HL Deb 17 November 1998 vol 594 cc1129-54

4B The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, do not insist on their original amendment in lieu thereof to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments—

4C After Clause 2, insert the following new clause-

Review of electoral system

(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons-

  1. (a) to review, in accordance with subsection (2), the operation of the system of election provided for by section 3 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 as substituted by section 1 of this Act, and
  2. (b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.

(2) The review shall consider, in particular, how the ability of electors to vote for particular persons on a party's list of candidates might affect the results of an election.

(3) The Secretary of State shall carry out his duty under subsection (1) within one month from the date of the first general election to the European Parliament which takes place after the coming into force of section 1.

(4) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4C in lieu thereof.

When we discussed this issue last week I was able to point out the total lack of support that the closed list received from the Government Back-Benches both in this House and in the other place. Indeed, in this House the only vocal support for the closed list came from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats—the message on the Back-Benches was rather different—thus justifying their newly-found places on various Cabinet sub-committees.

In your Lordships' House three Government Back-Benchers spoke entirely about the merits of whether or not your Lordships had the legitimacy to send the amendment back to the Commons. None of them defended the closed-list system. Indeed, they went further. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, started off by saying: I should make clear that I prefer the open list".—[Official Report, 12/11/98; col. 853.] The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said: I am not concerned about the issue of open lists and closed lists".—[col. 861.] The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, stuck to his principled position on the closed list and said: I shall continue to oppose closed lists".—[col. 858.] All three noble Lords went on to say that your Lordships should not send this matter back to the Commons, but your Lordships disagreed and decided to do so.

One of the great advantages is that in another place yesterday two Government Back-Benchers broke cover and came out openly in favour of the closed list. These brave souls deserve a mention in this particular battle: Mr. Martin Linton of Battersea and Mr. Stephen Twigg of Enfield Southgate. Unfortunately these two brave souls were rather dwarfed by yet another four Government Back-Benchers voicing their dislike of the closed list. They added their words and voices to those that we heard the previous time, two or three of which I quoted to your Lordships when we discussed this matter last Thursday.

Let me draw your Lordships' attention to two out of the four voices that have emerged from the shadows and said "The Lords are right. We do not like the closed list either. We think it should be an open list". The first was Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, who had this to say yesterday: I feel very strongly about this matter. I speak tonight not because I believe that we are being asked to choose between an inadequate system and an even more inadequate system, but for a very different reason. I saw the effect of list systems on the European Parliament and the control that all political parties exercised. I explained time and again—wrongly, it now appears—that we would find it difficult to accept that system in Britain, because we had a genuine commitment to a constituency link and we believed that the individual was tremendously important in our system of government. I believe that very strongly".—[Official Report, Commons. 16/11/98; col. 705.] Mrs Dunwoody said two things: one about the constituency link and the other about the individual. I accept that the constituency link will be broken by PR, but I acknowledge the Government's manifesto commitment to a system of proportional representation. In their manifesto they said: We have long supported a proportional voting system for election to the European Parliament". I may not agree with that sentiment, but I accept it. Nothing I am asking your Lordships to do today, or have asked your Lordships to do on previous occasions, prevents the Government from honouring their manifesto commitment to have a proportional representation system for elections to the European Parliament. The important thing that Mrs Dunwoody said is that the closed list system—which is the one we are being offered—denies our belief that individuals are important. An open list acknowledges the importance of individuals. The individual candidate is important. The electors have a right to choose not just the party but also an individual within that party. That is important.

That view was taken up by Tony Benn—one of your Lordships' fiercest critics. I am pretty certain that he felt a bit uncomfortable with your Lordships being alongside him in this particular argument. He said this: I base myself on the simple principle that democracy will be destroyed if people cannot vote for and remove candidates, and if candidates are simply instruments of whatever may be a party's majorities and machinations when an election comes…The only person the electors can rely on is the candidate whom they have heard, argued with, listened to, voted for and can vote out. Give that up, and we not only wreck the European elections but begin to undermine the basis on which this House"— the other place— comes to debate issues and ultimately to decide them".—[col. 687.] The closed list system is also pernicious for the European elections. Before the last European elections, I was on government business in Paris and I met, two weeks out, a lady who was at the top of the list in one of the other European countries. I expressed surprise that she had taken a day out to come to Paris to have dinner with Transport Ministers; I thought she might be out electioneering. She dismissed me rather airily and said, "I do not need to electioneer. I am top of my party's list. I have no problem". That illustrates the problem.

I have read the Home Secretary's most recent defence of the closed-list system—as, no doubt, have most of your Lordships. I read his defence yesterday and his previous defences. One thought keeps going through my mind as I read his defences. It came to the top of my mind when I watched the Home Secretary last week. Is the Home Secretary keen on the closed list because he knows that next June it will result in an even lower turn-out than the low turn-outs we have come to expect in European parliamentary elections? That, allied to a dislike and distrust of party machinations which go to create the closed list, will actually bring PR into such public odium that Jenkins and all his work will be easily destroyed. That is a suspicion that keeps coming to my mind.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his usual eloquent way, has advanced three propositions in favour of the closed list. I have no doubt that he will tell us first about Northern Ireland. Yes, the closed list system was used to deal with the exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland. But is the noble Lord saying to your Lordships that the same exceptional and special circumstances apply here in Britain? The closed list was used for a deliberative forum with a specific agenda to bring very disparate parties into negotiation. Does the noble Lord think that such is needed in the European Parliament to bring disparate parties into negotiation?

My right honourable friend John Major made it very clear that the list system was not ideal. He used the words "not ideal" on 21st March 1996 in answer to a question from the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister, Tony Blair, asked his question in this way: As I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree, the solution on the election process is certainly not ideal".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/96; col. 499.] If it was certainly not ideal for the Northern Ireland forum, how can it be ideal for the European Parliament?

Then there is the interesting idea that first-past-the-post is a closed list of one. A Member of the other place, Mr. Harry Barnes, who expressed his views against the closed list quite forcefully, said: We cannot have an open list of one, therefore we cannot have a closed list of one".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/98; col. 691.] That is exactly the point. There is no comparison between the first-past-the-post, one-person-one-vote system and the list system.

The third argument that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has used to your Lordships is that only the party can be trusted to elect a balanced ticket with the various interest groups represented. That is an interesting lack of faith in Labour's own voters. There is not much "Trust the people" here. It is "Do not trust the people. Trust the Labour Party, trust the Liberal Democrat Party, trust the Tory Party. We are here to help you". One can almost hear the electorate being told that.

Mr. Austin Mitchell—a man whose European credentials are impeccable and whose devotion to first-past-the-post is certainly not good; he actually believes in PR—said this: We shall do well in the elections"— This is about the Labour Party; this is Austin Mitchell ingratiating himself with his Front Bench to see if they will give him a job at long last— but we arc telling the electorate that they cannot make any choice—they must vote as the party wants them to vote. That will produce a festering resentment, which will do us no good. It is a basic flaw in democracy…We should maximise choice. They will resent it if they feel that they cannot pick and choose within the list".—[col. 702.] Let us look at the amendments that the other place have sent back to us. Talk about crumbs from the rich man's table! Yes, we can have a review—but there is no guarantee about what the Government will do if the review comes down against the closed list. Your Lordships had little faith in that last week. So now we are promised in the new amendment that the review will look in particular at the way the closed list operated. I cannot for a moment imagine what else the review was going to do other than look at the closed list. Was it going to look at the shape of the ballot paper; or at how the campaigns were funded; or at the ability of the electorate to place their cross? Really, this last offering is not even a crumb from the rich man's table. Yet, it does matter how electors place their cross. Do they place it against an individual name, sending their choice to be their representative in Brussels; or do they place the cross against the party and the party decides who goes to Brussels to represent the party in Brussels?

Much will be made of the undemocratic nature of your Lordships' House. But when matched against the totally undemocratic nature of the closed list system, there is no comparison.

Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

Lord Shore of Stepney

My Lords, I have studied with great care the debate that took place yesterday evening in the House of Commons, hoping not for the first time that I would find there some new and persuasive argument that would put me ad idem with so many of my former colleagues and present colleagues in the Labour Party here in the House of Lords. But I searched in vain. Indeed, the arguments were hardly put forward in terms of merit. They were put forward in terms of the Commons versus the Lords—the will of the House of Commons must prevail over that of the House of Lords. As a general principle, I agree with that without any trouble. However, on this occasion I think it has been used bogusly. It is not a true description of what is at stake.

What is at stake is whether, faced with the choice of two systems of proportional representation, which many of us dislike in any event, we should go for a system which greatly increases the powers of officials—of what I previously called the "selectorate"; whether we should deliberately, with our eyes open, do that in a period when, on the whole, centralised power is being challenged everywhere; and whether we should do that deliberately in this case in preference to a system which gives no such extra power to what is basically an unelected or very indirectly elected committee of officials who choose who are to be members of the European Parliament in the future.

Of course, I looked once again at the arithmetic of the last time we voted. When one looks at the number of votes cast by the Conservative Peers, whether hereditary or appointed, one reaches a certain total. That total, if they had had no other support from more independent sources, would not have enabled them to win last time. The Government would have won the vote if they had been faced with a combination of Conservative Peers, hereditary and appointed. The Government would have won the same vote on 20th October. But they did not win. It is bogus to describe this as being one of those classic conflicts between hereditary Peers dominating this House through the Conservative Party and the democracy outside. It is a false description. We owe it to ourselves to have at least a minimum of intellectual honesty and rigour. I cannot bring myself to support what the Government propose.

I want to go just one step further. I remain puzzled at the insistence of the Government and of the Commons. It is an amazing persistence. It is true that the Bill is now getting very near to the deadline. In a very short time we may actually play this game of ping pong once more, but the Session will come to an end. It may well be that the Government will lose the Bill. Why on earth should they take such a risk? Surely they do not invest such merit in a closed electoral system. The Back-Benchers can hardly bring themselves even to acquiesce in it, let alone to support it. Are they to risk the Bill for that? Good heavens, it is ridiculous. I have been scratching my head about it.

Under Article 190 of the Treaty of Rome we are committed to a European Parliament elected by a common procedure. Under the treaty we are required to harmonise our system with that of the European Union. It has not yet reached the point when that is an instruction but it is there in the treaty and sooner or later a regulation will come forward requiring us to make that alignment. For all I know, and for all the House knows, there may have been some tacit understanding between the Government and their European allies that they will bring forward such a procedure and bring the British system into alignment with that of the majority of countries in the European Union; or it may be that the Government, so anxious to establish their European credentials, have gone out of their way to make a gesture of good will, as they would see it, to our European friends and neighbours; in which case, I think it is bad judgment—I say no more—but it does not give any additional argument for the Bill in the form in which it has been presented to us.

So, with great reluctance, I have to say this to my colleagues. I am not persuaded. I cannot vote for what is proposed. If the Government do persist, they may well lose the Bill. But, need we be very sad about that? If they do lose the Bill, they will then find that they have already in being a system which, although far from perfect, is based on first-past-the-post and the constituency system which most of us in any case prefer.

Lord Jacobs

My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long and I hope the House will excuse me for not having spoken at the Committee stage or the Report stage or at any of the three previous votes we have had. There are elements in the progress of the Bill which are somewhat reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes—the mystery of the dog that did not bark in the night. I shall come to that in a moment.

Perhaps I may give a brief summary of the position as I understand it. There have been four voting systems: first-past-the-post; the single transferable vote; the closed list; and the open list. Those four systems have been discussed interminably. On first-past-the-post, in their manifesto the Government made it clear that they wanted to bring in a system of proportional representation for the European elections, so first-past-the-post could not be considered. At this point I should like to take up the Conservative point of view because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, explained the situation very well at the Committee stage of the Bill on 24th June. The noble Lord stated: I want to make quite clear to the noble Lord"— he was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham— and his friends"— I guess he was referring to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches— that while I may decide to discuss the finer points of the myriad of proportional representation systems, that in no way removes my objection in principle to any or all of them. My firm view is that the first-past-the-post system is the simplest and the best system whereby people can elect representatives to Parliament".—[Official Report, 24/6/98; col. 268.] That was succinct, clear and unambiguous.

Then we come to the single transferable vote system. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, proposed amendments to bring in the STV system at both Committee and Report stages. Our party is strongly in favour of STV, but the single transferable vote does not work well with an electorate of 43 million and just 84 seats to be decided upon, and therefore regretfully we were unable to support those amendments. The system does, of course, work well in general elections.

Then we come to the closed list. I want to make clear that for both the closed list and the open list the candidates are decided upon by the party. In our party we vote for the candidates. When comparing the two systems, there is no fundamental difference on this important point.

In the closed list system the electorate votes for the party. The names of the candidates are on the list, but electors cast their votes for the party and not for the individual candidates.

In the open list system there is also another method of voting. At Committee stage our party proposed a system known as the Belgian system. I will not explain it; noble Lords must know it inside out and backwards. That system would enable electors to vote for either a party or individual candidates. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, saw what he described as a small defect in the system, and indeed it does exist. In about three out of 24 elections carried out under this system someone low down on the list has received more votes than someone higher up on the list but has failed to be elected because of the way the quota is allocated. Because of that defect, when we divided the House on the proposal, the Conservatives—particularly the Front Bench—were regrettably obliged to sit on their hands.

All was not lost because the Conservatives put forward an amendment proposing the Finnish system, in which I think there is merit. Under that system one votes for each candidate, and many here have made a great deal of that point. If candidates appear in alphabetical order on the ballot paper or are randomly selected in a list system, electors can make a good selection if they know who all the candidates are, and so the system would work well. In practice, as I think almost everyone here knows, most people will not know the candidates by name and will therefore inevitably cast their votes from the top of the list of the party which they wish to support.

I should like to quote again from that well-known Conservative Party speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. What he said was important because he wanted to ensure that the system he was proposing would work well. He said: Alternatively, I suggest that the parties should be invited to place the candidates in the preferred order so that the top person would gain a slight advantage in the top position".—[Official Report, 24/6/98; col. 337.] He thought that that would make a small difference and would at least meet what the parties required.

We now come to what I call the Sherlock Holmes element. With regard to what happened next Sherlock Holmes might have asked, "What was the curious incident about the vote on this amendment at Committee stage?" Watson might have replied, "But there was no vote". "Exactly", Sherlock Holmes would have said, "that was the curious incident; the matter was not voted upon". However, there was a reason for that. The noble Lord's reason was very simple: it was getting late; it was twenty to ten. Although the issue was very important, the noble Lord was not prepared to put it to the vote and so we could wait comfortably for the Report stage of the Bill, when the noble Lord again moved the amendment. At the end of the debate he declined to test the opinion of the House, on the grounds that many would perhaps not support him, which seems unlikely to me in view of what happened at Third Reading.

Two votes that should have taken place were not called for and we thus came to the twelfth hour—Third Reading. This is not the way that Bills should be amended if one is serious about amending them. We now realise that what the Conservatives wanted was not to bring in an open list system but to defeat the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, stated, if the Bill were lost, we should go back to the first-past-the-post system, which is what they wanted at the outset.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am that Back-Bencher whom the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, mentioned a few moments ago. I should like to inform him and the House that I was eager and willing to speak in the debate last Thursday but, out of courtesy to the House, because I thought that the House had probably heard enough by that stage and because I suspected that there were a few day return tickets that needed to be cashed in, I decided not to speak on that occasion. I am delighted this afternoon to have the chance to speak briefly in support of the Government's position on the Bill. I know that I speak not just for myself but for many Members of this House.

My interest is not as a candidate: I am not number one, three or 11 for a European seat on the 2nd June. My position is much less exalted. I have been for many years the elected chairman of the Northamptonshire and Blaby Euro-constituency Labour Party. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his seat this afternoon. I am a fairly new Member of the House and I hope that the House will be tolerant if I inadvertently breach some of the rules of debate.

This debate is not about internal party affairs, although noble Lords on all sides have at various stages tried to make it so. Each party has chosen its candidates in its own way, and I dare say that none has been perfect—except as regards the Liberal Democrats, of course! The candidates are now in place and anxious to get on with it.

There are real disadvantages in the system advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I hope that the court will be gentle with me as I go through them.

Noble Lords

The House!

Lord Bach

I am glad that noble Lords are still listening to me. Of course, I meant to say, "the House".

It is possible that under this system a candidate might be elected who has received fewer votes than an unsuccessful candidate. That is bad in itself, but, for a party which supports first-past-the-post, it is the ultimate sin.

Secondly, under the proposed system party labels will be mentioned as part of the ballot paper, but there will be no mention of a party order of preference. We are talking about electoral areas which are regions of Great Britain with millions of electors, not about counties and not about cities, let alone constituencies or wards. How on earth will the electorate be able to choose sensibly in order—I emphasise that—from the ballot paper? This is not an attack on the intelligence and good sense of the voting public—I believe that they showed great intelligence and good sense on the 1st May 1997—but plain common sense. We all belong to clubs or organisations big and small that every year hold postal elections for, say, an executive committee. A list of names appears, sometimes with a short biography. But soon after we start to put down crosses we find that we are voting randomly and for the most stupid of reasons. We are not making a judgment about a candidate's abilities at all. How much more likely is that when dealing with regional elections with perhaps three or four million voters in each region? It will lead to chaos and unfairness.

Perhaps I may quote briefly from a publication entitled Counting on Europe by Professor Dunleavy, Dr. Hix and Dr. Margettes: Open list ballot papers are more complicated. The ballot paper will be much longer because all the candidates will have to be listed with tick boxes. People may feel obliged to look over all the names, a lengthy business in the South East region where with 11 seats there could be 40 or more candidates…some people such as the elderly, those who have difficulty reading, first-time voters, and people who are just attached to the existing way of doing things may dislike the ballot paper or find it confusing". That major study of voting systems, carried out just after the 1997 general election, provides good survey evidence that British voters do not like complicated ballot papers with multiple names and tick boxes. They have a strong preference for simple, short ballot papers. All the evidence suggests that this would amount to a real injustice, not just to women or ethnic minorities but to those who are discriminated against because their surnames unlike mine are at the end of the alphabet.

I come to my third point which was dealt with so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his speech last Thursday and in his letter to the Daily Telegraph earlier this week. Each individual will be fighting against every other candidate including—perhaps specifically—members of his or her own party. Here I attempt to help the party opposite. This is a particular danger for the Conservatives where candidates who are selected clearly disagree with each other on their attitude towards Europe. For example, in my region the number one Conservative candidate is under the impression that the Second World War continues and that the Germans are our enemies to the death, while the second candidate is an ex-member of the European Parliament whose pro-European views make Sir Edward Heath look alike a Eurosceptic.

At Report stage on 12th October, just after I entered this place, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, moved Amendment No. 13 which proposed, the setting up of a commission within six months of the first election to be held under the Bill in order to report within two years on the merits of the electoral system that is proposed".—[Official Report, 12/10/98; col. 761] He said nothing about an open list then. As the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, that did not arise until Third Reading.

Yesterday the Home Secretary in dealing with the amendment that is before the House today proposed a review within seven months, not two years, of the operation of the system of elections. The review will consider the ability of electors to vote for particular people on a party list and how that may affect the result of an election. The noble Lord has got his way and there is to be a review. That review has been strengthened since last week by a concession from the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord does not accept that, more cynical people than I may begin to wonder whether the motive behind all this table tennis between the two Houses is something rather different from the merits of the Bill.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, got to his feet first; perhaps he should speak now.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, so far no Back Bencher on this side has spoken to the amendment.

Lord Carter

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has tabled a later amendment it may be useful to hear him at this stage.

Lord Bethell

My Lords, I shall speak briefly because I have tabled an amendment that may not be called if the vote goes in a certain direction. I have listened throughout these proceedings to every word that has been said by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I agree with him. It appears that several noble Lords opposite and Members of another place on the Government Benches agree with what my noble friend Lord Mackay said. This is a terrible example of cronyism that we see very often under the closed list system. Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody who was with me in the European Parliament in the 1970s is right to point that out.

If one is at the top of the list one wins easily; if one kicks against the pricks during the Session of a Parliament one is pushed off the list or, as the French say, biffé de la liste and the party leadership has the last word on the matter. That is what we have seen happen in the Labour Party. With the greatest respect, we have not seen it in the election of candidates for the Conservative or Liberal Democratic parties. I again declare my interest in that I was elected as a member of the closed list in the London area.

It is very difficult to campaign in this system under an open list as proposed by those who see the individual as the main criterion. For example, in the London area there will be some 6 million voters and 10 candidates for each of the major parties. There will be perhaps 40 or more candidates seeking the votes of those 6 million voters. Each of those 40 candidates must go for that one cross and get the message across to the millions whom he hopes will elect him. How is this to be done other than to some extent on a party basis?

I know that we cannot have a closed list, which is abominable. My noble friend on the Front Bench is quite right. But if there is a possibility of a voter being permitted to vote for someone he knows, or knows of, or has read about, that is excellent. However, I believe that in 90 per cent. of cases—as emerges from those countries where lists of this kind exist, such as Belgium, Finland, Cyprus and elsewhere—the voter votes for the party. Rightly or wrongly, he takes the job lot or group. That is why the mixed list is, I believe, the least obnoxious of those that have been mentioned in these proceedings.

There are 187 types of proportional representation available for Parliament to choose from, but I believe that the mixed list is the one which works best. I do not relish the idea of campaigning with colleagues of one's own party, ostensibly on their side but secretly in rivalry with one's own party. I am sorry to say that but I know that that would happen. I hope that that does not come to pass. I have worked, I hope, as a colleague with the other nine members of my list and I should like to be able to do so, all for one and one for all, without trying to steal a march on the others whenever I get half a chance.

Therefore, I ask noble Lords to concede that my noble friend has won the argument good and proper in your Lordships' House and in another place. He has shown that the leadership of the party opposite has not put up a very good performance over the selection—the parachuting—of candidates into the ballot paper. I ask noble Lords to look at the practicalities of the matter. Most of the candidates for the three major parties are already selected—nearly 300. The party activists, I submit, do not relish the idea of going back to square one and starting on the first-past-the-post system which has been the law up until now.

We have carried the ball several hundred yards down the pitch, if I may use a rugby analogy. We have to decide now whether to go for the line or kick for touch. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will consider my amendment for the mixed list system. Though not perfect, it has a great deal of merit. However, on this particular Motion, I shall abstain.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I have had a somewhat rough passage.

Lord Carter

My Lords, we have just had a Conservative speaker. I think we should now hear from this side and then perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, first we heard from the noble Lord on the Front Bench over there. We have had no Back Bencher—

Lord Carter

My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.

Lord Evans of Parkside

My Lords, I confess, from the outset, that I have lost count of the number of times we have discussed this issue. I must also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. There is not a great deal of difference between the government amendment defeated last week and the government amendment before us today. It is also fair to say, as I said on that occasion, that at least the Government had offered an olive branch—a review of the electoral proceedings to be conducted soon after the European parliamentary election. I regret that it was not possible for the national executive committee of the Labour Party to say that it would review its method of selecting candidates for future elections. That would have been an even bigger olive branch and would have been even better received within the Labour Party.

This Bill is probably one of the most bizarre ever presented to an assembly. It is worth mentioning that it appeared before the House of Commons last November, more than a year ago, and here we are, right up against the wire, still discussing what has now turned out to be the most controversial Bill the Government have put forward in a very long Session.

If the Bill receives Royal Assent, it is worth examining the impact. The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party would gain a substantial number of seats within the European Parliament. There is even a chance that the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh nationalists would gain an additional seat. In fact, the only loser would be the Labour Party who, at the last European parliamentary election, won 62 seats. Although one cannot be totally precise, it is a certainty that Labour would lose between 22 and 25 of those seats. Additionally, there has been considerable turmoil in the party over the method used to select our candidates. The major support within the party for the method adopted seems to be from some members of the national executive committee and those candidates who are in a winning position as far as the ballot is concerned. It is difficult to find many other people who support either the closed list or the party's methods. If the Bill does pass, there will be major losses within the party. We will have a party that is rather split and somewhat angry.

However, if the Tories carry the vote tonight and the Bill is lost, Britain will revert to 84 contests in single member constituencies conducted under the first-past-the-post system. It will also mean that in the Labour Party the original rules will come back into play and the party members in each of those European constituencies will select their candidate by the traditional method. The NEC method of selecting candidates will have been killed. Labour will hold most, if not all, of the 62 seats it currently has and we will have a happy and united party. In other words, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he has an interesting choice tonight as to whether or not to force his amendment to the vote. If he does, the Labour Party will be the undoubted winner and the party will greatly rejoice that the old system of selecting candidates is restored. I shall be very interested to see what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, does when the Question is put.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I suppose I am not the first Member of your Lordships' House to have been given a somewhat rough passage by the Government Chief Whip. Nevertheless, let there be no bad blood between us. I have the deepest respect, as I always have, for holders of his office.

Your Lordships will be doubly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, first, for an excellent speech. I have heard him speak many times and recognise him as a cogent debater, even though I have not always had the luxury of being able to agree with him. Your Lordships also have another ground for gratitude; namely that as I agree with him totally on this occasion, I have been able to shorten my remarks considerably. While I am on the subject of brevity, perhaps I may say that I know of no other word more generally abused in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. Perhaps I may delicately refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, from the Liberal Benches. He also promised to be brief. I feel quite happy to give the same undertaking here, knowing that it will not bind me overmuch.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, if I could have his attention for a moment, bewildered me somewhat. First, he mentioned in passing that he was addressing a court. There is no court visible to me. The nearest I can get to a court is the Bench of Bishops. The noble Lord might care to apply himself to some occupants of the Bench of the right reverend Prelates for guidance and representation at a higher court. I suspect he will need it.

I do not mind very much what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wears. As long as he observes the rules of general decorum—and I am sure that we can be confident of that—I shall be perfectly comfortable. However, there are other issues on which I join in the fray with some eagerness; and this is one. I dislike very much indeed the idea of any political party handing me a sanitised list of approved candidates. It is a horrible idea. It is a considerable pleasure and privilege for me to find myself in warm agreement with Mr. Tony Benn. He made the point yesterday in another place that, Candidates are chosen by a selection process within their constituencies … If we get away from that principle, MEPs will always look to the party leader, not to their constituents".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/98; col. 685.] As I have grown older I have found it easier to restrain the enthusiasm which I feel for political parties. In my declining years I should like to make this point: that for me political parties are the only thoroughly nasty things of which, in the interests of safety, you must have more than one.

I have thought hard about this issue. I have said this in your Lordships' House before in one of those dim, twilight hours when there is no one here to listen. I had the advantage of rehearsing it on that occasion; I shall therefore repeat it with, I hope, more polish. I know of no one who becomes more intelligent, wiser, more charming, nicer, more gracious, more anything favourable that one likes, when he wears a party hat than when he does not. I am the first to testify to the charm of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. But when he wears a party hat, I have to be very careful of him. If the noble Lord has anything to say, I shall be pleased to hear it.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, is no longer in his place. I thought that he was absolutely right when he said that this occasion was not just another one in a long-running dispute between the two Houses. Much has been made of the defects of your Lordships' House, real or imagined. Very little has been said about those of another place which—let me use my customary restraint and moderation—falls somewhere short of being wholly immaculate. I hope that that will not give offence elsewhere. We in your Lordships' House have very little power. Those who sit in another place, who have to an extent been sanctified by a popular vote, have not earned anyone's gratitude or applause when they persist in handing over the power that they have been given by the people to party machines. Whips and all the myrmidons of spin doctors and the rest take over power which was given to people who sit in another place; and in my view they are greatly to be blamed for that.

I earnestly hope that this amendment will be passed, not out of any partisan, fractious wish to see the party which I sometimes support win a vote. This is not that kind of issue. It goes to the root of our whole system. When I hear the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and when I find people like Mr. Tony Benn with whom I do not regularly agree coming down as emphatically as they do against what the Government propose, I very much hope that the amendment will be carried.

4 p.m.

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff

My Lords, I was almost overcome to hear the encomiums that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, paid to our Chief Whip. Remembering the performance of my noble friend Lord Peyton (perhaps I may call him that) in the last Parliament, I am not sure that his Chief Whip will pay the same encomiums to him.

However, I must make a confession. I find it difficult to display the same enthusiasm and passion that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, or my noble friend Lord Shore can summon up about this matter. It is of course important, but to make the same speech, as I have heard them both do, time after time seems to me to require a degree of faith that I cannot summon.

I wish to make two observations: first about the issue; and, secondly, about the tactics of the Opposition. First, I have listened to the debates. I have voted only once, which demonstrates the degree of my enthusiasm; and I have read what happened in the Commons yesterday. If anything has been demonstrated by the series of debates, and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, it is that he can be guaranteed to prove that there is no system of voting in this country which will be fair and just—none at all. He admits that even the first-past-the-post system which some of us in our old age still support has its defects. Yesterday, in another place, I heard the Home Secretary demonstrate—I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not refer to it today—that under the amendment it would be possible for someone with a smaller vote to be elected against someone with a bigger vote from a different party. What system is that? Is that accurate or not? I understand that it is accurate.

Let us imagine a situation in which one of the parties (let us not name names) has half a dozen candidates, one of whom is so popular, so well respected, so well known, and can command so much audience that he gains a vote that is much larger than the rest of his colleagues. I refer, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Archer. By virtue of his own magic popularity, he can carry with him a series of third-rate candidates who otherwise would not have a chance. That is the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.

We all know that the Cross-Benchers are the epitome and the residuary of wisdom and intelligence in this House. I say that because I do not want them to vote today. Do they think that they are doing a service to the cause of democracy by voting for an amendment which will elect someone with fewer votes than someone else from another party? The plain truth is—and here I am almost in line with the Cross-Benchers; and I repeat my first observation—there is not a perfect system. What has been proposed by the Opposition is certainly not a perfect system. I confess that I am not over enthusiastic about the system here, but we have to choose one system.

I come to my second observation as regards the tactics of the Opposition and I include my noble friends Lord Shore, Lord Stoddart and all the others whose enthusiasm I so much admire. What gives them the right to say—unelected as they are and accountable to no one—four times in a row, "We insist that you, the Government, and the Members of the Commons shall lose your Bill"? They have no right at all to say that. No, I am not giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Shore. He knows that if he were in the Commons he would be defending the right of another place against this House and all-comers as he did time after time when he was there. Apparently, he and other noble Lords are going to seek the opinion of the House this afternoon and will try to wreck the Bill.

Noble Lords

No!

Lord Callaghan of Cardiff

My Lords, if they are not trying to wreck the Bill, why do they not withdraw their amendments? Why do they not accept the wish of the other place and of the Government which won the election? What right have they got to insist on their view against the elected Members of another place? They know that they have not. I have genuine admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and for the way in which he conducts himself. Indeed, if I were Leader of the Opposition I would begin to have some fears about my own position.

As regards tactics, of course the Opposition can carry the measure today and they can send it back again to the other place. It can force the Government to lose the Bill if it wishes to do so. But I believe that in the long run the Opposition will regret it. I do not believe that the Opposition Front Bench believes that it is carrying all its own people with it on this issue.

When one seeks reasons for its attitude, I believe it is the growth of a self-confessed hooligan tendency in the Conservative Party. Perhaps I may adapt the words of a forbear of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, about consultation, and repeat that I would as soon consult my valet as consult the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about political and parliamentary tactics. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition should take his party in hand. It is time it stopped playing games of this sort. It knows very well that in any other circumstances it would not persist in an issue which is not of fundamental constitutional importance. It is a second-level issue. We are faced with a series of opposing proposals on this matter and none of them is perfect.

I say again to the Cross-Benches: we have been promised a review to see whether we can achieve a better voting method out of this situation. It has been said that the Opposition will be consulted as I am sure, will all others including, no doubt, the Cross-Benches. In any other circumstances than these and with any other Opposition, it would have said, "Yes, we have carried the day three times. We understand that we are not going to win. We shall co-operate". Indeed it asked for the review and now it has been conceded the Opposition continue to object.

I have taken no real part in this matter, but I believe the time has come to stop playing games. The Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, should call off their troops and let us go forward. They can say to the Commons, "We still take the view that was taken by a majority in this House, but we do not insist on the Bill being lost and therefore we do not vote for this measure today".

4.15 p.m.

Lord Tebbit

My Lords, I have to answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, put to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, since he would not allow him to answer for himself. The right by which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, speaks and votes in this House is contained in his Writ of Summons to this House. That is his right and that is why he is using it as he should. I say also to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that it is not this House that would lose the Bill. It is in the hands of the Government's business managers. It is up to them whether they lose the Bill or not. They may find that the Bill is not the perfected thing that they would wish, but they can still have it provided they compromise with this House on this one amendment.

As regards questions of constitutionality and whether hereditary Peers like my noble friend Lord Onslow should take any part in this or whether he should send his valet in his place, a new point was raised by a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He was critical of my noble friends for not voting with him and his colleagues on their amendment. Would he really have accepted the votes of my noble friends who have inherited their peerages? Would he have thought it invalid if they had voted with him or are their votes only invalid when cast against him? It was a specious argument and we have heard many of them. I am well aware that the House is in no mood for any more.

As a former chairman of the Conservative Party I would regard the closed list system, as I always have, as a monstrously wrong and undemocratic system. If voters are faced with a list of Conservative candidates for the European Parliament they should choose from among them those whose opinions are closest to those of the voters. What is wrong with that? Why should they leave it to my successor, as chairman of the party, to do the job for them? The argument as regards the closed list has been knocked on the head already today.

Perhaps I may remind the House of this fact. I inherited in my party, defended and passed on to my successors, the principle that in any parliamentary or local authority election it is for the local people to make their decision on the Conservative candidate. If they do not like any of the so-called approved list candidates, they are free, as they always were, to introduce a candidate of their own. Central Office is duty bound to endorse him unless there is some ghastly fact against him such as being an undischarged bankrupt. That is the democratic system which we have. The closed list system would be entirely against it.

In his heart I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, knows that. He has all the enthusiasm for this measure which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, had for the beef-on-the-bone order. I was assured of my confidence in that view when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Williams, speak on this issue on Radio Four on the morning following the last vote in this House. The noble Lord is a lawyer. I noticed that throughout the interview both the volume and pitch of his voice rose steadily. He was a lawyer under pressure knowing he had a bad case, abusing the interviewer as there was no defendant.

If the Government are defeated again today and if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, appears on the radio tomorrow morning, I would advise everyone to move their best glasses well away from the receiver. He no more believes in his case than do those on the Benches behind me or on the Labour Benches in the House of Commons. They know that this measure gives excessive power to the party apparatchiks. It means that a candidate or a sitting member will not have to worry whether he pleases his electorate; he has to worry only whether he pleases the "selectorate" of his apparatchiks. That is why the system is popular in continental Europe where they are long accustomed to the superior power of the political classes over ordinary men and women in the street. That is why this House should stay firm and why the Government must then decide whether they wish to keep the Bill or whether they wish to lose it.

Lord McNally

My Lords, it was the chairman of an American assembly who said, "Everything on this matter has now been said, but unfortunately not everybody has yet said it." I believe that the House is moving to a conclusion on this matter. I am pleased that we have had some vintage performances. The noble Lord, Lord Shore, and I have been on opposite sides of Common Market arguments for more than 30 years. It is interesting to note that those in the Labour pantheon who have been exhibited here today have a common theme in their attitudes towards Europe. But, of course, all decisions here are made on the highest of principles and personal motivation.

Perhaps I may say why these Benches have been consistent throughout. This Bill, if any Bill, is our Bill. It was not in the Queen's Speech. It was following persuasion by the Liberal Democrats that the Government brought forward the Bill to honour their manifesto commitment and ours to introduce a system of proportional representation for the European elections. That is an issue to which we have been committed by treaty for two decades or more. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shore, could have brought it forward if he had supported the attempt of the Callaghan government to introduce proportional representation almost 20 years ago. So let us be in no doubt about the political issue. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party are putting forward legislation which is four square with their manifesto commitments and has been supported, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan pointed out, successively in another place.

What we have seen from the Conservative Party is the unmasking of the guns. Almost all speakers have said that they are for first-past-the-post. I repeat that first-past-the-post was not the manifesto commitment of the Labour Party, not the manifesto commitment of the Liberal Democrats and not the wish of another place. I believe that it would be a constitutional outrage if this House used its unelected majority to thwart the wishes of the electorate expressed at the general election and those of another place elected through the democratic process.

The noble Lord, Lord Shore, asked whether there was a hidden agenda. Listening to the debate and watching the Conservative ranks I wondered sometimes whether we were having a dry run for next year. When the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, started calling on his Writ of Summons to justify committing this constitutional outrage, I wondered whether next year the Writs of Summons would be dusted down to justify trying to thwart the elected government and their manifesto commitment.

Let us be in no doubt what has happened during the past few weeks. When the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was able to boast that he had come within two votes of those cast on the previous occasion on which we voted, I wonder how many independent voices we had heard and how dangerous was that Front Bench fingertip control over the hereditaries for this so-called independent House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I say to the Cross Benchers, "Do not be lured into a Conservative Party game." The noble Lord, Lord Bach, was right to speak about a court. I understand his mistake because the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is attempting a piece of grand larceny as regards this Bill. It has gone through every process of this House. We have brought it legitimately through the House and have argued our case. Some of the issues we have lost, but there is no doubt that the will of another place has been expressed clearly. The party putting the Bill through this House has the democratic mandate from the electorate for its manifesto and the approval of another place. I ask this House to pause before it sets a precedent which I believe would damage its reputation just when we are looking hard at how it should be reformed.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford

My Lords, I speak with what I hope is an independent voice. I am not against the Government. I am not a Euro-sceptic. I am not, I hope, part of the hooligan tendency. I am even in favour of proportional representation.

I sat through the debate in your Lordship' House last week and listened carefully to everything that was said. I have listened carefully to everything that has been said today. I remain deeply unhappy about the principle of the closed list. It seems to me that it is at the heart of our democratic method that the individual voter should be able to express an opinion about an individual candidate.

I am well aware of the enormous complexity of proportional representation. I am well aware that there is no perfect system. I warmly support a great deal of what Her Majesty's Government are trying to undertake in their programme of legislation. I want to see the United Kingdom playing a full and vigorous part in European affairs. I would like to see us reaching the point at which we can present to this House and to the other place a system of proportional representation which carries conviction and wins general approval. However, I remain deeply unhappy about the closed list.

There are many imperfect systems. I believe that the closed list is one of the most imperfect. I remain unconvinced by the arguments of those asking us to resist the amendment. I propose to vote again for the amendment. I believe that we shall be doing the right thing by the democratic principles which have prevailed in this country for a very long time.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, your Lordships' House is a remarkable House and today again has been a true occasion for the connoisseur. I wish to offer a word or two about the profound heart of the matter and about where we are.

This House is a revising Chamber. It should not seek to become a dictating Chamber. The facts are that the vote was won by the Opposition with the votes of hereditary Peers on every occasion. There were 47 on 20th October; 29 on 4th November; and 58 on 12th November. The figures bear thinking about because they fail to meet what happened in another place. In February there was a government majority with the Liberal Democrats and others of 174. In March, it was 180. On 27th October, it was 207. On 10th November, it was 182. The last time we indulged in this "ping" they said "pong" by 187.

We have discharged our duty to ask the other place to think and think again. I want to put this gently and neutrally. I suggest to your Lordships that to insist further is to be abusive of our system. I believe that one should pay careful attention to what my noble friend Lord Callaghan said, bearing in mind particularly that he has made no secret of the fact on any occasion before your Lordships that he really prefers first-past-the-post and is not a devotee of any PR system. He rarely speaks in your Lordships' House. For my own part, I believe that I can say that I have never heard him make a contribution which has been without value and without deep thought. Sometimes he has spoken in a way contrary to what I should have hoped, but he never speaks without thought and considered weight.

I am sorry to say that the argument is rather over-egged. Perhaps I may quote, since that seems to be the habit these days, from Peter Riddell in The Times of 17th November of this year. He said: The open-list system has a number of disadvantages. It encourages candidates of the same party", the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to compete against each other and may produce perverse results", the point made by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, whereby some candidates can be elected with fewer votes than someone who fails to get elected". That is incontrovertible. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, astute mathematician as he formerly was and presently remains, has never tried to dispute it. It is fact.

I continue with Mr. Riddell: A closed list allows parties to ensure that women and ethnic minorities have a better chance of being elected by putting them higher up the list. The choice is not straight forward and it is certainly not a grand matter of principle". If it were a grand matter of principle, I should not be able to produce this little pamphlet which is headed "Here is your Euro-team. Conservatives in the European Parliament". It has a closed list of one to 10. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to it last time, but I believe that his point was insufficiently taken. He is number three.

What is said by those devotees of the grand principle which cannot be impugned, impeached or even questioned? I shall read it. It states: The number of MEPs elected from each party will be proportionate to the votes cast for that party in the region". Well, well, is that a closed list or is that a closed list? That is what the Opposition are fighting on. Perhaps I may say to anyone who uses the word "bogus" about any argument that I may offer to your Lordships for consideration, bogus me no boguses.

This is an occasion for the connoisseur. My noble friend—we call each other that because we both mean it—Lord Tebbit presents himself as the champion of the ordinary man, one of the levellers and diggers of the English Civil War. You could have fooled me.

The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, talked about a sanitised list of 10 candidates. He always stood for election in Yeovil as a sanitised list of one candidate and so, nine times in 33 years, did my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney.

If you want to have a perfectly open system for parliamentary elections, we can do as they do in the United States and have a write-in list. We do not have that. Parties bring forward policies. Some people will disagree with some policies and must therefore opt to vote for a list which they partly support, or not. Parties must bring forward lists of candidates. There cannot be internal squabbling and fighting between the candidates, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, again said. A list is put forward for the electorate to decide upon.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is shrewd but his disability is that I always listen to him. I demonstrate that. He answered my argument about Northern Ireland by saying that it is only a deliberative Assembly. But that is normally what the European Parliament is described as. It forms no government.

I go on to what he did not deal with. The Government of Wales Bill has gone through the other place and your Lordships' House on a closed list for the top-up seats. That is excellent for Wales. My noble friend Lord Sewel and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will be able to remind me that a little time was spent considering the Government of Scotland Bill in your Lordships' House. What is the system for Scotland? It is a closed list.

I am sorry to say—and I do not say this with any particular harshness nor, indeed, is the pitch or the tone of my voice rising so that your Lordships' spectacles, if not your Lordships' drinking glasses might be in danger—this is not a point of pure principle. It is a device; it is a stratagem. All oppositions are entitled to deploy their devices and to manipulate their stratagems, but only so far. I can do no better for your Lordships than to repeat what my noble friend Lord Callaghan said. The game has been played for long enough. Our colleagues in another place were elected. Some of your Lordships disparage them. I never do because they have the courage to stand for election. They were elected. None of us was. This is now becoming a wholly improper abuse of power.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, we have certainly had an interesting debate. If I have done nothing else, I have brought before your Lordships an excellent performance of old skills honed over the years by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. To an extent, I suppose that his argument is enhanced by the fact that he believes quite honestly and openly that first-past-the-post is the best system.

However, he argued his case persuasively and cleverly as befits someone who managed to remain as Prime Minister for quite a long time without commanding a majority in the other place. Therefore, I was not in the least surprised that it was a clever performance and it certainly gave us all a lesson on how to perform in front of your Lordships. I shall read it with some care.

The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, clearly reads my speeches. Perhaps I may say to him that that is a temptation which I have so far resisted. I suggest that he joins me.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, came out of the closet and owned up to agreeing that the closed list is the best system. He asked us to be gentle with him and I shall be. He sang in harmony with Tony, and I do not mean Tony Benn but the other one. He said something interesting which the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and the Minister also mentioned; that is, that somebody with a lower vote could easily be elected against someone with a higher vote. I am sure that the Minister accepts that that is true only between the parties' lists. Within the parties' lists with the open list system, the people with the highest vote will be elected. I accept of course that someone may be elected with a lower vote than somebody else on another party list, but that happens all the time when one compares one constituency with another. Nobody complains that he received 30,000 votes and was beaten while the chap next door won 20,000 votes and was elected. Nobody complains about that. That is a false premise. People will be able to understand the system. The ballot paper will not be too complicated. Noble Lords who think that should look at the German system.

My noble friend Lord Bethell explained why he does not approve of the closed list. He mentioned some of the problems which occur with the open list. On balance, I believe he would agree with me that the problems with the closed list are greater. He indicated the defects of the closed list from his experience in the European Parliament. I believe that my noble friend is trying to help the Government by suggesting another system which they may try. I must say to my noble friend that I am not happy with the Belgian system and neither is the Home Secretary. However, my noble friend has certainly given the Government some food for thought if they need it.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. "This is our Bill". I thought that let the cat out of the bag. I say to those on the Government Back-Benches, ye ken noo who has got you into this problem. But the noble Lord did not explain why the open list is not PR. I return to my point. The Labour Party's manifesto states: We have long supported a proportional voting system for election to the European Parliament". Frankly, the open list is an election system to the European Parliament by PR. So I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who seems to be worried about it, that there is no problem in relation to the Government's manifesto.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford made it clear that individual voters should have some say. That is all we ask for in the open list. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I enjoy jousting—at least, I hope that he enjoys it because I certainly do. The noble Lord mentioned the Scottish and Welsh Bills. I did not like the list system as set out in the latter, but the fact is that both pieces of legislation have the majority of the Members of that parliament and assembly elected by the first-past-the-post system: the list only comes in for the minority for the top-up. Therefore, it is not the same as the European Parliament where everyone will be in the list system.

The noble Lord also said that the argument was over-egged. If that is so, why not accept the open list? I suggest to noble Lords that it is not just the majority in the other place that they should listen to; indeed, they should also heed the voices in another place. Those voices represent a very unhappy troop behind the Government on the issue.

My noble friend Lord Tebbit made the position clear: it is up to the other place. This Bill does not necessarily need to be lost if your Lordships agree with me today. The other place can come back—it is to be hoped—with a substantial compromise which might persuade us actually to accept it, instead of these rather meaningless crumbs of comfort that they think will buy us off.

The Government could also accept the open system which is consistent with their manifesto; indeed, they have the time to do so. I think that we should ask them to do it again and to come back, if they wish to do so, with something sensible. Alternatively, and better still, if they wish to accept that the open list is every bit as proportional as the closed list, perhaps they will accept the open list. I wish to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.

4.41 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 261; Not-Contents, 198.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Ampthill, L.
Ackner, L. Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Addison, V. Annaly, L.
Ailesbury, M. Astor of Hever, L.
Ailsa, M. Attlee, E.
Aldington, L. Baker of Dorking, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L. Banbury of Southam, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Greenway, L.
Bell, L. Halsbury, E.
Beloff, L. Hambro, L.
Belstead, L. Hampden, V.
Biffen, L. Harding of Petherton, L.
Blaker, L. Harlech, L.
Blatch, B. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Blyth, L. Harmsworth, L.
Boardman, L. Harris of High Cross, L.
Bowness, L. Haslam, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Hayhoe, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L. Headfort, M.
Brentford, V. Hereford, Bp.
Bridge of Harwich, L. Higgins, L.
Bridgeman, V. Hogg, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Holderness, L.
Bruntisfield, L. HolmPatrick, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller.] Home, E.
Butterfield, L. Hood, V.
Butterworth, L. Hooper, B.
Cadman, L. Hothfield, L.
Caithness, E. Howe of Aberavon, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Howell of Guildford, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Hunt of Tanworth, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L. Hunt of Wirral, L.
Carnarvon, E. Hussey of North Bradley, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Hylton-Foster, B.
Carnock, L. Inglewood, L.
Chalfont, L. Ironside, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Jellicoe, E.
Chesham, L. Jenkin of Roding, L.
Clancarty, E. Johnston of Rockport, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Jopling, L.
Clark of Kempston, L. Kelvedon, L.
Coleridge, L. Kenilworth, L.
Colwyn, L. Kenyon, L.
Cooke of Islandreagh, L. Killearn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Kimball, L.
Courtown, E. Kingsland, L.
Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Cox, B. Knight of Collingtree, B.
Craig of Radley, L. Knollys, V.
Craigmyle, L. Laing of Dunphail, L.
Cranborne, V. Lauderdale, E.
Crickhowell, L. Lawrence, L.
Cross, V. Lawson of Blaby, L.
Cuckney, L. Leigh, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Limerick, E.
Cumberlege, B. Liverpool, E.
Davidson, V. Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.
Deedes, L. Lloyd-Webber, L.
Denham, L. Long, V.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Lowry, L.
Dixon-Smith, L. Lucas, L.
Donegall, M. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Downshire, M. Luke, L.
Dudley, E. Lytton, E.
Eccles of Moulton, B. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Ellenborough, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Elles, B. Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Marlesford, L.
Erne, E. Masham of Ilton, B.
Exmouth, V. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Ferrers, E. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Flather, B. Merrivale, L.
Fookes, B. Mersey, V.
Forester, L. Middleton, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Miller of Hendon, B.
Freyberg, L. Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Gage, V. Monk Bretton, L.
Gainford, L. Monro of Langholm, L.
Gainsborough, E. Monson, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Glenarthur, L. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Glentoran, L. Montrose, D.
Gray, L. Moore of Wolvercote, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Moran, L.
Mottistone, L. Renwick, L.
Mountevans, L. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Romney, E.
Moyne, L. Rotherwick, L.
Munster, E. Rowallan, L.
Napier of Magdoda, L. Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.
Naseby, L. St. John of Fawsley, L.
Nathan, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Nelson, E. Sandford, L.
Newton of Braintree, L. Savile, L.
Noel-Buxton, L. Seccombe, B.
Norrie, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Northbourne, L. Sharples, B.
Northesk, E. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Norton, L. Shore of Stepney, L.
Norton of Louth, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Nunburnholme, L. Skelmersdale, L.
O'Cathain, B. Slim, V.
Onslow, E. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Onslow of Woking, L. Stair, E.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B. Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B. Stewartby, L.
Oxfuird, V. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Palmer, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Palumbo, L. Strafford, E.
Park of Monmouth, B. Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Patten, L. Sudeley, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L. Swinfen, L.
Peel, E. Tebbit, L.
Pender, L. Teviot, L.
Perry of Southwark, B. Thatcher, B.
Peyton of Yeovil, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Phillimore, L. Trumpington, B.
Pike, B. Vivian, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L. Waddington, L.
Platt of Writtle, B. Wakefield, Bp.
Plumb, L. Wakeham, L.
Quinton, L. Walker of Worcester, L.
Rankeillour, L. Warnock, B.
Rathcavan, L. Waverley, V.
Rawlings, B. Westbury, L.
Reay, L. Wharton, B.
Rees, L. Wilcox, B.
Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. Winchester, Bp.
Renton, L. Wolfson, L.
Renton of Mount Harry, L. Young, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Calverley, L.
Addington, L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Ahmed, L. Carter, L. [Teller.]
Alderdice, L. Chorley, L.
Alli, L. Christopher, L.
Amos, B. Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Annan, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Clement-Jones, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Avebury, L. Crawley, B.
Bach, L. Currie of Marylebone, L.
Barnett, L. Dahrendorf, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. David, B.
Bath, M. Davies of Coity, L.
Berkeley, L. Davies of Oldham, L.
Blackstone, B. Dean of Beswick, L.
Blease, L. Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Bledisloe, V. Desai, L.
Borrie, L. Dholakia, L.
Bragg, L. Diamond, L.
Brightman, L. Dixon, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Donoughue, L.
Brookman, L. Dormand of Easington, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Dubs, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Eatwell, L.
Burlison, L. Elis-Thomas, L.
Burns, L. Evans of Parkside, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Evans of Watford, L.
Ewing of Kirkford, L. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Ezra, L. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Miller of Chilthorne Dorner, B.
Falkland, V. Milner of Leeds, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Mishcon, L.
Gallacher, L. Molloy, L.
Geraint, L. Monkswell, L.
Gilbert, L. Montague of Oxford, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Goodhart, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Newby, L.
Goudie, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Nicol, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Ogmore, L.
Grantchester, L. Paul, L.
Gregson, L. Perry of Walton, L.
Grenfell, L. Peston, L.
Grey, E. Pitkeathley, B.
Hacking, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Hampton, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Hamwee, B. Puttnam, L.
Hardie, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hardy of Wath, L. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Razzall, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Rea, L.
Haskel, L. Redesdale, L.
Hayman, B. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Healey, L. Renwick of Clifton, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Richard, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Rochester, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Hollick, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Sawyer, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Hooson, L. Serota, B.
Howie of Troon, L. Sewel, L.
Hoyle, L. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Hughes, L. Shepherd, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Simon, V.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Simon of Highbury, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Smith of Clifton, L.
Ilchester, E. Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Inchyra, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.] Strabolgi, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Islwyn, L. Taverne, L.
Jacobs, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.] Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Thornton, B.
Judd, L. Thurlow, L.
Kirkhill, L. Thurso, V.
Kirkwood, L. Tomlinson, L.
Leathers, V. Tordoff, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Linklater of Butterstone, B. Uddin, B.
Lockwood, B. Varley, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Walker of Doncaster, L.
Longford, E. Wallace of Coslany, L,
Lovell-Davis, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Ludford, B. Warner, L.
McCarthy, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Weatherill, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.] Whitty, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. Wigoder, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
McNair, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
McNally, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Maddock, B. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Mallalieu, B. Wright of Richmond, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agree to accordingly.