| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, sometimes people speak from misunderstanding and sometimes from a desire to make mischief. When Mr. Edwards introduces his report to the wider public on Thursday, not only shall I be there, but there will be representatives from each of the islands. That is a good indication of the co-operation that presently exists and which we wish to see maintained, reinforced and continued.
Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gilbert will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Territorial Army.
Alliance & Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) Bill [H.L.] (formerly Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.])
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of 12th November 1998 be now considered; and that the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon tomorrow;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second Sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.--(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon tomorrow and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That the Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than noon on the second Sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on the Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to the Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.--(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.
European Parliamentary Elections Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered forthwith.--(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1
Clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out ("a registered party, or").
Page 2, line 2, at end insert--
Page 2, line 15, at end insert--
Page 2, line 18, at end insert (", following the rearrangement required under subsections (5A) and (5B)").
2
("(2A) Each candidate shall declare that he is either--
(a) the candidate of a party (and shall name that party); or
(b) an independent candidate.
(2B) There shall be added together the number of votes given for each party's candidates in each electoral region.
(2C) The number arrived at under subsection (2B) shall be the number of votes for the party for the purposes of this Act.").
3
("(5A) After the allocation of seats to the parties, the order of candidates in each list shall be such that the candidates are ranked in terms of the votes each received, with the candidate with the highest number of votes appearing first.
(5B) If two or more candidates have the same number of votes, their order on the list shall be determined by lot.").
4
4A
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause--
Review of electoral system
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons-
(a) to review 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
(b) to make a report to the Secretary of State within six months from the day of appointment.
(2) 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.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.").
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--
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause-
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do insist on their Amendments
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:
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:
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:
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
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:
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:
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:
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
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.)
4C
Review of electoral system
(".-(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint one or more persons-
(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
(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.").
"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.
"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.
"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.]
"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?
"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.
"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 are 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.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page