Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Beith: The Secretary of State will recognise, I hope, that the effects of which divisor is used are most marked where the seats have only a small number of MEPs. If we take the example of Wales and the 1997 general election results--the most recent that we have--using the d'Hondt system, no party other than Labour and the Conservatives would have won seats in Wales, and Labour would have won 80 per cent. of the seats on 54 per cent. of the votes. That is an extreme case within the system, but it would happen, given the d'Hondt divisor and a seat with only five MEPs.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed that at some length outside the House. We have considered carefully the proportionality index that would apply in Wales in respect of d'Hondt, Sainte-Lague modified and Sainte-Lague pure. I am happy to tell him that, in the 1994 elections, d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague

25 Nov 1997 : Column 813

modified would have produced a proportionality index for Wales of 88.5 per cent.--the same index--and Sainte-Lague an index of 90 per cent., but overall, there is no question about it: d'Hondt produces a marginally better proportionality relationship between seats and votes than Sainte-Lague.

Let me deal with the issue that has perhaps been more controversial: the nature of the list system.

Mr. Llew Smith: May I give the Secretary of State another opportunity to explain this to the House? If the electorate are dissatisfied with one Member of the European Parliament, how can they rid themselves of that MEP under the regional list system?

Mr. Straw: I have already explained that: the electorate should not vote for the list that includes that candidate. It is a straightforward system.

Mr. Gill: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Straw: Let me get on; I hope to give some comfort to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] It may be a matter of dispute between the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and his colleagues, but it is not for me.

When a party wins one or more seats, its candidates are elected in the order in which they appear on the list. The fact that voters are unable to influence the order in which candidates are on a party list has attracted some adverse comment, both outside and inside the House. Let me explain the reasoning behind that.

The electoral regions will be very large, and individual candidates are unlikely to be known by more than a small--not to say tiny--fraction of the electorate. Voters cannot, therefore, be expected to make an informed choice between individual candidates from the same party. If the electorate were required to rank candidates of the same party, such choices could be arbitrary. I also fear that it could disadvantage women and ethnic minority candidates. I understand that Lord Plant shares that view.

To reinforce the point, lest that is somehow presented as a radical departure, let us not forget that that is essentially the way in which hon. Members are chosen. Candidates are selected by the parties, and voters have no influence over who the representative of their chosen party will be in their constituency. If they do not like the representative of the party, they have to vote for a different party. That is the simple way in which the system operates and the way in which this system will operate.

The system that is set out in the Bill has the great virtue of simplicity. As now under the first-past-the-post system, the elector has to mark a single cross on the ballot paper. As I mentioned, simple list systems of that sort are already used by nearly two thirds of voters in the European Union to elect their MEPs, so we are in reasonable company.

I realise that this is an important issue that goes to the heart of the Bill, and I have listened carefully to all the representations that have been made to me on the point. In particular, it has been suggested, both by the constitutional group Charter 88 and by the Liberal Democrats, that we could introduce an electoral system of the sort that operates in Belgium and Denmark, whereby voters can vote either for the party list as a whole or for

25 Nov 1997 : Column 814

an individual candidate from the party list--or, of course, for an independent candidate. Under that system, party votes and individual votes are combined to determine how many seats each party is entitled to, then seats are allocated to candidates by a method that adds party votes to those received by individual party candidates.

As with any other system, there are arguments both ways. The modification of what we propose in the Bill would provide some more direct voter preference and may assuage the concerns even of the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham.

Mr. Hogg: For Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Mr. Straw: I apologise.

On the other hand, that is marginally more complex than the present simple system that we propose, and it is possible for a candidate low down on a party list to receive many personal votes--perhaps more than those of his or her party colleagues--yet still not be elected, because the weight of party votes helps those higher up the list.

Nevertheless, I am prepared to listen to the arguments for adopting a Belgian-type system and to give them careful consideration. To help hon. Members, I shall arrange for a brief description of how the Belgian system operates to be placed in the Library, alongside a greater description of how the system in the Bill is intended to operate, and I shall be interested to learn how hon. Members on both sides of the House perceive the system. This will therefore be a subject to which we can return at a later stage of the Bill's passage.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Straw: I give way first to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I want to be clear as to what the Home Secretary has said. Has he just said that, having proposed the Second Reading of a major Government Bill, he is now signalling that he is willing to change one of the fundamental aspects of that Bill?

Mr. Straw: It may come as a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the previous Government, who did so badly, that we are a party and a Government who listen to argument.

I do not propose that we adopt the open list system that was in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, because there are all sorts of disadvantages in electors simply trying to rank candidates on a list and not being able to choose a party list if they wish to do so.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.

However, I am willing to look--I do not say that we have signed up to them--at the proposals that we received after the Bill's publication from the Liberal Democrats and from Charter 88 for a modification of our simple list system. Under that modification, it will be open to electors to vote for the party list as a party list, if they wish to do so. It happens in Belgium. The majority--I

25 Nov 1997 : Column 815

think the overwhelming majority--of voters, offered that free choice, do so, but it will also be open to voters to vote, if they wish, for an individual candidate on the party list. When it comes to the allocation of seats within the total that a particular party has won, those personal votes are added to the votes that it received.

I hope that we can achieve--because I happen to think that it is the House that should decide these things--a serious debate on the merits of that proposal, as opposed to the proposal in the original Bill. I have not come to a firm view. I certainly believe that the old complicated system in the 1978 Act has many disadvantages, but I can see the argument in favour of this one. I am willing to have it discussed.

Mr. Beith: I thank the Home Secretary for taking this open-minded view after the long discussions that we have had. He should not accept criticism from those who, having criticised what he proposed, now criticise him for giving any hint of changing his mind. The merit of this system is that, although it allows the party to state its preferred order, it allows a large part of the electorate in that constituency to decide that they are not satisfied with that order and to produce what I might call the Tatton outcome.

Mr. Straw: I understand that point, and I am grateful for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been generous in response to what I have said. He has come to this in an open-minded way.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): The Home Secretary said that he is considering the possibility of modifying the Bill. Obviously, all the political parties and, indeed, the independents are concerned to know exactly when the legislation will be on the statute book. Does he therefore have a clear timetable as to when a final decision will be taken?

Mr. Straw: The legislation obviously needs to be on the statute book by the end of this parliamentary Session, which is October next year.

Mrs. Ewing: The elections are in June.

Mr. Straw: The elections are in June 1999, but I think that there is ample time within that period to discuss the matter. I shall assist the House and individual Members by ensuring that as much information as possible is made available about those different systems, before the House and the other place come to a conclusion.


Next Section

IndexHome Page