2 Voting system for parliamentary
Referendum on the alternative
13. During our evidence-taking we have heard
and received written evidence from advocates both for retaining
the existing first-past-the-post system for UK parliamentary elections
and for replacing it with an alternative vote system.
We do not take sides on this issue which will be hotly debated
in the coming months, but we commend our evidence to the House
and to those beyond it on either or neither side of the argument.
PROPOSAL TO HOLD A REFERENDUM
14. Clause 1(1) of the Bill proposes that a referendum
be held on the voting system for parliamentary elections.
15. We welcome the Government's
decision to hold a referendum on a change to the voting system
rather than seeking to introduce a change directly through legislation.
It seems to us entirely appropriate that the public should have
the opportunity to make this choice, given the direct vested interest
that politicians and the political parties have in the way in
which Members are elected to the House.
16. The holding of a referendum
on this issue is in our view also in keeping with the recommendation
from the House of Lords Constitution Committee in the last Parliament
that "if referendums are to be used, they are most appropriately
used in relation to fundamental constitutional issues".
17. We note, however, that there
is no government proposal to hold a referendum on parallel political
and constitutional reforms considered in this Report and in our
recent Report on fixed-term parliaments, despite the fact that
these are also arguably "fundamental constitutional issues".
We do not offer a specific view on whether referendums should
be held on the other political and constitutional reforms proposed
by the Government. There is, however, no clarity as to whether
any particular change requires this form of popular assent or
not. Indeed, under present arrangements, a future government could,
if it chose, ask Parliament to bring about further alterations
to the electoral system through legislation without any requirement
to hold a referendum.
18. We have heard in evidence
that "this kind of uncertainty...which is unsatisfactory
from a democratic perspective - is a product of the lack of a
codified constitution in the UK." Similarly, the House of
Lords Constitution Committee has noted that "a written constitution
could provide a more precise definition of a 'constitutional issue',
and define which issues required a referendum before any change".
We will return to this issue.
19. Different opinions have
been expressed on whether a threshold should apply in the referendum,
meaning that a reform would take place only if a given proportion
of the registered electorate voted in favour.
This is not an issue on which we intend to give a view in this
PROPOSED REFERENDUM DATE
20. Clause 1(2) of the Bill states that the referendum
must be held on 5 May 2011. On that day voters in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland are scheduled to go to the polls to elect
members of the devolved administrations. In addition, 81% of the
electorate in England will be eligible to vote in local council
21. Commenting on the Electoral Commission's
planning for that date, Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission,
told us: "We have been very clear about what needs to be
done to achieve a successful referendum. The rules need to be
clear six months in advance so that everyone can prepare."
Peter Wardle, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission, described
the measures that needed to be in place:
One of them is clarity about the rules that will
apply not just to the referendum, but to all the elections that
will take place. That is the combination issue that we have already
touched on. Alongside that, there needs to be certainty for those
administering the referendum and the elections, from the Chief
Counting Officer at the Electoral Commission right down to local
authority level, that the Government have understood correctly,
assessed and made provision for sufficient funding for all of
this to happen, because it is a fairly complex funding arrangement.
There are savings, but there are also costs to running more than
one poll on the same day. As long as that is clearso far,
the indications from the Government are that they have heard that
message and intend to work towards clarity on what the rules will
be and the funding, six months in advancethat meets our
Mr Wardle also told us that the Electoral Commission
would need a reasonable amount of time to prepare information
for the public on the referendum.
22. The Electoral Commission's concerns follow
an independent report it commissioned on the problems experienced
at the polls by some voters during the 2007 Scottish elections.
The report concluded that one of the factors that led to a high
number of spoilt ballot papers were a late ministerial decisions
that undermined an otherwise "good public information campaign."
The report also recommended that changes to relevant election
law should be in place six months before polling day.
23. Even given the speed of the passage of the
Bill through this House, the House of Lords is unlikely to have
the opportunity to begin to debate the Bill before 5 November
2010, six months before the referendum is due to take place. The
Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office, Mark Harper MP,
indicated that the Government accepted the Electoral Commission's
assessment that significant changes to the 'ground rules' for
the referendum after 5 November 2010 could imperil the success
of the poll. Rejecting the suggestion that the Bill should provide
for the poll be held on a later date, Mr Harper said:
There are risks in doing it, so the Government are
working very closely with the Electoral Commission, which will
run the referendum, and with the electoral administrators who
are running the other elections on those days to ensure that we
manage the risks very carefully. The Commission is looking closely
at proceedings in Parliament and at the views of Members. If the
Bill is amended either in this House or in the other place, the
Commission will take a view on the impact that that will have
on the running of the referendum.
Mr Harper did not commit the Government to implementing
any reassessment of the risks of holding the referendum on 5 May,
telling us: "The Electoral Commission will consider any changes
and comment on them. Obviously, we will listen carefully to what
it says and work very closely with it."
24. In 2002 the Electoral Commission advised
the then Government not to hold a referendum on the euro at the
same time as Scottish Parliamentary and local elections and Welsh
Assembly election in May 2003. It concluded: "Referendums
on fundamental issues of national importance should be considered
In November 2009 the Commission, as part of the preparations for
the referendum on the powers of the Welsh Assembly, reconsidered
the issue of combined polls. Jenny Watson explained to us:
We went back to the international evidence and the
international standards to look at what that told us about combination
and the impact on the vote
Having done that, we concluded,
after considerable discussion, that the evidence was not conclusive
enough to support a position that said, "You should never
combine a referendum with another event." So, we adopted
that we would consider each case on its merits.
There may well be cases in which we would consider a proposal
for a combination of a referendum and another poll but would say
that it was not suitable to go ahead
But there would be other
cases in which we would say, "Yes, we think this can be done.
There are risks, but here is how they can be mitigated."
25. The Electoral Commission has specifically
considered the risks of holding multiple polls on 5 May 2011,
It is possible to successfully deliver these different
polls on 5 May, but only if the risks associated with doing so
are properly managed. We've set out what we think these risks
are and will make it clear during the passage of the Bill if we
do not feel they have been adequately addressed.
26. The Scottish First Minister has condemned
the proposal to hold the referendum on the same day as elections
to the Scottish Parliament. He wrote to the Prime Minister:
I believe that your proposals to hold a referendum
on the same day undermines the integrity of the elections in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland. These elections are of profound importance
to our citizens and I believe they have the right to make their
electoral choices for the respective devolved chambers without
the distraction of a parallel referendum campaign on the UK voting
There must also be grounds for concern about the
management of voting in polling stations. At several elections
in recent years, including this year's General Election, a significant
number of polling stations failed to cope with the number of citizens
wanting to vote. I believe there is a real risk that these problems
could be exacerbated in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales because
of the complications described above. Returning officers will
face additional difficulties with counting arrangements arising
from the number of different ballot papers. The question also
arises as to which count should take place first
not clear how the decision to hold the AV referendum on the same
date as our elections, and to do so without any prior consultation,
fits into the spirit of that [respect] framework.
27. A spokesperson for the National Assembly
government in Wales expressed similarly strong views:
There should be no distraction from the national
assembly election. That is why we have agreed with other parties
in the Assembly that our own referendum should not be held on
the same day as the Assembly elections. The first minister therefore
intends to make clear to both the prime minister and the secretary
of state for Wales at the earliest opportunity that we are strongly
opposed to the AV referendum being held on the same day as the
28. The Scottish Youth Parliament, representing
Scots between the ages of 14 and 25, carried out a poll amongst
its members which addressed some aspects of the Bill. It found:
More than two-thirds (68.1%) felt that the referendum
and the election should not be held on the same day, with some
using powerful language to express their concern. One felt that
it "would undermine the Scottish elections" with others
feeling that it would "belittle" both events, and that
it "shows very little regard for Scotland and its politics."
Others were concerned about the potential for confusion between
the campaigns and the choices presented to voters in the polling
booth, with similar arguments to those used to caution against
elections to Westminster and Holyrood being held on the same day.
29. The practical implications of holding multiple
polls on the same date have been highlighted to us by the Association
of Electoral Administrators:
The potential for voter confusion and the additional
workload in dealing with public enquiries arising from these different
combinations of electoral events on the same day held on different
franchises and operating different voting systems should not be
underestimated. It is likely that returning officers would need
to reduce, where practicable, the number of electors allocated
to each polling station. This would increase the number of polling
stations with a corresponding increase in the number of polling
staff to ensure that the polls run efficiently and that adequate
help is available to voters on polling day. These additional costs
would need to be funded.
30. Academic commentators were more positive
about the electorate's ability to participate meaningfully in
multiple polls. Professor Robert Hazell, of the Constitution Unit
at University College, London, told us that "there is no
social science evidence that we are aware of" that voters
are confused by the "clash of political arguments about different
issues taking place at the same time". Regarding the widespread
concern that the election of members of the devolved assemblies
would be overshadowed by the UK-wide media coverage of the referendum,
Professor Hazell told us:
the likelihood is that the referendum is the second
order poll, and that it will be overshadowed by the elections
rather than vice versa. That has been the experience in other
countries which have had referendums at the same time as elections.
In Canada, and in New Zealand in 1993, the political parties
remained silent on the referendum issue, not least because they
were concentrating their efforts on fighting the election, not
the referendum campaign.
31. Dr Martin Steven, of the Electoral Reform
Society, and Dr Matt Qvortrup, who has carried out extensive research
into referendums, agree with Professor Hazell that voters are
able to distinguish between competing political arguments, Dr
Qvortrup writing to us that "the voters are normally able
to distinguish between measures and men and referendums on the
same day as elections do not significantly affect the outcome
of either". He cited examples such as "the referendums
on a change of the electoral system in Ireland 1959 and 1969"
which were lost "although the party that campaigned for a
change, Fienna Fail, won the elections on the same day".
32. Professor Patrick Dunleavy, of the London
School of Economics, has researched voters' approach to multiple
polls by examining ballot papers:
In June 2004 citizens voting in London had the opportunity
to cast five simultaneous preferences. As in May 2000, the GLA
Mayor and Assembly elections allowed voters to simultaneously
register up to four preferences, to differentiate between their
evaluations of mayoral candidates and political parties, and to
signal complex preference structures to politicians. And on the
same day in the 2004 European election Londoners had the additional
choice of candidates to represent them in the European Parliament.
As in 2000, we found that citizens who voted made use of this
opportunity in sophisticated and successful ways.
33. We were told by Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy,
an organisation campaigning for electoral reform, that those who
argued that the electorate would be confused by participating
in multiple polls were "underestimating the intelligence
and the good sense of voters".
The Government also agrees, and the Parliamentary Secretary for
the Cabinet Office has told the House that a Member who suggested
otherwise "underrates his fellow Scots and their capacity
for decision making".
34. Efficiency has also been cited as a reason
in favour of holding the referendum on the same day as other elections,
with the Minister telling us that it would save about £30
million, compared with holding a stand-alone referendum: "Some
of that benefit accrues to the referendum campaign; the rest of
the saving, of course, accrues to the individual elections taking
place, because they can share some of the resources for the referendum".
35. Turnout is also likely to be boosted by the
fact 84% of the UK electorate will be eligible to vote in polls
other than the referendum on 5 May 2011. Peter Facey, of Unlock
Democracy, supported the adoption of the date for the referendum
primarily for that reason.
Professor Robert Hazell told us that international comparisons
showed that turnout increased where polls were combined. He noted
that turnouts were also high when referendums were held alone
if the issue was of "considerable national significance"
such as the secession of Quebec, but that the international evidence
suggested that electoral reform did not fall into this category.
The Hansard Society has also suggested that the public does not
set a high premium on political reform; in the Society's Audit
of Political Engagement "only one in five (19%) report having
discussed 'the electoral system' in the last year."
36. The flipside to a boost in turnout arising
from holding multiple polls is that voting in the referendum may
be unevenly spread across the UK. Professor Robert Hazell observed,
however, that: "General elections see differential turnout,
between different regions in the UK and between different constituencies,
but people do not challenge the fairness of the result. What matters
is that everyone has an equal opportunity to vote, even if they
choose not to exercise it."
37. The Electoral Commission told us that "voter
fatigue" was one factor that they considered in their assessment
of the risks of multiple polls being held in quick succession.
The Commission identified a particular problem in Wales where
the referendum on additional powers for the Welsh Assembly could
have resulted in the electorate being asked to vote three times
in a short period, had the referendum and devolved administration
elections been severed.
It was reported in late September 2010 that the preferred date
of the Welsh Assembly for the referendum on additional powers
was 3 March 2011, and the Welsh Secretary was likely to agree
to that request.
38. We asked Mr Harper why, given the possible
risks, the Government wanted to hold the referendum on 5 May 2011.
The Government have made it quite clear that we have
made a commitment to do it, and we want to get on and do it. We
have been very open...There are risks in doing it, so the Government
are working very closely with the Electoral Commission, which
will run the referendum, and with the electoral administrators
who are running the other elections on those days to ensure that
we manage the risks very carefully.
39. The Electoral Commission's
view is that the risks of holding the referendum together with
other elections on 5 May 2011, clearly to a very tight timetable,
can be managed if the rules for the referendum are sufficiently
clear six months in advance. At the current rate of progress the
Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill will be before
the House of Lords in November 2010, but will by no means have
completed its passage through Parliament. If the Bill is significantly
amended in either House, the Government should reconsider the
timing of the referendum.
40. Separate from the issue in principle of whether
the referendum should be held on the same day as other elections,
the Electoral Commission raised with us the failure of the Bill
as currently drafted to allow for the combination administratively
of the referendum with any other polls to be held on the same
day. Andrew Scallan, Director of Electoral Administration at the
Electoral Commission, explained the consequence of this to us:
If [the Bill] isn't amended to allow for combined
polls as distinct from separate polls held on the same day, it
would be necessary to have separate polling stations for each
event that takes place. So if you imagine your typical school
hall with a polling station, which may be a table with two members
of staff sitting behind it, there would need to be a table for
each event that is taking place on the day. Notices would be about
each separate event.
41. Without combination provisions the local
authority would also be required to send out separate postal ballots
with the attendant costs. The Chair of the Electoral Commission
was able to assure us, however, that: "Once those rules
are thereI hesitate to use the word 'straightforward'it
is then a relatively straightforward process for us to be able
to make sure that the thing can run properly."
Mr Harper confirmed that the Government intended to bring forward
amendments to the Bill to allow for combined polls, and told us
that they did not appear in the Bill in the first place "because
we wanted to be able to work with the devolved Administrations
and officials in each of those countries about how best to combine
them and work with the Electoral Commission".
42. Provisions to allow the
holding of combined polls are vital for the referendum to be administered
successfully. We therefore welcome the fact that the Government
will be bringing forward such provisions, but trust that it will
get them right in order to avoid further significant change to
the Bill at too late a stage for the referendum to be held safely
on the date envisaged.
The referendum question
43. The Bill provides that the question to be
asked at the referendum should read: "Do you want the United
Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the
current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament
to the House of Commons?"
44. Under the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), the Electoral Commission is required
to consider the wording of the referendum question and publish
a report on the question's intelligibility.
The Electoral Commission published its report on 30th September
is not obliged to act on any recommendations in the report.
45. Professor Patrick Dunleavy told us that 'alternative
vote system' "designates a whole class of systems - single
office holder, multiple preferences, instant run-off".
He posited a number of ways the specific system could be explained
to voters including "a footnote [to the question] possibly,
or a clarificatory memo or something of that kind, in the booklet
which goes to voters and possibly available in the polling booths
for people to check what exactly it is they are voting for".
Professor Justin Fisher from Brunel University rejected the suggestion
the ballot paper might contain a number of options rather than
a 'yes or no' question': "I think having the range of choices
would be catastrophic...I think it is the job of the House to
decide which is the most appropriate one before putting it to
Dr Graham Orr and Professor K Ewing agreed that simplicity was
key: "It is vital that the referendum question be as simple
as is reasonable whilst remaining descriptive, but above all that
it not be tendentious".
46. The Electoral Commission examined the language,
structure and framing of the referendum question in the light
of public opinion research and expert opinion. They tested suggested
improvements to the wording on focus groups and in one to one
interviews. The Commission concluded that, while the widespread
lack of understanding of voting systems could be addressed by
public information, the language used in the proposed question
was overly formal.
While abbreviations are usually believed to inhibit comprehension,
the Commission found that using "MP" instead of Member
of Parliament" and "UK" instead of United Kingdom
improved voters' understanding of what they were being asked.
The study also concluded that splitting the question into two
short sentences made it easier to read.
The Commission therefore recommended that the question read "At
present, the UK uses the 'first past the post' system to elect
MPs to the House of Commons. Should the 'alternative vote' system
be used instead?"
47. Our overriding concern when
considering the referendum question is that voters know exactly
what they are voting for. The Electoral Commission's duty to provide
public information is vital to achieving clarity in the minds
of the electorate. We accept the Commission's conclusions on the
wording of the referendum question and recommend the Government
amend the wording of the referendum question as suggested. If
the Government fail to follow the Electoral Commission's conclusions
we recommend the House scrutinise the reasons for that decision
with particular care.
Conduct of the referendum: design
of the ballot papers
48. Clause 3(2) provides that the proposed electoral
forms are set out at Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Bill. The forms
are prescriptive: the Bill provides that they must be printed
exactly as depicted.
The Electoral Commission raised a number of concerns over the
design of the proposed papers, noting that they did not follow
the guidance on optimising the accessibility and usability of
electoral forms contained in the Commission's 2009 report, Making
Your Mark. In
evidence to us Andrew Scallan observed "some of the forms
that are used now were also used in 19th-century legislation...
[and] some of the legislative language...is election-law friendly
rather than voter-friendly".
Jenny Watson observed that one way of ensuring clear and accessible
design was to give "the Chief Counting Officer [Jenny Watson
herself] slightly more discretion in some of the materials that
voters will receive".
49. Mr Harper told us he was aware of the Electoral
the Electoral Commission has raised some concerns
and has requested changes to the forms. We are discussing with
it some of the good points that it has made about what the mechanism
for that would be...You could either amend the primary legislation
or you could look at powers to amend the form subsequently. We
are thinking about the most sensible way to do that. If we need
to amend the legislation we will obviously bring those amendments
forward for discussion in Committee. But yes, the Electoral Commission
has raised those concerns with us and we are thinking about them.
They are about the forms, not about the ballot paper, which has
always been specified in legislation. Just on the forms, we will
adopt the same consistent approach that we have used for previous
elections, so we have not undergone a radical redesign of everything.
We have pretty much copied across from existing elections and
processes and used those as our starting point in the legislation.
We are not certain that the distinction drawn by
the Minister between the forms accompanying the ballot paper and
the ballot paper itself is particularly relevant. What is important
is that the Electoral Commission should have been consulted on
this part of the legislation before it was published.
50. Hasty drafting and lack
of consultation appear to be responsible for the problems raised
by the Electoral Commission with the way in which the Bill provides
for the design of the ballot papers. We trust that these issues
will be sensibly resolved at Committee stage, but regret that
they were not resolved earlier.
Control of loans etc to permitted
51. Clause 4 introduces similar rules on campaign
finance to those that apply during general elections. Rules on
campaign finance are regulated by the Electoral Commission. One
key area for the referendum is that the Commission has a duty
to consider the appointment of a designated lead organisation
for each side of the question which is then eligible to receive
grants of up to £600,000. The Commission is required to appoint
either a lead organisation for each side or not at all. Dr Graham
Orr and Professor K Ewing, who specialise in political funding,
have told us that this is a complex decision:
In many ways the referendum is not really a straightforward
battle between supporters of first-past-the-post and supporters
of AV, since there are other voting systems that could have been
proposed, notably proportional representation. When multiple
choice is limited to binary alternatives, the status quo can have
an undue and artificial advantage: for example supporters of
first-past-the-post may make odd bedfellows with supporters of
proportional representation, to defeat the 'compromise' option
52. Lisa Klein, Director of Finance at the Electoral
Commission, while observing the legislation did not set out the
process by which a lead organisation was to be appointed, was
able to reassure us that the Commission had carefully considered
how to apply the statutory test and would be able to designate
within the given time limits.
53. A second issue raised with us during our
inquiry was the ambiguous position of the media under the funding
rules as currently drafted. Dr Orr and Professor Ewing have explained
the situation to us as follows:
Third parties [campaigning in the referendum] are
limited to £500,000. Curiously, unlike in the spending limits
that apply to elections, the definition of referendum expenses
does not expressly exclude 'the publication of any matter relating
to an election, other than an advertisement, in ... a newspaper
On the contrary, the list of referendum expenses refers to 'any
material to which section 125 applies':
this includes any material which provides general information
about the referendum, or puts any argument for or against any
particular answer to the referendum question. The Act would thus
appear to limit newspapers to 'spending' at most £500,000
each in providing information or in advocating one position or
another during the referendum campaign period. Moreover, newspaper
companies will be able to do so only if they comply with the registration
or notification procedures necessary to be a permitted participant;
otherwise they will only be able to spend up to £10,000.
54. The submission went on to describe this provision
as "an apparent oversight", although it also noted "given
the concentrated power of newspaper proprietors there is no reason
in democratic theory why they should have unlimited rein to campaign
when parties and other civic groups do not" and suggested
one "approach might be to amend the law...to apply the existing
referendum rules in PPERA so that they apply also to general elections"
rather than the other way round.
Professor Justin Fisher, of Brunel University, agreed that the
failure to exempt the media from funding restrictions was "almost
certainly an oversight" but considered the possibility of
the funding rules applying to newspapers and broadcasters was
a real one: "in the passage of this legislation there ought
to be some amendment, otherwise you could find yourself in a position
where the newspapers would be hamstrung from taking a particular
55. Lisa Klein confirmed the Electoral Commission
was aware of the "ambiguity"
and that it could in theory lead to media organisations being
prosecuted if there was a breach of the rules. Prosecution could
be instigated following a referral by the Electoral Commission
to the police or arise as the result of suspicions by the police
56. It is likely to be in the
public interest for a free media to be able to comment openly
and without restriction during the referendum campaign, and therefore
to be exempt from the funding restrictions which apply to campaigning
groups. Members of this Committee have tabled an amendment to
this effect which we ask the House to consider.
23 For example, see Ev 220 for both sides of the argument.
Referendums in the United Kingdom (12th report 2009-10,
HL99), para 94 Back
HL 99, para 102 Back
See for example, Ev 82 and HC Deb 6 September 2010 Back
Q 224 Back
Q 247 Back
Q 254 Back
The report criticised delays in ministerial decision-making on
matters of electoral administration such as the timing of the
count and design of the ballot paper. Back
Scottish Elections 2007: The independent review of the Scottish
parliamentary and local elections 3 May 2007 (Gould et al)
Electoral Commission, October 2007 Back
Q 343 Back
Q 347 Back
"Combining Polls" Electoral Commission press release,
12 July 2002, www.electoralcommission.org.uk Back
Q 231 Back
Electoral Commission press release, 22 July 2010, www.electoralcommission.org.uk Back
"Salmond letter urges Cameron to rethink vote date"
BBC Online, 11 July 2010,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news Back
"Wales strongly opposed to election date clash" Wales
Online, 3 July 2010, www.walesonline.co.uk/news
Scottish Youth Parliament (VPR 07, para 7.2) Back
Association of Electoral Administrators (VPR 06, para 5) Back
Ev 98 Back
Ev 124 Back
The 2004 GLA London Elections Study, Margetts, Dunleavy
et al (August 2005) www.devolution.ac.uk Back
Q 29 Back
HC Deb 6 September 2010, c 126 Back
Q 335 Back
Q 25 Back
Ev 98 Back
The Hansard Society (VPR 05, para. 5) Back
Ev 98 Back
Q 234 Back
For example, "Referendum on more Welsh powers set for 3 March,
2011" BBC Online, 21 September 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news Back
Q 343 Back
Q 225 Back
Q 228 Back
Q 335 Back
Clause 1(3) Back
PPERA s104(1) and (2) Back
Referendum on the UK Parliamentary Voting system: Report of
the views of the Electoral Commission on the proposed referendum
question, Electoral Commission (30 September 2010) Back
Q 240 Back
Q 144 Back
Q 144 Back
Ev 112 Back
Referendum on the UK Parliamentary Voting system: Report of
the views of the Electoral Commission on the proposed referendum
question, Electoral Commission (30 September 2010), para 3.29 Back
Para 3.58 Back
Para 4.9 Back
Para 4.12 Back
Clause 3 (1) & (2) Back
Q 267 Back
Q 268 Back
Q 268 Back
Q 187 Back
Ev 112 Back
Q 307 and 309 Back
PPERA, s 87 Back
PPERA, Sch. 13 Back
PPERA, s 117 Back
Ev 112 Back
Q 145 Back
Q 308 Back
Q 310 Back