Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 3, in

clause 2, page 2, line 29, leave out from 'region' to 'MEPs' and insert

'(other than Northern Ireland) is allocated at least four'. [Mr. Heath.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No.4, in

Clause 2, page 2, line 29, leave out 'and' and insert—

'(aa) Northern Ireland is allocated at least three MEPs; and'.

Amendment No.10, in

schedule, page 13, line 14, after 'least', insert

'four MEPs, except that Northern Ireland is entitled to be allocated at least'.

I also remind the Committee that under the terms of the resolution agreed on Tuesday our proceedings to the end of clause 7 must be brought to a conclusion by 5.30 pm today.

We are dealing here with something that the Deputy Speaker was anxious, for a variety of reasons, that we should not discuss on Second Reading. The ingenious drafting of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has produced an Amendment that gives us an opportunity to examine methods of election.

At least one other hon. Member in this Room is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and he will recall that we produced a report last June in which the method of election to the European Parliament was discussed. In a nutshell, the Committee decided, after a vote, to delete proportional representation for election to the European Parliament in its application to the United Kingdom and wisely advocated a return to the first-past-the-post system. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome knew about that, but it was interesting because no one could say that the Government's party was not well represented on that Committee with a substantial Majority. The bottom line is that that demonstrates that, irrespective of what may be contained in the treatiesI recall the provisions in the treaties covering uniform electoral procedurethere is advocacy, combined with an element of compulsion. I cannot say that it is absolute, but that is the sort of generality of the position.

To say the least, the hon. Gentleman is sensibly bringing to the Committee's attention the notion that the Electoral Commission shall review the current method of election of MEPs and then assess the efficacy of the various methods. The trigger for the hon. Gentleman's objectives is that reference is then made to ensuring proportionality, accountability and effectiveness of representation, and he follows that up [Interruption.] This is not the same amendment?

No.

If I am speaking to the wrong Amendment, I apologise and am happy to give way.

I do not want to steal the hon. Gentleman's thunder, but his comments on new Clause 1 should properly be made in our subsequent debate. At the moment, I am simply dealing with the floor number of representatives for each region.

In that case, I am happy to return to the matter later.

I am grateful to the Minister for her earlier considered reply to my comments. She said that she would examine more carefully the implications for smaller constituencies of the system that the Government have chosen to use. That was a positive statement by the Minister.

The Minister said that the basis of the Bill was uniformity across the United Kingdom. That is transparently not the case under the present system because of the difference in Northern Ireland. One cannot equate the three members voted for a province of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom, because they are elected on a totally different basis, for historic and current political reasons that we all understand. There is a good argument for using that system in Northern Ireland. Some would say that there is an argument elsewhere, but that is a different argument.

If we ask officials to do the calculations, we can see whether, as we suspect, a bigger discrepancy is built into the system when we get down to three representatives. If there is, as the Minister correctly says, the trade off is then between that and the fact that a floor greater than three will produce a difference in the level of representation between different regions of the United Kingdom. I contend that that is less of an evil than not to have represented at all a political persuasion that is substantially represented in that region by the votes cast. That seems an appropriate trade off. We shall clearly need to come back to it later. I shall leave the Minister to reflect further on what I have said. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No.19, in

Clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

'(aa) shall be debated by each House on a substantive motion; and'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No.31, in

schedule, page 13, line 21, at end insert

'and shall be debated by each House on a substantive motion.'.

Amendment No.32, in

schedule, page 14, line 12, after 'House', insert 'on a substantive motion'.

These are substantially the same amendments applied to different parts of the Bill. In particular, they would ensure that a debate was held where motions are recommended by the provisions in the Bill.

Amendment No. 19 proposes that the recommendation that we discussed this morning would have to be published by the Electoral Commission and laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor. Furthermore, it would cease to have effect at the end of a year after the day on which it was made. As far as I can see, there is no requirement for the matter to be debated. In view of the importance of this issue and in the interests of democracy, which I discussed this morning, any such recommendation should be debated. I have also included in the amendment the words ''on a substantive motion'', so the matter could not be debated simply in an Adjournment Debate.

In a discussion this morning with the hon. Member for Somerset and Frome I discovered that he had had experience of a free vote—an unusual creature. In relation to much that takes place in the House, as I have said in a number of debates, and I have been supported by the former Chief Whip of the Labour party, the whipping system has got somewhat out of control. Given that we would expect to have a whipped Second Reading debate, when we are in Committee there is a great deal to be said for drawing on the brain power of members of the Committee and not treating them as if they were brain-dead automatons who cannot say anything. Actually, they often have a lot to say, but usually in private. We could make some useful advances in the reform of Parliament if we were to go down that route. For the time being, I will have to be content with a substantive motion and relying on the integrity of Members of Parliament in deciding whether in a given case they should rebel against their Whips and the Government, as some of us have found it necessary to do in the past on European issues. As we discovered this morning, the recommendation is very important, but there is no reason to go back over that ground. However, it should be debated properly when it emerges.

Amendment No. 31 relates to the schedule. A similar point arises with respect to the report, which must be published by the Electoral Commission as soon as possible after 1 May in a pre-election year in discharging its obligation to carry out a review of the distribution of MEPs between the electoral regions. Afterwards, it has to report its conclusions to the Secretary of State, not the Lord Chancellor, but we have been into that already. Paragraph 1(4) of schedule 1A states that

''The report must be published by the Commission and laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.''

I shall not repeat the arguments that I have already given, and the amendment, which states that the report

''shall be debated by each House on a substantive motion'',

speaks for itself. It would not be good enough simply to lay that kind of report before Parliament, unless the Minister can assure me that it would automatically be debated. I should like an explicit clarification of that point.

Finally, amendment No. 32 relates to paragraph 3 of schedule 1A, which states:

''Where a recommendation under paragraph 1(3) is made to him, the Secretary of State must''—

I am glad to see that provision, which I have mentioned before—

''lay before Parliament a draft of an order giving effect to the recommendation by amending any of the numbers specified in section 1(3); and . . . if the draft is approved by resolution of each House, make an order in the terms of the draft''.

Amendment No. 32 would add the phrase ''on a substantive motion'', but that might not be strictly necessary because I suspect that a resolution would be a substantive motion, so we do not have to worry about it too much. Perhaps some explanation is needed as to why we have a recommendation under that schedule that is bound to be dealt with by an affirmative resolution, whereas the recommendation of the same Electoral Commission with respect to the point on Clause 2 that I made at the beginning—the fact that the recommendation

''must be published by the Electoral Commission and laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor''—

is not subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That perhaps illustrates my point that, for some reason on which I should like to hear more, there is an apparent inconsistency in the procedures to be followed for similar recommendations made by the Electoral Commission in different circumstances. That seems a little odd. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome have to say.

There is a basic procedural principle in this House that matters of a constitutional nature are debated on the Floor of the House. Previous matters relating to European parliamentary elections have been dealt with in a Committee of the Whole House, but this debate has been referred to a Standing Committee. It is a sound principle that a proposal that changes either the basis or the operation of an electoral system should be agreed by the whole House.

I pray in aid the support of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who said:

''There is a very good reason why it should not be possible to change the voting system by statutory instrument. We are dealing with fundamentals of our democratic system, and it would be wrong to change them by statutory instrument.''—[Official Report, 10 November 1998; Vol. 300, c. 208.]

We have here a proposal to do precisely that. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has suggested that we at least ensure that there is a debate on the Floor before such a change is made, which seems entirely

appropriate. I shall be interested to hear why the Minister feels that that might not be necessary.

I shall try to limit my remarks, as I am conscious that the guillotine will fall at 5.30 pm, as we have all agreed. We still have time to cover the remaining clauses and amendments, but we have already had some extensive debatesI shall not call them perambulationson issues surrounding the Lord Chancellor's constitutional status and the detailed extent of Community law. I think that sentencing policy even cropped up at one point.

The Bill provides for the report produced by the Electoral Commission on the redistribution of MEPs to be laid before the House. The Lord Chancellor will lay a draft order before Parliament and he cannot propose anything in that order that does not follow the recommendations in the commission's report. The order is then subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which is a substantive motion of the House requiring debates in both Houses of Parliament. Clause 5(3) says that the order may not be made

''unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.''

Parliament will therefore have a debate and vote on the commission's proposals.

I was referring to Clause 2. Clause 5, to which the Minister has just referred, is supplementary and clearly says:

''This section applies to orders under section 4'',

not to those under section 2.

That is indeed the case but, as I said a couple of seconds ago, the Lord Chancellor cannot propose anything in that order that does not follow the recommendations contained in the Electoral Commission's report. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment calls for the commission's report to be put before Parliament, for a debate on a substantive motion on that report and for the order that has to implement the commission's recommendations also to be put before Parliament, which will effectively have the same content as the commission's report. That will be turned into the order, which will be put before Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure. The amendment would create duplication, and would mean a delay in the process. Parliament will have the opportunity to debate and vote on the proposals made by the commission when it is introduced in an order.

The reason for using the affirmative procedure is relatively standard. We are debating a piece of primary legislation on the principles behind the order. The order will include the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, and it is right that those are drafted by the independent commission. If any Opposition parties feel strongly enough about that, they can propose that the matter should be the subject of an Opposition day debate. The reasons are relatively straightforward. There will be an affirmative resolution procedure for the order, and the affirmative resolution procedure applies for the schedule as well.

If the Minister has a conclusive answer to

the questionunlike on some of the other matters, where we have not had any answersI shall be the first to admit it. In the light of her remarks, which I shall study when I have an opportunity to do so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to take new clause1Recommendations by Electoral Commission relating to methods of election of United Kingdom MEPs

'(1) Before making any recommendation as to the distribution of MEPs between the electoral regions under section 2, the Electoral Commission shall—

(a) review the methods of election of MEPs currently used;

(b) make an assessment of the efficacy of the methods of election in ensuring (i) proportionality; (ii) accountability; and (iii) effectiveness of representation;

(c) make such recommendations to the Lord Chancellor as it shall determine.

(2) A recommendation under this section must be published by the Electoral Commission and laid before Parliament by the Lord Chancellor.'.

I propose that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, but we reject new clause 1, which is proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

New clause 1 would ask the Electoral Commission to engage in what would inevitably be a long and complex review of a system that Parliament put in place only five years ago, after protracted debate, and under which only one election has taken place. It would delay its work on the redistribution of MEPs to a point where it would be very difficult to put the timetable in place for the 2004 elections.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise issues concerning the voting system, and has a different view about the voting system that should be in place. I understand that the new clause is an attempt to pursue that. However, those issues go far wider than the Bill. The Bill does not address them, and it is appropriate that it does not. It is appropriate that the Electoral Commission should not be held up in the important work of sorting out the distribution of MEPs in time for the 2004 elections.

Clause 2 establishes the mechanism for the reviews of the distribution of MEPs to take place when the change in numbers has been agreed or is anticipated. It gives the Lord Chancellor the power to require the Electoral Commission to make recommendations in a specified period about the distribution of the total number of MEPs in the UK regions. It is important that the redistribution is in place in advance of the 2004 elections. It is right that the Electoral Commission should play the role of making the recommendation on the distribution given its other responsibilities and its independence. It will be a relatively tight time scale, but ultimately it operates within the framework of the treaty of Nice, which has been ratified by Parliament.

I rise to speak to new Clause 1. The hon. Member for Stone will have the opportunity to say what he wants to say about the voting system.

I hear what the Minister has said, but it is transparently obvious to many people that there is a great deal of concern about the operation of the closed list system. It has been brought into disrepute for precisely the reasons that it was rejected on possibly three occasions, certainly twice, by the upper House when the European Parliamentary Elections Bill was under consideration in 1998.

The Bill went to the wire. There was a great deal of doubt as to whether it would complete its parliamentary passage in time. A Majority in the upper House—Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Cross Benchers and some who took the Labour Whip—felt that an open list system would have been a better option for achieving the Government's aims in reforming the European Parliament election system. I can do no better than to quote the Lords reason for insisting on their amendments, which were debated on 10 November 1998:

''Because electors should be able to vote for the individual party candidate of their choice.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 1998; Vol. 594, c. 206.]

The problem with the present closed list system is that it puts far too much power in the hands of the party machine rather than of the elector in determining which competing candidates from a given single party shall be elected. It also puts an improper pressure on MEPs to address their attentions too much to the primary electorate which is, in their case, the membership of their party, rather than the wider electorate who can vote only for a party list.

For those reasons, we believe that the party list system is less good than the single transferable vote and the closed list system is inherently worse than an open list system, which would at least give the electorate the opportunity to express their choice between candidates.

I understand the Minister's saying that the scope of the Bill is limited to what is contained in the treaty of Nice and why she would not want to delay the process unnecessarily. However, this is an opportune time to review the system. In 1998, the then Home Secretary offered an early review as a concession. Since then, we have had further experience of what the system means for MEPs.

I am disappointed that some of the brightest and best MEPs are expressing concern that they are not part of a properly democratic system and are returning to domestic politics or going elsewhere. Some long-standing MEPs have found themselves running foul of their party list system and find that they will not be able to seek re-election under the next European Parliament elections simply because they have displeased someone within the hierarchy and apparatus of their own party.

Would the hon. Gentleman care to elaborate, perhaps by reference to Labour party MEPs? He may recall that some people have actually

been dumped because they had the temerity to express views that were inconsistent with those of the great panjandrums who run the outfit.

That is undoubtedly the case, but the hon. Gentleman's party is not alien to that process.

Some of us survive.

I have seen the system at work in the lists in the south-west region. The new Conservative list places the person who was at number one at number four or five.

That decision was arrived at democratically. There was no closed-system meeting.

I do not want to explore the depths and thickets of the Conservative electoral process.

It is important that we have a system that best matches the aspirations of the electorate and the democratic accountability that we have in this country. I am not convinced that we have that at present. We seem to be developing a constitutional mosaic, in which there is a different electoral system for every tier of elections. I am not sure that that is a good thing. My party has a very clear preference as to the best solution, as do others— I accept that there are different opinions about it. I am not persuaded that that is a good way to attract and maintain higher turnouts in elections because every time we go to the ballot box there will be a different system of election, which we may not understand. This system has merit in providing approximate proportionality and demerit in not providing individual accountability for the electorate.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

As I was saying before we were interrupted, there is a case for reviewing the system. The obvious independent body to do that is the Electoral Commission. While it is looking at the operation and distribution of seats, it is perfectly proper for it to receive and look at representations on the operation of the system. I accept that it is unlikely to be able to make detailed recommendations on changes of operation and to enact them before the next European Parliament elections, but that is not necessarily the deadline to which it would have to work. The new Clause would simply require it to begin the process before allocating the seats.

I understand that the Minister does not want that to happen. She made that clear on Second Reading and has made it clear again today. In the interests of brevity I do not ask her to repeat it yet again, because I doubt that she will have changed her mind in the meantime. I am content to consider whether to move the Second Reading of the new clause at the appropriate moment. Meanwhile, we can continue the clause stand part debate and, I hope, reach a conclusion.

I want first to refer to the arrangements in new Clause 1, some of which I have already covered. I

said that the European Scrutiny Committee would prefer us to revert to a first-past-the-post system. I was about to consider what the arrangements set out in the new clause would involve. I am concerned not only about the closed list system but about the party list system.

The hon. Member for Somerset and Frome said—

Order. I am somewhat nervous that we may stray into areas that we should not consider today. As I read the new Clause, it simply seeks a decision to engage in the review and look at the different systems. I have no intention of allowing various different systems to be discussed and evaluated today. That is clear to all members of the Committee, is it?

I accept that ruling, Mr. Cook, and simply add this. In considering the recommendation that the Electoral Commission would arrive at, we must remember that some arrangements under the present system give rise to difficulties and, as I said, can lead to tyranny. In certain European countries, if people disagree with their leaders' proposals they can be removed from the list. If someone disagreed with Chancellor Kohl in Germany, for example, they were struck off the list and that was that. Of course, he has gonehe appears to have fallen on his sword. Having said that, the reality is that there are many objections to the way in which the system functions, and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has done us a service.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to what happened when the European Parliamentary Elections Bill of 1997—98 failed. As he pointed out, it was thrown out by the House of Lords, and subsequently brought in under the Parliament Acts procedure on 14 January 1999. Although it might be interesting, it is unnecessary to engage in a fuller discussion about the relative merits of those systems, particularly given what the European Scrutiny Committee has to say. Its report will be debated fairly soon, in which case an opportunity to go into some of those questions may arise.

All I need do is say that I am grateful for the opportunity to register my few points. In conclusion, I thank the hon. Gentleman for seeking to get something off the ground, which did not quite succeed.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 3.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.Clause 3