New
Clause
18Filling
vacant European Parliament seats in Northern
Ireland ‘(1) In section 5 of
the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (c. 24) (filling vacant
seats), after subsection (3) there is
inserted— “(4) As
regards a seat in Northern Ireland, the regulations may, in specified
circumstances, require it to be filled as
follows— (a) where the
previous MEP stood in the name of a registered party when elected (or
most recently elected), by a person nominated by the nominating officer
of that party; (b) where
paragraph (a) does not apply but the previous MEP gave a notice in
accordance with regulations under this Act naming one or more persons
as substitutes, by a person so
named. (5) In subsection
(4)— “nominating
officer”, in relation to a registered party, means the person
registered as its nominating officer under the Political Parties,
Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in the Northern Ireland register
(within the meaning of that Act);
“registered party” means a party
registered under that Act in that
register; “the previous
MEP”, in relation to a vacancy, means the person who was the MEP
immediately before the vacancy
arose.” (2) Regulations
containing provision made by virtue of this section may specify that
the provision has effect in relation to any seat that is vacant at the
time the provision comes into force and in respect of which notice of a
by-election has not been published at that
time.’.—[Mr.
Wills.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Wills: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment (a), at end of new subsection (4)(a)
insert ‘from a list of up
to three persons who are not disqualified to serve as an MEP and whose
names and electoral numbers had been submitted along with the
nomination papers of the previous MEP at the previous
election.’. Amendment
(b), in new subsection (4)(b) leave out from ‘apply’ to
end and insert ‘, by the
highest ranking person who is not disqualified to serve as an MEP and
whose name and electoral number had been submitted on an ordered list
of up to three persons along with the previous MEP’s nomination
papers at the previous
election.’. Government
amendment No.
128.
Mr.
Wills: The new clause facilitates reform of the system for
filling vacant European parliamentary seats in Northern Ireland. It is
important because Northern Ireland does not operate a party list
system. Under section 5 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act
2002, vacant seats can be filled only by having a
by-election. European
elections in Northern Ireland are held under the single transferable
vote form of proportional representation. Concerns have been raised
with us that a by-election under that system has the potential to
provide for the disproportionate representation of certain parties.
That is a particular issue in the context of Northern Ireland, where
proportionate representation is of real
importance. The
Northern Ireland political parties and other interested groups
expressed concerns about the current system and requested that the
Government explore options for reform. That is why we have introduced
the new clause. We have consulted all the relevant parties. They are
all content with the proposals. We have consulted the chief electoral
officer for Northern Ireland, who is also content. We therefore believe
that people are generally content with the
proposals. Earlier
this year, the Government proposed that the nominating officer of the
political party in whose name the Member of the European Parliament
stood when elected should be able to nominate a replacement to fill a
vacant European parliamentary seat. Generally, electors vote for
representatives of political parties because they support the
party’s position on certain matters, in line with the
party’s manifesto. However much we as individuals would all like
to believe that that was otherwise, we generally accept that it is the
position. Therefore, should a vacancy arise, it makes sense for that
party to decide who should fill the seat.
Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): The Minister seems to
think that the choice of electors would be the same two years on. It
may be different. What is he doing about
that?
Mr.
Wills: I will come to precisely that point. There is no
perfect system in such a circumstance, and I stress that it is
relatively unlikely that a vacancy will arise. It is possible, but most
of the time Members of the European Parliament see through their full
term. As we may see in further debate on the issue, the alternatives
also create problems in the way that the hon. Gentleman
suggests. It
makes sense for the party to decide who should fill the seat. Under
that system, Members of the European Parliament who did not belong to a
political party when elected could submit a list of substitutes when
returned, which could be used to fill the seat and could be modified as
necessary. The
proposals were the subject of a full public consultation, and they
received strong support among the Northern Ireland parties and other
interested groups, so new clause 18 amends section 5 of the 2002 Act to
add proposed new subsection (4), enabling regulations to be made that
provide for the nominating officer of the relevant political party to
nominate a replacement Member of the European Parliament in the event
that a European Parliament seat held by that party becomes
vacant. I
should point out to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight the fact that in
a democratic system voters elect Members of Parliament or Members of
the European Parliament for the full term. What he suggests would in
some sense compromise that principle. I recognise that the issue is
difficult, and can be debated either way, but I ask him to reflect on
that fundamental democratic principle. We do not shift our position on
who should remain in Parliament on the basis of opinion polls. That may
or may not be a good thing, but it is the system that
operates.
Mr.
Turner: Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Wills: I am happy to, although I suspect that we shall
diverge a little from the clause and Northern
Ireland.
The
Chairman: Not for
long.
Mr.
Turner: Without going off the trail of Northern Ireland,
if a Westminster Member died there would be a by-election. Is that
going to
change?
Mr.
Wills: No. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, we
are dealing with a different system of elections in Northern Ireland.
We have first past the post for parliamentary elections to Westminster,
but we also have a different system in this context, and views will
differ on its merits. In the specific context of Northern Ireland, that
system and the methods in place to replace Members of the European
Parliament, should they die or otherwise become unavailable to continue
their term of office, could lead to specific problems. That is what the
new clause is intended to deal
with. We
have consulted widely on the new clause in Northern Ireland and have
made provision in it for regulations to be made to permit Members of
the European Parliament who did not belong to a political party when
they were returned to submit a list from which a replacement MEP could,
if required, be selected. Hon. Members
will know that replacements for seats vacated by MEPs from a registered
party in Great Britain are filled from the party’s list and no
by-election is held. The proposed change will align Northern Ireland
closer with that
principle. Amendment
No. 128 simply provides for new clause 18 to come into
effect on Royal Assent. Regulations will then be required to give full
effect to the
changes.
Mr.
Reid: I draw the Minister’s attention to proposed
new subsection (4)(b), which the new clause will insert in section 5 of
the 2002 Act, which deals with the death of someone elected as an
independent. The
Minister mentioned the possibility of a list being used in that case,
but there is nothing in the new clause to determine who on the list
would be nominated. If the independent MEP died having only submitted a
list, who would decide which person on the list would be nominated in
his
place?
Mr.
Wills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those
remarks; he raises an important point. The process is difficult with
independents, as he says. We intend to cover the point in more detail
in regulations, and I hope that the Committee will bear with us on
that. The
issue is complicated and we must bear in mind the very specific
circumstances of Northern Ireland. However, we intend that independent
MEPs in that context will be able to submit a list of substitutes when
they are returned. That list may be changed by the independent Member
by notifying the chief electoral officer during the
term. I
hope that the Committee will support the new clause and amendment No.
128, so that in the event of a vacancy arising during a term, the views
of the people of Northern Ireland will continue to be represented
proportionately in the European
Parliament.
Mr.
Reid: I support amendments (a) and (b). I want to say at
the outset that I believe that the single transferable vote system is
the best and fairest system of election. I am delighted that it is used
in Northern Ireland European elections and wish that exactly the same
system were used in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I accept
that nothing is perfect, and that there is one imperfection with the
single transferable vote, which is how vacancies are handled.
There are two
obvious options: one is a by-election, which is how the law stands in
Northern Ireland, and the other is nomination, as Government new clause
18 provides. The problem with a by-election is that even if everybody
voted for exactly the same party that they voted for in the previous
general election, somebody from a different party could be elected if
the vacancy had occurred because of the death or resignation of someone
representing a party that had not got the most votes in that
constituency. That is the problem that can arise with by-elections
under
STV. The
system of nomination also has defects: there is no public scrutiny of
the person who becomes the MEP, and it also lays the way open for
political parties to nominate a well known public figure at the
election. If that well known public figure got elected, they could
resign a few days later and be replaced by someone totally unknown to
the electorate.
In
most circumstances, a by-election is the best way to fill a vacancy
under STV, which is what the Scottish Parliament decided when it
introduced the STV for local government in Scotland. That system has
worked well. As I said earlier, even if people voted the same way as in
the previous election, that could result in someone from a different
party getting elected. We are all aware that, even under first past the
post, by-elections are different beasts from general elections. A
significant number of by-elections—local government
and parliamentary by-elections—result in someone from a
different party being
elected. Normally,
I prefer the STV system to fill vacancies in a by-election. However,
Northern Ireland is different, as the Minister said. We need to ensure
that we balance the interests of the whole community in Northern
Ireland. All our European elections in Northern Ireland have resulted
in two Unionists and one nationalist being elected. A problem could
arise if the nationalist MEP died or resigned. The by-election would
almost certainly result in a Unionist being elected, so we would have
three Unionists and no nationalists in the European
Parliament. In
the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland, I agree with the
Government on using nomination to fill the vacancy. We tabled
amendments (a) and (b) because the Government’s new clause will
allow political parties to nominate somebody who will go through no
public scrutiny. We all know that parties put forward prospective
candidates. There are circumstances in which the media questions that
candidate, or something arises in that candidate’s background
that causes the candidate to withdraw. Even in list
systems—parties put forward lists for the European
Parliament—the media can question someone lower down the list
even though that person has no chance of getting elected. If anything
damaging is said by that person, it might damage the political
party’s chances of winning votes in the
election. It
is important that the people who are nominated to fill vacancies are
known to the electorate before they cast their votes in the European
election. That is why we have tabled amendments (a) and (b). Amendment
(a) refers to the circumstances in which somebody representing a
political party has been elected. Along with that person, there would
have to be three possible substitutes nominated. Their names would be
published so that the electorate knew that if they were voting for that
person, there would be a possibility that one of the three nominated
substitutes could become the MEP if that person died or resigned.
Therefore, when a vacancy arose, the political party would choose one
name from the list of
three. Our
amendment would not allow for that political party to add other people
to the list. The important thing is that anybody who becomes an MEP
should be known to the electorate at the time of the original election.
That would be the effect of our
amendment. We
have not said that the list should be ordered because there could be
problems if the person at the top of the list defected to another party
or became seriously ill. We have said only that the three possible
substitutes should be known at the time of the
election. 12
noon Amendment
(b) relates to independence, which I raised with the Minister earlier.
In this case, the list must be ordered. If the independent candidate
dies,
there is no way—unless they wrote something in their
will—that they can come back from the grave and decide which of
the three substitutes should become the elected representative. The
Minister said that that matter would be tackled by secondary
legislation, but the best way to tackle it would be to accept amendment
(b). At the time of his election, the independent candidate would
submit an ordered list of three people. If a vacancy arose, it would be
filled by the highest ranking surviving person on that list. The
Government new clause sets the right principles of nomination, but I
urge the Government to accept amendments (a) and (b). Potential MEPs
must put themselves forward at election time and undergo public
scrutiny. They should not merely be nominated by their party and appear
from nowhere after the vacancy has arisen.
Mrs.
Laing: It is strange to debate the reintroduction of a
sort of hereditary principle as part of the Bill, but that is really
what new clause 18 brings about. It would save a lot of time and
difficulty if, when standing for election, each of us could say,
“If I do not make it to the end of this Parliament, I would like
so and so to take my place.” Many political parties have worked
like that in the past, but I am delighted that none of us work like
that now. Of course, I see why the Government want to introduce the
provision in respect of Northern Ireland, and I support what they are
trying to do. That is perfectly reasonable.
We support
amendments (a) and (b) as proposed by the hon. Member for Argyll and
Bute. They produce greater clarity—again, I return to that
point—about how the system would work. In recent weeks until
4 November, newspapers around the world were full of the
succession question: if John McCain were elected as President of the
United States, would Sarah Palin take on that role in the event of a
catastrophic event that removed John McCain? It seems
that—against the better judgment of some of us—the people
of the United States decided, for some unfathomable reason, that that
succession was not to be risked. Actually, that is not correct. The
reason was not unfathomable; it took up thousands of columns in
newspapers throughout the world.
When the hon.
Gentleman was speaking, it struck me that this is the same principle.
If we elect a person, we should know who would take over that position
should they not complete a term in office. Normally, our democratic
system depends on by-elections. If it were not for them, we would
surely get bored between elections—they are an essential part of
our system.
I support
what the hon. Gentleman has said and I hope that the Government will
consider the amendments favourably as they would clarify what would
happen under new clause 18. I am also concerned about what is meant by
the phrase “specified circumstances.” New clause 18
refers to certain issues occurring in “specified
circumstances”, but what are they? The lack of transparency of
new clause 18 was the issue that concerned me most. However, when
someone votes, they should know what substitutes the elected
representative has put in place, as they would perhaps subsequently
become the elected representative for that particular place. The voter
ought to know that. It is not fair to ask a voter to go into the
polling booth and elect Mr. A without knowing that he
carries Mrs. B with him. It is wrong for
that information not to be given to a voter. It would be perfectly
possible to put that information before a voter in the two specific
circumstances referred to in amendments (a) and (b), while keeping the
Government’s overall intention of maintaining the balance within
the specific unusual circumstances of the Northern Ireland elections.
We all understand and support that
intention. The
other slightly worrying thing is that the basis of new clause 18 is the
assumption that people vote on party lines alone and not on other
factors related to a candidate. I accept that the Minister put that
forward as a reasonable argument and that people do largely vote on
party lines. However, sometimes the particular candidate matters as
well. I am always suspicious of giving political parties more power and
taking that power away from the individual—for example, the list
system for European elections gives far more power to a political party
and takes power away from the individual. If power is taken away from
the individual, it is taken away from the voter because if the voter
does not know who is accountable, they cannot get rid of that person.
The voter therefore has less power and the political party has more
power. Once
again, we come back to the basis of our democracy, which is what the
Bill is about. The way in which our democracy works is the basis of our
democracy. The more power that is given to political parties and the
less power that is given to the individual and the voter, the weaker
the democratic system is because it is much more difficult for the
people to speak. It is much more difficult for the people to be heard
if the panoply of party political power gets in the way. Having said
that, I reiterate that we understand why there are special
circumstances in Northern Ireland. If the clause were to apply to the
rest of the United Kingdom, it would be totally and utterly
unacceptable. However, for the special circumstances in Northern
Ireland, it is acceptable. The measure is much improved by amendments
(a) and (b) and I hope that the Government will take those
seriously.
| 
