It is not impossible that the party in government may achieve less than 30 per cent. of the votes in the European elections next year. We shall see. It is a matter of the way that they and the other parties conduct the elections. Let us assume for the moment that the Government's continuing unpopularity is maintained. At that point the Government will find that the first-past-the-post system is a sword which cuts both ways. They may find their representation in the European Parliament severely reduced.
938 Should the party in government obtain 25 or 30 per cent. of the votes in those elections, it would be right that they should have 25 or 30 per cent. of the seats in the European Parliament. It is better that the European Parliament has an accurate balance. I realise that in this matter the Government are not actuated by my perception of the public interest. However, I ask the noble Earl to bear in mind that the interests of the Conservative Party will not necessarily be served by continuing an unjust system.
Like those on the Labour Benches—it is good to be arguing together on the issue of electoral reform—we shall not in any way obstruct the passage of the Bill. But I leave the noble Earl with those thoughts.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in support of the Bill as it stands. I know that those who want a different electoral system in this country regard Bills of this kind as an opportunity to deploy their points of view and arguments in favour of changing our main system. But that is quite wrong. If we want to change our first-past-the-post system we should do so deliberately, after full discussion, and not by a side wind, which is what would be involved by a change in the system for European parliamentary elections. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will allow the Bill to pass as it stands.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I moved the Third Reading of this Bill formally for the convenience of your Lordships so that we did not spend too much time on a matter on which we have already spent a certain amount of time. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, found that this was a Bill which for various reasons did not meet wholly with his approval. He said that if the Government had brought the Bill through earlier things could have been different. He knows perfectly well that the Bill was introduced solely for the purpose of putting into operation the extra seats allocated to the United Kingdom and to ensure that they were in place in good time for next year's European parliamentary elections.
I realise that there was a timescale, to which the noble Lord referred. But we have done our best to produce a Bill to make sure that seats are available. We have done that in a way that ensures the greatest possible opportunity for discussion for those who have observations to put forward. The commissions which are looking into the boundary changes are making good progress.
I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, could not avoid speaking of proportional representation, and I do not blame him for having another go. But I take the view of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—if we want a change to proportional representation it should be a deliberate act and not be done by a side wind. I can assure my noble friend that we have no intention of allowing the side wind to become a full frontal blast. We believe that the first-past-the-post system is the right one.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to Canada. I give him this comfort. If proportional representation had operated there, the party similar to that to which he belongs might not have found itself with the predominant seats. But that is the way it works. There 939 are disadvantages to any system. We have always argued that the first-past-the-post system is understandable and intelligible, whereas proportional representation is merely a phrase which covers a whole lot of different systems, each of which would produce a different result.
I know that the noble Lord and the Liberal Democrats are concerned about proportional representation. He asked me to bear what he said in mind. I shall do so, but I cannot necessarily agree with him. I commend the Bill to the House.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.