| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.42 pm
Mr. Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield): I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on an imaginative way of attempting to oppose the Bill. The only trouble was that he did not actually address what is in the Bill--and I found his unique interpretation of the term "secret deal" most interesting.
I was under the impression that the hallmark of a secret deal was the fact that people did not know about it, yet the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be criticising the pre-election agreement between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats on constitutional affairs, which was not only published but announced at a press conference and mentioned in the party manifestos. If that was a secret deal, it was rather different from my normal definition of that term.
I welcome the Bill. Such arrangements have been a long time coming. Several treaties and other agreements in Europe, some of which have been mentioned, have already urged a more common and compatible electoral procedure for the European Parliament.
That is different from saying that all European Parliament electoral procedures in each member state must be identical. At present, no two systems for election to the European Parliament are identical. If we want a Parliament that will hang together as a representative body--as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is not a Government body--it is important that the essential principles of the electoral systems by which Members get to that place should be compatible.
That seems to me a fairly elementary point, but the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) did not mention it in his long speech. When Members of the European Parliament go to Strasbourg, the strength of the parties there should be broadly proportional to their voting strength in the elections. That fairly simple point seems to be lost on Conservative Members.
The elections to the European Parliament now reflect that principle, in one way or another, in most member states--except Britain. Today, we have the chance to begin the process of putting that right.
The system is based on regional lists, and there have been some criticisms of that in the debate. I shall return to the subject. It is important that we also examine the system that we already have in Britain, and the distortions that it produces.
Few systems are wholly proportional. Indeed, these days few people would seriously suggest that an electoral system should be entirely proportional. That is very difficult to arrange. The first-past-the-post system goes to the other extreme.
Labour as a party has often done fairly well out of that system. In the most recent European elections we got about 44 per cent. of the vote--a sizeable vote and a good success for the party. However, on that 44 per cent. share of the vote we secured 74 per cent. of the seats. The Liberal Democrats secured about 17 per cent. of the vote, yet ended up with 2 per cent. of the seats.
I realise that Conservative Members may have difficulty with my argument, because I am not putting it forward on the basis of looking at the entire political process simply by asking what will be to our party's advantage. I am trying to address a democratic issue.
Mr. Shepherd:
The hon. Gentleman should look around at his own party's Benches, when they are occupied, because the concern about his argument is shared on both sides of the House. He should also remember that this is a highly controversial measure. He has already heard interventions by his hon. Friends who do not support the method of denigrating another argument in that way, by focusing it on us.
Mr. Burden:
The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of looking for greater democracy and openness in the House, and I pay tribute to him for that.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire did not address the argument that is most important for the debate--the principle that, if a party wins seats in the European Parliament, there should be some relationship between the number of seats won and its voting strength.
Mr. Hogg:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burden:
I shall let the right hon. and learned Gentleman in soon.
The distortions in this country's present system are extreme. No system is wholly proportional, but the distortions are so great as to require attention. The Bill attempts to deal with that.
Mr. Hogg:
I do not think that for those purposes my right hon. Friend is trying to oppose--or, indeed, that I am doing so--proportional representation as a means of electing the European Parliament. Our objection is to a particular kind of proportional representation. The hon. Gentleman needs to focus on asking why we are to have a proportional representation system that does away with
Mr. Burden:
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is patient, I shall come to those points.
In looking at the genesis of the Bill--and its importance to the House and to democracy in this country--it is important that we address the distortions in the present system. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire said, essentially, "If it ain't bust, don't fix it." My view is that the present system of elections to the European Parliament is bust--or, if not bust, severely weakened by distortions.
That is certainly the case in terms of seats won in relation to votes cast, but it also produces distortions within the European Parliament. The party group to which my party is affiliated in the European Union, the Party of European Socialists, is the largest group; that is absolutely right, given the number of votes cast. I admit that the numerical dominance of the group is out of kilter with the overall number of votes cast. The situation was reversed between 1979 and 1984, when the right-wing group experienced a similar dominance. That has developed because elections in this country have been an influence and because our electoral system is out of kilter in terms of votes cast and seats won.
Some groups within the European Parliament are under-represented, and that will continue under the present system. I hold no brief for the Green party which, in recent elections, has secured very few votes. That was not always the case. In 1989, the Green party in this country secured one of the highest votes in a European election of any Green party in Europe--nearly 15 per cent. It has not repeated that share of the vote. Although the Green party achieved a high proportion of the vote, the UK did not elect one Green MEP. It is right that we address that problem.
It is not as if Green parties are not represented in the European Parliament--about 27 Green MEPs were elected in that election, often on a lower proportion of the vote. It may be that the systems in other European member states are wrong. Their thresholds may be too low, which may lead to the over-representation of minority parties. I ask the House to consider whether our system--in which a party that gets a significant share of the vote does not gain one MEP--is right.
The share of the seats won in European elections may be out of kilter with the share of the vote that a party secures. Does the British system have other compensatory benefits? In the main, it does not. One issue which could be looked at, and to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred, is participation. Does our system encourage a closer relationship between the electorate and the MEP at the time of election? Is that reflected in a high turnout? It is not. At the last European election, Britain had the third lowest turnout. In 1989, Britain had the lowest turnout. That is not a great vote of confidence for our electoral system.
Does our system provide a greater balance? For instance, does it ensure that the right proportion of women are elected as MEPs? It does not. At the last election, only two countries in Europe--Italy and Portugal--had a lower proportion of women MEPs elected than Britain. The
argument, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," does not stand up. There is a huge disparity between seats won and votes cast, but we do not have other compensating factors.
Arguments have been made about whether the regions are the right kind of area from which MEPs should be elected, and these arguments deserve an answer. It is right in this House to pay tribute to the work of MEPs of all parties in Brussels and Strasbourg, as they do an excellent job. The fact is that the constituency basis for MEPs provides no great coherence. Until recently--fortunately, the name is changing as a result of the last boundary review--I lived in the Birmingham, East European constituency. That is a simple title, but there is one fundamental problem--my house is in west Birmingham. It is a strange situation.
The constituencies are very large and the ability of MEPs to relate closely to individual constituents is limited. If we are looking for an appropriate area from which MEPs might be elected, the regional basis has a good deal going for it. In the economic life of our country, the regions are becoming more and more important.
We are engaged in serious constitutional change in which the regional dimension in England will become increasingly important, and I look forward to the creation of regional development agencies and other initiatives. If they are to work, it is important that the economic system relates to the political system, and vice versa. The regional dimension is very important in terms ofthe distribution of European structural funds. Giving the European Parliament a direct relationship with the regions makes great sense.
The new system will also be important in terms of subsidiarity. In my view, subsidiarity does not stop at a national level, and the objective of all parties should be to locate power at the lowest possible level appropriate for the functions through which any legislature or representative body exercises its power or influence.
Whereas in most parts of Europe, the regional dimension has been recognised--regions have benefited from that recognition--this country has not done that sufficiently. We are now seeing improvements with devolution and the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. That will devolve power from the centre here in London, and I look forward to the English regional dimension being promoted in the UK. If the European Parliament can be linked with that, it will be good for our economy and--more important, in respect of this debate--good for democracy.
Before the Bill was published, concerns were expressed about what has been called the closed list system--in other words, the system whereby individual voters have the chance to vote for a party or an independent candidate, but not to express a preference for an individual candidate within a party. I had reservations about that as well. The British tradition of being able to vote for a person and not just a party is important, and we need to think seriously before we depart from it. It is not a one-way street.
A multi-Member constituency system for MEPs has a down side. Different candidates from the same party campaign against each other and become involved in a kind of beauty contest to ensure that they get more votes than the other candidate from the party. That may or may not be healthy for democracy. I want to retain the voters' right to chose between candidates, but I should make it clear that there is a down side to the system.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at the beginning of the debate. Legitimate concerns have been expressed about the closed list system. There need not be a straight choice between a system that is entirely open--in which it is left to the voter to chose between candidates, without any party role being involved--and a closed list system. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has listened to the many representations made to him, and has said that he will reconsider. I look forward to the debates that will take place in Committee and outside.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |