Clause 2 - Recommendations by Electoral Commission relating to changes in number ofUnited Kingdom MEPs
European Parliament (Representation) Bill
11:00 am
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I shall now make rapid progress.
These amendments raise a crucial issue, because they go to the heart of the system that Parliament, on the Government's recommendation, chose to use for European parliamentary elections in the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999.
I know that I would tire you and the Committee, Mr. Cook, were I to take a great deal of time explaining different electoral systems and their consequences, so I shall not do that. However, inherent in what was agreed in the 1999 Act, which became law for those elections, was a system that was proportional in effect, albeit that there were problems over whether to have a closed or open list, or an alternative, as we shall debate later. It was decided that a regional system with multi-Member constituencies should reflect the proportion of votes cast in each region, to provide for representation reflecting the voting intentions of the British population. What emerged from that, which now forms part of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, is what is termed a closed regional list system for all the English regions, Wales and Scotland. A different system applies in Northern Ireland under section 3 of that Act: a single transferable vote system. For this purpose, therefore, we have to treat Northern Ireland in a slightly different way from the rest of the United Kingdom.
That that was the clear intention is not in any dispute. The then Home Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, made abundantly clear his intention to introduce a proportional system. Given that, we must examine how that system operates when there is a change in the number of Members to be elected. To take that to an absurd position, if the number of UK representatives were to be reduced to such a degree that only one individual was elected for each region, that would not in any way be a proportional system—it would simply be a first-past-the-post system. Therefore, the intention of Parliament and the Home Secretary would be frustrated. That is not what we want.
We have a system that will be broadly proportionate, with the exception of the situation in the north-east region, which presently elects four
MEPs. Under the reduction, we can reasonably anticipate that that would fall to three, which is the floor specified in the Bill for the number of representatives for each region.
The difficulty is that the system used for voting in the UK under present enactment, other than in Northern Ireland, becomes increasingly less proportionate the smaller the number of Members elected in a particular region. It is broadly proportionate if four or five Members are elected, although there is an element of doubt with four. However, when the number goes down to three, the system is much cruder and markedly less proportionate in its outcome, simply because there are not enough Members to represent the spectrum of voting intention in the region.
Again, without tiring the Committee excessively, that could be exacerbated by a decision of the Home Secretary. There are various ways of calculating proportionality. Those who are anoraks on the subject like nothing better than discussing different voting systems. To some degree, the former Home Secretary fell into that category. The way that he chose to calculate proportionality was based on the d'Hondt system. I prefer the Sainte-Lague system, which is an alternative system that is commonly used across much of continental Europe. It gives a slightly better outcome. We are talking about nuances, but there definitely is a difference.
However, we use the d'Hondt system, which makes calculations to decimal points. It has the perverse effect of a marked disproportionality of outcome if fewer than four MEPs are elected for a region. I do not have a particular partisan interest in the matter because, although we see at the polls that voting intentions shift rapidly, based on historic voting intentions I do not believe that the Liberal Democrats would be the beneficiaries of any change to introduce a more proportional system.
In what ways should we deal with the perverse outcome if we are to respect the intentions of the Government in 1999 and the intentions of Parliament? Basically, there are three ways of dealing with it, two of which I suspect the Minister will reject out of hand. The first is to apply to the whole of the country the example of Northern Ireland, which has a proportionate system based on the single transferable vote. Such considerations do not apply in that case, because a single transferable vote is much more accurately proportionate, even with a small number of representatives such as three.
That would work. As many people know, it is the Liberal Democrats' preferred voting system. We believe that what is good enough for Northern Ireland should be good enough for the rest of the UK. However, the Government have not adopted that position and, although I always hope for a Pauline conversion, I suspect that we will not have one this morning.
The second way is to allow flexibility in the boundaries of regions. In the case of a small region in population terms such as the north-east, the boundary commission can examine the position,
decide whether proportionality is achieved by the system and, if necessary, adjust the boundaries to include a higher population and therefore more representatives and restore the proportionality. However, we have heard this morning that the Government do not intend to do that. The regions are apparently immutable and we shall not see a change.
That leaves the third way, the way in which the Government have addressed the issue in the Bill, which is to say that, for each English region, there must be a floor for the number of MEPs who can represent that region. Although that has disadvantages because it may lead to one region being marginally over-represented as against another, it has the advantage of maintaining proportionality and the spectrum of political representation. It would also ensure that in an area such as the north-east, which has a relatively small population but a large geographical land mass and some difficulty in providing for proper representation, there were enough MEPs to represent it properly.
The Government believe that there should be a floor but that it should be three. I contend that there should be a floor, but that it should be four, which is the existing representation for the north-east, because below that anomalies begin to creep into the outcome. The same consideration does not apply to Northern Ireland, which is why this group hangs together, because of the single transferable vote system there. Therefore, there is no problem with a floor of three there. However, if we are to do justice to the voters of the north-east, we must ensure that all their votes count in a European election and that they have adequate representation to ensure that their voice is heard in Europe. That is not necessarily the case under the Bill. I believe that a floor of four would help that process. If the Minister has access to the detailed calculations, she will also see that there is a problem. It needs to be addressed and, if it is not addressed in the Committee, it will have to be addressed elsewhere. I know that this issue is of considerable importance and will have to be examined, I hope by the Electoral Commission. If it is not, we may need to change the basis on which the Bill is drafted.