european parliamentary elections bill...assembly was part of the original treaty of rome but when...

RESEARCH PAPER 98/1021 DECEMBER 1998

The EuropeanParliamentary ElectionsBill[Bill No 4 of 1998-9]

This Research Paper examines the background to theEuropean Parliamentary Elections Bill and explains itsprovisions. The Bill provides for voters to choosebetween parties, rather than individual candidates. Theintroduction of a regional list form of election for thenext European Parliament elections for 1999 will be thefirst time that proportional representation (PR) hasbeen used throughout Great Britain (Northern Irelanduses the single transferable vote (STV) for theEuropean Parliament and local elections). An earlierversion of the Bill (Bill 65 of 1997-98) failed as aresult of disagreements between the Commons andLords over the issue of open and closed lists. The Billis due to have all its stages in the Commons on 2December 1998. The Parliament Acts procedure maybecome relevant to this Bill. For further details seeResearch Paper 98/103 Lords Reform: The LegislativeRole of the House of Lords. This Paper replaces97/120.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY

Oonagh Gay

HOME AFFAIRS SECTION

Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and theirpersonal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Membersand their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.

Recent Library Research Papers include:

List of 15 most recent RPs

98/87 The Criminal Justice (Terrorism & Conspiracy) Bill Bill 244 of 1997-98 02.09.98

98/88 Unemployment by Constituency - August 1998 16.09.98

98/89 Democracy in Russia 07.10.98

98/90 Unemployment by Constituency - September 1998 14.10.98

98/91 The Strategic Defence Review White Paper 15.10.98

98/92 The Reform of the European Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund 03.11.98

(revised edition)

98/93 Kosovo: The Diplomatic and Military Options 27.10.98

98/94 The New Government in Germany 30.10.98

98/95 Widows' Benefit 30.10.98

98/96 Economic Indicators 02.11.98

98/97 Unemployment by Constituency - October 1998 11.11.98

98/98 Lottery awards: regional and constituency analysis (to October 1998) 12.11.98

98/99 Fairness at Work 17.11.98

98/100 Widows' Benefits (revised edition) 23.11.98

98/101 Economic Indicators 01.12.98

Research Papers are available as PDF files:

• to members of the general public on the Parliamentary web site,URL: http://www.parliament.uk

• within Parliament to users of the Parliamentary Intranet,URL: http://hcl1.hclibrary.parliament.uk

Summary of main points

A commitment to introduce a uniform electoral system for elections to a new Europeanassembly was part of the original Treaty of Rome but when the first direct elections were heldin 1979 Great Britain used the First Past The Post system, with STV for Northern Ireland.The Commons had rejected on 13 December 1977, on a free vote, the option of an openregional list system for Great Britain. Despite attempts by the European Parliament to devisecommon principles, the Council of Ministers has yet to implement a common, new system.Other EU states continue to use a variety of forms of election but all can be categorised as PRsystems.

The European Parliamentary Elections Bill introduces a regional list system for elections inGreat Britain, and retains STV for Northern Ireland. If the Bill is passed, for the first time onvoters in Great Britain will choose between parties, rather than individual candidates(although independent candidates are possible). Traditional territorial constituencies for theEuropean Parliament would be replaced by nine electoral regions in England and oneelectoral region respectively for Scotland and Wales. These electoral regions are based onthose used for the Government Offices for the Regions established in 1994. If passed, thenew system should be in place for the 1999 elections.

Under the Bill as currently drafted, voters will not have a choice between candidates on aparty's list. The political parties have created mechanisms for establishing an ordered list ofcandidates for each electoral region. The d'Hondt (or highest average) system is to be used toallocate votes between parties. Although many proponents of constitutional reform havewelcomed the commitment to a PR system for the next European elections there has beenmarked criticism of the lack of voter choice involved in closed list systems and the previousBill of the last session failed as a result of an amendment in the Lords to introduce fully openlists which the Commons would not accept.

The Parliament Acts procedure may be required for the Bill to achieve Royal Assent. Forfurther details on this aspect see Research Paper 98/103 Lords Reform: The Legislative Roleof the House of Lords Section .IB. This Paper gives a full history of the passage of theprevious Bill. The Government have said that unless the Bill is passed by mid January the 10June 1999 elections will have to be run under the same First Past The Post procedure as usedat present. The Parliamentary Boundary Commissions are expected to be able to completetheir reviews of the current boundaries of the European Parliament constituencies in time forthe 1999 elections, should it be necessary to hold them under FPTP. However the politicalparties would need to review their candidate selection which has already been completed onthe basis of a closed regional list system.

CONTENTS

I Background 7

A. Uniform Electoral Procedure 7

B. The European Assembly Elections Bill 10

C. The De Gucht Report 14

D. The Plant Report 18

E. The 1997 Labour Manifesto and After 19

F. Parliamentary Boundary Commissions 23

G. Selection of candidates 24

II The European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Bill 65 of 1997-98) 27

A. The Bill in Detail 28

B. Initial Reactions to the 1997-8 bill 35

III Open v Closed Lists 36

A. Background 36

B. The debates on the 1997-8 bill 41

C. Bill 4 of 1998-9 48

Appendix 1 50

Appendix 2 53

Appendix 3 The Parliamentary Stages of the European ParliamentaryElections Bill [Bill 65 of 1997-8] - 57

RESEARCH PAPER 98/102

7

I Background

Note that for ease of use and access, this Paper reproduces the background material givenin Research Paper 97/120 on the 1997-8 version of the Bill with updating material whereappropriate.

A. Uniform Electoral Procedure

Article 138(3)1 of the Treaty of Rome required the European Parliament to "draw upproposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform electoralprocedure in all Member States. The Council [of Ministers] shall, acting unanimously,lay down the appropriate provisions which it shall recommend to Member States foradoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". Since heraccession to the Community on 1 January 1973 the UK has been a party to thisundertaking.

Agreement to hold direct elections was finally reached on 20 September 1976 between allnine Member States with the signing of a Council Decision.2 The text was published inthe UK as an annex to the Council of Ministers' decision as Cmnd 6623. Article 2 of theAct (EC) set out the number of seats allocated to each Member State.

In May 1976 the Government arranged for the appointment of a select committee toconsider proposals for direct elections to the Assembly. The Second Report of the SelectCommittee3 recommended the retention of the First Past the Post (FPTP) system inEuropean constituencies formed by grouping parliamentary constituencies in a curtailedBoundary Commission procedure (paras 20-22). This report was never debated by theHouse.

In April 1977 a White Paper with 'green edges' was published.4 Part I discussed the prosand cons of possible electoral systems but drew no conclusion except to insist "the specialcircumstances of Northern Ireland make it appropriate for direct elections there to beconducted by a system of proportional representation" (para 20). The Paper was debatedon 20 and 25 April 1977.5

1 This Article has now been renumbered Article 190 following the Treaty of Amsterdam, where anaddition to the text was made. See below p.15

2 (76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom) Act concerning the election of the Representatives of the Assembly bydirect universal suffrage

3 HC 515 Session 1975/764 Direct Elections to the European Assembly (Cmnd 6768)5 HC Deb. vol 930 c 200-33 and c 735-960


8

The White Paper suggested the use of existing economic planning regions for allocatingParliamentary seats to regions and a modified list system with an 'open' ballot paper sothat the voter could choose between named candidates.

14. There are other considerations which result from some of the inherentcharacteristics of the existing British system. One of these characteristics is the tendencyfor swings in electoral opinion to be magnified in terms of seats won or lost. This isregarded by many as an advantage in the context of Westminster elections where aGovernment is being elected. In the context of European elections, however, it might beregarded as a less desirable feature. This would be especially so if, as some studies havesuggested, the relatively small number of Assembly constituencies (81 as compared with635 Westminster constituencies) further magnified the effect with a final result in termsof seats which was quite disproportionate to votes cast. There is the further point that,particularly if Assembly elections fell mid-way between General Elections toWestminster there could be a wide divergence between the balance of power atWestminster and the Party composition of the United Kingdom members of the EuropeanAssembly. In one respect, given the advisory nature of the European Assembly, thismight not be a matter of much concern; but in a developing situation it could lead tofriction between the Government at Westminster and the UK representatives in thedirectly elected European Assembly or even between the Government and the Assemblyitself.

15. It would be possible to resolve some of these problems by adopting asystem of proportional representation for elections to the European Assembly. Since theEuropean Assembly does not constitute a legislature or provide a government, and sinceits members do not have the same constituency responsibilities as a Westminster MP,proportional representation for the European Assembly might not be open to the sameobjections as proportional representation for the Westminster Parliament. A differentinstitution might warrant a different form of election.

16. A list system could be devised based on the whole of the UnitedKingdom or Great Britain; or on separate lists for their constituent parts; or England couldbe sub-divided into regions or constituencies, each being allocated a number of memberson the basis of electorate. The adoption of a list system would bring us into line with themajority of our European partners and would ensure that the allocation of seats was moreproportional to the votes cast for the competing Parties. It would also have advantages inthe speed with which it could be brought into operation, since there would not be morethan about a dozen regions and even if Boundary Commission procedures were necessarythey would be less elaborate than would be required to define 81 new constituencies.(Annex B shows how a regional list system might work in practice.)

17. To abandon our traditional method in this way would be a majorconstitutional innovation, the consequences of which are difficult to foresee. It wouldmean the absence of the sort of constituency link with which we are familiar and couldlead to changes in Party organisations, including giving the central or regional Partyorganisations a bigger role in nominating candidates. The electorate might take time tobecome accustomed to the new system and might be confused by the existence ofseparate procedures for national and European elections, although the Northern Irelandelectorate have coped with a similar situation since 1973. Furthermore, there might haveto be yet another change if in accordance with the Treaty of Rome there is, in due course,


9

a move to put European elections on a common basis and a different system is thenadopted. This would be a matter for all Community governments and their respectiveParliaments.

18. Besides the simple majority and list systems, a third possible electoralsystem is the single transferable vote, which is another form of proportion representation.It has already been used for local government, Convention and Assembly elections inNorthern Ireland. Such a system involves multi-member constituencies and the electorvotes for as many candidates as he wishes in order of preference. This system givesmaximum influence to the elector, who is able to express a preference between thedifferent candidates of the Party of his choice as well as between the candidates of otherParties. Such a system would retain the concept of the constituency, but geographicallysuch constituencies would be larger than single member European constituencies in asimple majority system of election and much larger than the constituencies used in ourGeneral Elections. The United Kingdom's 81 seats might be allocated to about a dozenconstituencies each returning between three and 10 members, depending on size ofelectorate. (See Annex C for further details of this system.)

19. However, STV like the list system, would involve fundamentaldepartures from our traditional electoral practice and would again mean that we wereusing different electoral systems for national and European elections. It too might requiresome kind of boundary procedure, but this again would less complex than that necessaryif we were to use the simple majority system.

20. Whatever electoral system were used, it would be important to ensure ademocratic procedure for the selection of candidates and to involve constituency partyorganisations in this procedure to the fullest possible extent.

The economic planning areas were set out in Annex B.

ELECTORAL AREAS

4. The United Kingdom would be divided into a number of electoral areas:Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would each constitute a separate area; Englandcould be divided on the basis of existing economic planning regions, but the GLC areamight be separated form the South East planning region and East Anglia combined withthe East Midlands. The number of seats for each region would be allocated under thissystem as follows:-


10

Electoral Area Seats

Scotland 8Wales 4Northern Ireland 3South-East England 14(excluding Greater LondonGreater London 10South-West England 6East Anglia and East Midlands 8West Midlands 7North-West England 9Yorkshire and Humberside 7Northern England 5

In the event, the European Assembly Elections Bill reproduced these regions except thatEast Anglia and the East Midlands were separated. These economic planning areas nolonger exist, except as standard regions in official statistics. Annex B also noted that "theparties would have to develop procedures for selecting their candidates. Some form ofregistration of political parties might be necessary if the list system used party rather thanindividual candidate names. Independent candidates could be permitted to stand forelection provided that they had nominations from the prescribed number of electors"(para. 6).

B. The European Assembly Elections Bill

The European Assembly Elections Bill was subsequently introduced in the Commons,with Second Reading on 6 and 7 July 1977.6 The Bill was intended to be a vehicle fordebate on the principle of direct elections and was an interesting product of the Lib/Labpact then in operation. The Bill offered an alternative between two electoral systems;clause 3 provided for a regional list system of PR and also for the PR system to beoverridden by Schedule 1 (First Past The Post) by a later resolution of the House ofCommons. To honour its pact with the Liberals the Government was to recommend tothe House of Commons the endorsement of the PR system as set out in Annex B to theWhite Paper. However the Lib/Lab pact of March 1977 provided for a free vote on thechoice of electoral systems in the Commons. The Bill proceeded no further due to lack ofParliamentary time. It was reintroduced in an almost identical form in the 1977/78session with a Second Reading on 24 November 1977.7

6 HC Deb. vol 934 c.1250-1382 and c.1436-1564 (Bill 142 of 1976/77). Six Cabinet Ministers opposedits Second Reading, along with 25 other Members of the Government. See Research Paper 96/55 TheCollective Responsibility of Ministers: an outline of the issues for background on subsequent dissension

7 HC Deb. vol 939 c.1764-1914 (Bill 7 of 1977/78)


11

Clause 3 was as follows:

3.-(1) Assembly elections shall be held and conducted in accordance with the provisionsof Part II of this Act under a regional list system such that each elector has a single voteand, in each electoral region-

(a)each vote is cast for a named candidate chosen by the voter from thoseshown in the ballot paper as candidates for election as representatives for the region and

(b)the seats to be filled for the region are allocated according to a system ofproportional representation, subject, however, to the following subsection.

(2) If after the passing of this Act the House of Commons by resolution sodirects, Part II of this Act shall not have effect and Assembly elections shall be held andconducted in accord. accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act (withSchedule 2) under the simple majority system (for Great Britain) and the singletransferable vote system (for Northern Ireland).

The d'Hondt method was used for calculating the allocation of seats.8

8 see Research Paper 98/80 Voting Systems: the Government's Proposals for a worked example ofd'Hondt


12

The form of the ballot paper for a regional list election was set out in Schedule 4:

FORM OF BALLOT PAPERForm of front of ballot paper

You have only ONE vote.Place an X in the box UNDER the name of the candidate for whom you wish to vote.

CONSERVATIVE PARTYJONES

(William DavidJones, of High Elms,

Barlington,Grayshire.)

KNOTT(Henry Richard

Knott, of The LodgeHigh RoadEastchester,Loamshire.)

PARKER-PATTISON(Samuel Brian

Parker-Pattison,of 3, Bagshot Row,

Exborough.)

PHILLIPS(Anne Elizabeth

Phillips, of67, Morningside

Crescent,Christminster.)

SWIFT(Katherine Emma

Swift, of53, Stokes Road,

Barchester.)

INDEPENDENTLAWTON,

(George Langley,Viscount Lawton,Of Castle Scarlet,

Blankshire.)

LABOUR PARTYBLACK

(David RichardBlack, of 90,Bath Road,

Westchester.)

BLACK(Philip ThomasBlack, of 36,

Hillside Road,Wellbridge,Berkshire.)

JACKSON(Mary Sarah Jackson,

of Flat 3,Duke's Mansions,

Caterbridge,Grayshire.)

ROBINSON(James LeonardRobinson, of 91,

Old Terrace,Anglebury,Greenshire.)

SIMPSON(Beryl HarrietSimpson, of

36, Firs Drive,Cranford,

Loamshire.)

LIBERAL PARTYBENSON-

HARRISON(Barbara DorothyBenson-Harrison,of 2, Low Road,

Stourcastle,Barsetshire.)

CLARK(Frederick John

Clark, of77, Roman Road,

Northchester,Greenshire.)

GREEN(Timothy Frederick

Green, of110, Poole Road,

Sandbourne,Blankshire.)

MASTERS(Matthew Michael

Masters, of 13,Leamington

Avenue, Havenpool,Grayshire.)

WILLIAMS(Rosemary Williams,

of 32, ParksideAvenue,

Overcombe,Loamshire.)

Form of back of ballot paper

No. …………….

Election for the Electoral Region of ,day of , 19 .

Note.- The number on the Ballot Paper is to correspondwith that on the counterfoil.


13

The candidates were listed alphabetically, as were the political parties. The White Paperhad originally proposed that candidates be listed alphabetically, with party affiliations(para 5) but after consultation it was felt that this would be too confusing9. This form ofPR avoided the need for registration of parties since voters were still choosing individualcandidates, grouped according to party label.

On a free vote by both Conservatives and Labour10 the House declared its preference for afirst past the post electoral system, against the Government's recommendation.11 Theproportional electoral system was therefore removed from the Bill. Mark Hagger12 notedthat "the debate itself was dominated by critics of the party list electoral system, a few ofwhom expressed sympathy with some form of PR but were unwilling to endorse a system'discovered by a Liberal professor in the Forest of Finland'".13 "Even the Liberal Partyargued that the party list system was a second-best solution and it was unable to persuadethe SNP to give its support, for the SNP favoured the Alternative Vote System" (p.226).

The only other modification to the Bill was the introduction of Government backed NewClause 8 (now Section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 whichprovided that treaties increasing the powers of the European Parliament could not beratified without the approval of Act of Parliament. Direct elections to the Parliament dulytook place in June 1979. NB. By virtue of s.3 of the European Communities(Amendment) Act 1986 a reference to European Assembly is now substituted by areference to European Parliament. The 1978 Act is therefore now known as theEuropean Parliamentary Elections Act.

The European Parliamentary Elections Act 1993 increased the number of constituenciesto 87 for the UK (71 in England, 8 in Scotland, 5 in Wales and 2 in Northern Ireland)England gained 5 and Wales 1. The extra seats were awarded by Michael Howard, thenHome Secretary, on the basis of 'arithmetical fairness'14 Extra seats were requiredfollowing the Edinburgh Summit in December 1992, in the context of a reunifiedGermany and an enlarged Union. The relevant decision amending the original 1976 Actwas published on 1 February 1993.15

9 See comments by Merlyn Rees, then Home Secretary on 6 July 1977, HC Deb. vol 934 c.125910 HC Deb. Vol 939 c.178211 HC Deb 13/12/77 c.418-20: 319-222. However, Brynmor John, junior Minister at Home Office stated

that on a constitutional matter of that importance it was right and proper to have a free vote (HC Deb.vol 939 c.1771)

12 The UK: The Reluctant Europeans', a chapter from The legislation of Direct Elections to the EuropeanParliament eds Valentine Herman and Mark Hagger (1980)

13 Douglas Hurd HC Deb 13/12/77 c.31914 Home Office PN 11/6/93 'European Parliamentary Elections Bill published'. See Research Paper 93/70

UK Elections to the European Parliament15 93/81/Euratom, ECSC, EEC


14

C. The De Gucht Report

The Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament drew up proposals for aregional list system which was approved by the European Parliament in March 1982 (theSeitlinger Report) but the Council of Ministers did not accept it. A House of Lords SelectCommittee on the European Communities report16 discussed the draft Act based on theSeitlinger Report and concluded that an 'open list' system would be possible in the UK(where the elector votes for one candidate in a multi member constituency). This was thesystem proposed in the 1977 White Paper:-

46. A formidable argument often employed against certain forms ofproportional representation is that it can give too much powers to the party machine.With a system such as that proposed by the European Parliament, involving a party list, itwould be possible for a party to nominate candidates and put them on the list in any orderit pleases. Candidates at the top of the list might then be elected even if voters happenedto disapprove of them. In 1979, some parties, in countries operating party list systems,put well-known names on the list to attract voters, but some of these figures eitherattended only rarely or withdrew so that others lower down on the list became members.There are now 64 MEPs sitting in the Parliament who were not elected in 1979.

47. Yet there is no inherent reason why a list system of proportionalrepresentation should not allow for some choice of candidate. The proposals of theEuropean Parliament would allow preferential voting within a party list (Article 2(5)); orthey would allow what is often called an open list - one vote in a multi-memberconstituency - such as was proposed by the British Government in 1977, and is illustratedby the ballot paper in Annex D. Under the system, the voter is nor presented with a list ina pre-ordinated order of party preference at all, but with a list of candidates inalphabetical order. The elector then votes by marking a space beside the candidate of hischoice. In this way the voter is able to choose both between parties and betweenmembers of the same party.

48. If the United Kingdom were to decide to accept a system of proportionalrepresentation for elections to the European Parliament, the "open list" would be onemethod by which the requirement laid down by the draft Act could be met.

After the 1984 elections the Political Affairs Committee drew up a modified version ofthe Seitlinger scheme - the Bocklet Report. This was not, however, considered by theEuropean Parliament before the 1989 elections. There were difficulties with theproposals in a number of countries and party groups.

16 Uniform Electoral Procedures for the Election of Members of the European Parliament (HL 641982/83)


15

In January 1990 the European Parliament's Institutional Affairs Committee was invited bythe Parliament to formulate proposals on a uniform procedure. These were published on29 May 1991.17 The Report's conclusions ruled out the adoption of an identical electoralprocedure in the twelve Member States, preferring the "establishment of common criteriaon certain essential aspects of the electoral procedure". This followed an opinion by theLegal Affairs Committee that in view of subsidiarity the electoral system adopted neednot be uniform in all respects. These common criteria should be applied gradually,beginning with areas on which some consensus already existed, such as the franchise. Asecond de Gucht Report of May 1992 was principally concerned with new arrangementsfor allocating seats between Member States.

The final de Gucht Report dated 26 November 199218 again adopted a cautious approach.Its motion for a resolution expressly had 'regard to the inclusion of the subsidiarityprinciple in the Treaty on European Union" and stated that the objectives of "harmonisingthe fundamentals" of a uniform electoral system "can be attained gradually". MemberStates would 'have the option of altering their systems in stages to bring them into linewith the model selected".

The de Gucht Report was scheduled for debate in the European Parliament in January1993, but the debate was postponed until 10 March 1993. The Parliament approved theReport by 207 to 80 with all the main political groups favouring the proposals with someamendments (there were 19 formal abstentions). Of particular relevance, the requirementthat the UK (the only Member State with a single member constituency system) elect 1/2of MEPs by a list system was softened to 1/3 - leaving 2/3 of MEPs in England, Scotlandand Wales to be elected by a first past the post system. Karel de Gucht, a BelgianLiberal, was quoted as saying "I have tried to make it as difficult as possible for Britain tosay no" 19

The European Parliament resolution is as follows:20

- having regard to Article 138(3) of the EEC Treaty, which requires theEuropean Parliament to draw up proposals for its election by direct universal suffrage inaccordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States,

- having regard to the new provisions inserted in Article 138(3) by theTreaty on European Union, which stipulate that the Council shall act unanimously onlyafter obtaining the assent of the European Parliament,

17 A-0152/91: Interim Report of the Committee on Institutional Affairs (de Gucht Report)18 A3-0381/92 Report of the Committee on Institutional Affairs on the draft uniform electoral procedure

for the election of Members of the European Parliament19 quoted in the Guardian 11/3/93 "Pressure for PR in European elections"20 Resolution A3-0381/921


16

- having regard to its resolution of 10 October 1991 on the European Parliament'sguidelines for the draft uniform electoral procedure,

- having regard to its resolution of 10 June 1992 on a uniform electoral procedure:a scheme for allocating the seats of Members of the European Parliament,

- having regard to Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Institutional Affairs(A3-0381192),

A. having regard to the inclusion of the subsidiarity principle in the Treaty onEuropean Union,

B. whereas it has a duty to draw up a proposal for a uniform electoral system,harmonizing the fundamentals of that system,

C. whereas this objective can be attained gradually; whereas Member Statestherefore have the option of altering their systems in stages to bring them into line withthe model selected,

1. Confirms the guidelines laid down in its above-mentioned resolution of 10October 1991, noting that Members of the European Parliament should be elected inaccordance with a uniform electoral procedure based on the principle of proportionalrepresentation;

2. Affirms that Member States must also grant voting rights in Europeanelections to citizens of third countries to whom they have also granted such rights innational elections;

3. Adopts the following principles, in accordance with Article 138(3) of theEEC Treaty:

(a) the distribution of seats for the election of Members of the EuropeanParliament shall be determined in accordance with a system of proportionalrepresentation, talking account of the votes cast throughout the territory of the MemberState;

(b) voting shall be based on lists drawn up either for the whole territory of aMember State or for regions or multi-member constituencies;

(c) if a Member State uses a single-member constituency system, not morethan two-thirds of the seats assigned to this Member State may be distributed in theseconstituencies; the remainder of the seats assigned to the Member State concerned shallbe distributed by means of lists in such a way as to ensure that the distribution of all theseats of this Member State corresponds to the proportions of the total votes cast;


17

(d) the Member States may provide for one or more preferential votes to becast where elections are based on lists;

(e) the Member States may institute a minimum threshold for the distribution ofseats, which shall be set at between 3 and 5 % of the votes cast;

(f) the Member States may make limited special arrangements in order to takeaccount of regional features; these arrangements must not violate the principle ofproportional representation;

4. Adjures the Council to adopt a uniform electoral procedure in line withParliament's proposal within a time-scale which will enable it to be followed for the 1994European elections;

5. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, theCommission and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

It is worth noting that other amendments made to the Report made the proposals evenmore flexible, for instance by removing the requirement for a minimum threshold fordistribution of seats. The flexibility of the proposals led some commentators to suggestthat they were not compatible with the 'uniform electoral procedure' set out in Article 138.The ability to make special arrangements to take account of regional features in principlehas the potential of benefiting Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

The Maastricht Treaty21 amended Article 138(3) as follows:22

(40) Paragraph 3 of Article 138 shall be replaced by the following:

"3. The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universalsuffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.

The Council shall, acting unanimously after obtaining the assent of the EuropeanParliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members, lay down theappropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption inaccordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

The Council therefore now needs to submit the final proposals to the EuropeanParliament for approval.

The Amsterdam Treaty has also added new phrasing to Article 138(3), and renumbered itso that it now becomes Article 190(4):23

21 The Treaty on European Union Cm 1934 February 199222 Cm 1934 p.41


18

The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal for elections by direct universalsuffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordancewith principles common to all Member States.

The Council shall, acting unanimously after obtaining the assent of the EuropeanParliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members, lay down theappropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption inaccordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The new phrasing presumably echoes the conclusions of the de Gucht report. Once again,there is no time scale by which the Article must be implemented, unlike the MaastrichtTreaty where time limits were laid down for the Directive on Voting Rights for ECNationals (December 1993) to be implemented.24

The Liberal Democrats have pressed for PR for the European Parliament for severalyears. In 1990 Lord Bonham-Carter introduced the European Parliament ElectoralReform Bill which passed through all its stages in the Lords, but did not proceed further.It provided for elections by simple transferable vote (STV), with Scotland and Walesrepresenting one constituency each, and England divided into nine constituencies.

In addition, the Liberal Democrats brought an action in the European Court of Justice inJanuary 1993, against the European Parliament for alleged manifest failure to makeproposals for a uniform electoral procedure under Article 138.3.25 No final decision wasgiven by the ECJ, as procedural difficulties rendered the action inadmissable.26 However,the action achieved its primary purpose of encouraging the European Parliament to takeaction.

D. The Plant Report

In 1990, following a vote at Annual Conference, the Labour party set up the WorkingParty on Electoral Systems chaired by Raymond Plant (now Lord Plant). Its final reportwas published on 19 May 1993 and recommended a regional list system for the EuropeanParliament.

The European ParliamentIn the light of the complex issues raised in Chapter 5, a majority on the Working Parryconcluded that it should support the idea of a proportional system for the EuropeanParliament. The reasons underlying this choice are set out in that chapter. Most membersof the Working Party felt that the size of constituencies, the role of EPS and the fact thatan Executive does not emerge out of the Parliament all differentiated it from the House ofCommons, to the extent that it was not necessary to have the same electoral system for

23 Treaty of Amsterdam Cm 3780 October 1997. Italics added24 See Research Paper 94/23 Votes and Seats for European Parliament Elections for details25 Liberal Democrats v European Parliament Case C-41/9226 As a political party the Advocate General advised the Court that the Liberal Democrats were not a

privileged litigant. Reforming the European Union (1997) by Andrew Duff p.143


19

the two bodies. Two alternative PR systems - a Mixed Member System and a RegionalList system - were considered by the Working Party and while it was felt that it wastechnically possible to have a Mixed Member system for a relatively small number ofseats, nevertheless a Regional List system was approved by an overwhelming majority.The proposal of the Working Parry is therefore that:

A Regional List System should be recommended as the electoral system for the EuropeanParliament.

The various points made about regional list systems in relation to theSecond Chamber and democratic involvement, mentioned above, apply equally to thisproposal for the European Parliament.The Working Party takes the view that a regional list for the European Parliament wouldbe particularly apposite given the growing influence of the regional idea within theEuropean Community.

This proposal would also bring the voting system much more into linewith those used in at least 10 of the other European countries. In addition, while we areaware of the different views concerning the proposals for a uniform electoral procedure,this proposal would satisfy the requirements as set out in the resolution passed by theEuropean Parliament.

We are also conscious that the proposal to have a similar system for theEuropean Parliament and for the Second Chamber would avoid a further proliferation ofdifferent systems.

Appendix 7 provided illustrations of the proposed scheme, using the Labour party regionsin operation at the 1989 European Elections. The report did not follow the 1977/78system of an open ballot paper; electors would cast either one vote for a party slate ofcandidates, or the alternative of allowing voters to use a number of votes to putcandidates in the order of their choice.(p37).

E. The 1997 Labour Manifesto and After

At the party conference on 30 September 1993 Tony Blair, then Shadow Home Secretary,said that 'we will reform the voting system for the European Parliament'. Conferenceaccepted the Plant report's proposals for the European Parliament. Just before the 1997general election the Labour and Liberal Democrat Joint Consultative Committee onConstitutional Reform reported on 5 March 1997 on a range of proposals including PRfor European Parliament elections:

61. For elections to the European Parliament both parties have supported aproportional system based on regional lists. This system was considered in the 1970sduring the passage of the European Assembly Elections Act. It was also recommendedby the Plant Committee on electoral systems which reported in 1993 and was endorsed byLabour Party conference.

62. Both parties are therefore agreed that elections in Britain to the EuropeanParliament should be on a regional list system.


20

At the press conference on publication of the joint report Robin Cook, for the Labourparty, confirmed that it was Labour's policy and intention to introduce PR for theEuropean Parliament in time for the June 1999 election. But although the Labourmanifesto27 said "we have long supported a proportional voting system for elections to theEuropean Parliament" it did not commit the party to a timescale for implementation.Until July 1997 it was unclear whether the Government would commit itself to legislatein time for the 1999 European Parliament elections. On 11 June, for example, LordWilliams of Mostyn, for the Government, said "we have no present plans to introducelegislation on proportional representation for European elections this session but if anopportunity to legislate arose we would consider taking it".28 On 25 June Lord Williamssaid that incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights had a higherpriority in the legislative timetable.29

However, on 17 July 1997 Jack Straw, Home Secretary, announced that the 1999elections would be conducted using a regional list form of proportional representation:30

'Our election manifesto contained a firm commitment to introduce PR for EuropeanElections.

'Time will be found for legislation this session which will allow the next EuropeanElections to be held using a system of PR.

'We intend to introduce a Regional List System for these elections. This is what theLabour Party Working Group chaired by Lord Plant in 1993 recommended and it wasalso endorsed in 1997 by the Joint Labour/Liberal Democrat Consultative Committee onConstitutional Reform.'

The Home Office Press Notice added that "detailed information on the precise workingsof the scheme including regional boundaries, will be announced in due course." Therewas no information as to whether Northern Ireland would keep its own form of PR - STV- for the European elections, and no detail on whether the ballots would be open orclosed. However, the Press Notice did state "independent candidates would be able tostand".

John Curtice and Michael Steed31 estimated what the outcome of the 1994 EuropeanParliament elections would have been using the regional list system contained in the 1977European Assembly Elections Bill, and the d'Hondt method of allocating seats (pp 322-324):Britain is, of course, the only country in Europe to use the single-member pluralityelectoral system. In no other country could a party succeed in securing 74 per cent of the

27 New Labour: because the country deserves better April 199728 HL Deb. vol 295 11/6/97 c.84W29 HL Deb. vol 296 25/6/97 c.162930 Home Office Press Notice 17/7/97 'Jack Straw announces PR for European Elections'31 in British Politics and European Elections 1994 by D Butler and M Westlake


21

seats on the basis of 44 per cent of the votes as Labour did in 1994, thereby ensuring thatit had the largest single delegation of any national party in the European Parliament. Yeteven if a supposedly proportional system had been in use, the outcome in seats could stillhave been significantly disproportional.

In Table A.7 we estimate what the outcome in seats would have been if theoriginal proposals for a regional list system contained in the 1977 European AssemblyElections Bill had been used in this election. The key elements of this proposal were thateach standard region should form a separate constituency and that seats would beallocated within each constituency using the d'Hondt or 'highest average' method ofallocation (for further details see Carstairs, 1980). In Table A.7 we have calculated whatthe outcome in votes was within each standard region in 1994; in contrast to the otherregional tables in this book, the votes in those Euro-constituencies which cross a standardregion boundary have been allocated to the relevant standard region using the results ofthe last general election to estimate how each party's vote should be divided. Havingperformed this calculation we have then applied the d'Hondt formula to allocate seats.

Labour would clearly have been much less well off and the LiberalDemocrats much better off than under the existing system. Even so, in winning 44 seats,Labour would still secure just over half the seats despite winning less than half the vote.

There are two reasons. The first is the high threshold created by allocatingseats within regions rather than across the country as a whole. None of the minor partiesis strong enough to win a seat within any of the individual regions. Even in the largestconstituency, the South East, which would have 16 seats, a party would still need tosecure nearly 6 per cent of the vote to win one seat. None of the minor parties came closeto that, even if we assume that all of the anti-European candidates would have stood onthe same list.

In contrast, if the three component nations of Great Britain had each beentreated as a single constituency the result would be very different. With 71 seats to beallocated in a single English constituency, a party would need just 1.4 per cent of the voteto secure a MEP. Further small parties would be able to appeal for votes across the wholecountry with just a single slate of candidates rather than only in those constituencieswhere they could find candidates. But even ignoring the latter point, under this systemthe Greens would have had enough votes to secure two MEPs and an anti-European listone. Labour's tally would be down to just 39 seats, only two more than its strictentitlement based on share of the vote .

The second reason why this system would give Labour a majority of the seatsis that the d'Hondt method of allocating seats is more favourable in the way it operates tolarge parties than most other methods (Carstairs, 1980, Chap. 3). Repeated over elevenseparate regional constituencies, this feature means that Labour would be allocated up tosix more seats than it might receive under alternative methods.

The 1994 European election result thus not only shows that the first-past the-post system does not always behave as it is widely thought to, but neither also doproportional representation systems. Both advocates and critics of electoral reform tooreadily assume that proportional electoral systems necessarily ensure that a party can onlywin over half the seats if it manages to win over half the votes. Our calculation of whatwould have happened under the 1977 proposals shows that this is far from the case.Systems which use relatively small constituencies can produce significantlydisproportional results. In the context of the continuing debate within the Labour andLiberal Democrat parties about electoral reform, it is clear that the particular choice ofproportional system can matter.


22

Appendix 2 to this Paper updates this exercise, using 1997 general election data and theGovernment Offices of the Regions boundaries. The LSE's Public Policy more recentprojections as explained by Professor Dunleavy have suggested that Labour would gain39-42 MEPs, the Conservatives 28, Liberal Democrats 12, SNP 3 and Plaid Cymru 1, butthe turnout level would be a critical factor.32

Peter Riddell argued33 that although Labour had won 62 out of 84 seats (excludingNorthern Ireland) in 1994; it could expect to lose seats under FPTP in 1999 given thetraditional unpopularity of a mid term government. Moreover, a regional list systemwould give power to the party leadership, and help deal with recaltritant MEPs. HugoYoung34 also noted that regional list PR had potential to damage the Conservatives, sincea Eurosceptic leadership would have the opportunity not to select MEPs seen as toofavourable to European federalism, and these MEPs might as a result want to form a

32 European Information Service August 1998 'Counting on Europe'33 Times 17/7/97 "How Blair can benefit from process on PR"34 Guardian 17/7/97 "How to destroy the Conservative Party"


23

separate party. The Guardian35 reported concern by some in the Labour party about theproposals, in particular over the possibility of a closed list system, which was seen asthreatening the position of some MEPs. The Financial Times36 quoted a 'seniorGovernment official" as saying that a closed list system was very likely to be adopted.

The European Movement argued for a uniform electoral procedure, requiring all MemberStates to adopt regional lists, thus strengthening the decentralisation of the Union. Inparticular it advocates "parachage" (where each elector has a number of votes to distributebetween either one or several of the candidates).37

Lord Plant, with Michael Steed38 argued that the d'Hondt formula works to thedisadvantage of regional representation and that a combination of the Droop quota and thed'Hondt divisor would produce a fairer result as used in the 1996 elections to the NorthernIreland Forum.39 The authors also advocated using the boundaries of the ten Englishregional offices set up in April 1994. These regions differ in three respects from thestandard regions used in 1977/78: one is the special office for Merseyside set up for EUfunding purposes, the second is Cumbria now part of the North West for Governmentoffices, but joined to the North East for the standard Northern region. The third is EastAnglia, which forms part of a new Eastern region for Government offices (together withBedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire). The Labour policy document A New Voice forEngland's Regions (1996) proposed using the GOR boundaries for the proposed regionalchambers (p.7). Wales and Scotland, like Northern Ireland, would form one constituencyeach, although the authors advocate the retention of STV for Northern Ireland. Theauthors argued for a White Paper in the autumn of 1997 to establish options for theboundaries, to propose a choice of electoral systems between a list and STV (includingthe Australian Senate variant of discretionary STV) and in the case of lists, offer optionson the degree to which voters would be able to determine the list order of candidates.

F. Parliamentary Boundary Commissions

The PBCs are required by the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 to review theEuropean Parliament constituencies once an Order in Council has been made giving effectto a report on Westminster constituencies. The English PBC began on 16 February 1996and it published provisional recommendations in November 1996, realigning boundariesof EPCs to the new Westminster constituencies. 70 of the 71 existing EPCs containWestminster constituencies which are split between two or more EPCs. Under the 1978

35 13/10/97 "Blair faces poll revolt"36 16/10/97 "Closed list system likely for European vote"37 Electoral Reform of the European Parliament (1996) Andrew Duff38 PR for Europe Raymond Plant, Michael Steed Federal Trust 199739 This system works by filling as many seats as possible in five member constituencies by dividing the

total vote of the party by the quota and filling the rest of the seats on the basis of the highest averagevote. See Research Paper 96/52 "Northern Ireland: current political developments" for background


24

Act no Westminster constituency can be included partly in one EPC and partly in another,so a major redistribution was necessary. The English PBC uses regional boundaries forease of identification of potential areas for changes, but these are based on countyboundaries, and these regional boundaries can be crossed where necessary. The EnglishPBC suspended its work following the issue of provisional recommendations once itbecame clear that a Bill to introduce a regional list system would be introduced. TheWelsh PBC issued revised recommendations on 4 June 1997, and the review has nowbeen completed.40 The Scottish PBC has completed its review and the relevant Order inCouncil was made on 23 July 1996 following Parliamentary approval (SI no. 1926). If theBill has not received Royal Assent in time for the 1999 elections to be held under itsprovisions, it is expected that the English Boundary Commission would have enough timeto complete its review in time for new boundaries to be in place by May 1999. Thenecessary Orders would of course have to pass both Houses by May 1999, and someminor updating orders would be needed, such as for election expense limits.

G. Selection of candidates

All the parties reexamined their selection procedure for candidates to the EuropeanParliament to adapt to a new regional list system. For the 1994 elections the LiberalDemocrats used STV on a ballot of party members following an assessment procedureundertaken by the Scottish, Welsh and English parties centrally.41 The electorate forselection were the members of the Party in the European Parliament constituencyconcerned. The Labour Party selection procedure was based on that for Parliamentarycandidates, and the relevant local membership used Alternative Vote to select thecandidate. The National Executive Committee retained powers to modify the procedure42.The Conservative Party had a Standing Advisory Committee on European Candidateswhich assesses potential candidates, and voting by relevant local members was conductedthrough an exhaustive ballot. Local candidates could be added to the approved list by theChairman of the Euro Constituency Council.43

For the European Parliament, the Liberal Democrats have selected by balloting the partymembers of each of the new European regional constituencies using Single TransferableVote; each regional list was 'zipped' so that places went alternately to male and femalecandidates44 Party members voted both for the individual candidates and their ranking onthe list.45

40 Press Notice 19.12.97 Boundary Commission for Wales 'Supplementary Review of the EuropeanParliamentary Constituencies - Final Recommendations'

41 Constitution of the Liberal Democrats 1994 Article 11: Parliamentary Candidates42 Labour Party Rule Book (1996) Section 4 Selection of Parliamentary Candidates43 Notes on Procedure for the Selection and Adoption of Conservative Parliamentary Candidates in

England, Wales and Northern Ireland Conservative Central Office November 199444 Liberal Democrat News 30.1.98 "What Euro-PR means for us campaigners now"45 Liberal Democrat News 14.6.98 'Tory Defectors Triumph in Lib-Dem Euro Ballot' A list of candidates

is given in the press notice, available on the Liberal Democrat web site www.libdem.org.uk


25

The Conservatives allowed participation by individual party members, and details weregiven in its proposals for party reform The Fresh Future.46 A regional selection collegewas established comprising Westminster constituency chairmen and regionalrepresentatives which vetted potential candidates; party members within each region areselecting candidates and ranking them in a list, following a series of rolling final selectionmeetings. There was no postal ballot of members. There have been press reports of poorattendance at these meetings. Names of candidates chosen can be found at theConservative Party website.47

Labour proposed48 that each Westminster constituency would be able to nominate onemale and one female candidate and these would be voted upon by one member one voteacross the electoral region so that two candidates are chosen, one of each sex. Thesenominees would be included in a one member one vote ballot within the existing Euro-constituency, with special arrangements for including sitting MEPs. The Euroconstituency party then makes 2-3 nominations to the pool of candidates, dependent onwhether an existing MEP is seeking reselection. At least one of the nominees is a woman.Shortlisting then takes place at a regional level by a joint regional/national panel whichselects and ranks the list. Part of the reasoning behind the proposals was to enable sittingMEPs some priority in the selection process. It is unclear how much of a base eachcandidate will have individual regions under these proposals. The full candidates list waspublished at the annual Labour Party conference.

There were some complaints that popular candidates has been given positions too lowdown in the list and it was evident during the protracted debates on the 1997-8 Bill that anumber of backbench Labour MPs had had concerns about some of the results of theprocess. In particular the selection of a candidate from England as no 3 in the Welsh listover a Welsh MEP, Joe Wilson, was commented upon in the debates.49 The movement ofGlyn Ford MEP from Manchester to no 1 of the Southwest list was also noted. MartinLinton, a Labour backbencher, acknowledged: 'the system offers the Labour party moreseats in the southwest, but fewer in the northwest. There was a temptation to manage theprocess so that we did not end up with too many of our people representing seats in thenorthwest and too few in the southwest.'50 One sitting MEP, Christine Oddy isconsidering legal action following her selection in what she considers an unwinnableposition on the list51.

46 17.2.9847 www.conservative-party.org.uk48 Labour in Europe 1999 Labour party consultation paper 199749 HC Deb vol 319 10.11.98 c 228 speech by Dr John Marek50 HC Deb vol 319 16.11.98 c69351 BBC News website 9.11.98 'Euro MEP threatens legal action'


26

An assessment by a parliamentary lobbyist suggested that the need to select more womenand ethnic minorities 'clearly played a part in forcing incumbents down regional lists, forexample in London' and concluded that although 12 out of the 49 MEPs who are standingagain have been placed in difficult positions, 'all but 6 of the 43 well-placed candidatesare sitting MEPs who cannot be simplistically categorised [as new Labour]. Thereforethe party's candidate selections showed only a gentle shift to New Labour'.52 Thisassessment also considered that the Conservatives selection did not see the purge of'Europhiles' that some had expected.

52 The Public Affairs Newsletter November 1998 The author was Neil Stockley


27

II The European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Bill 65of 1997-98)

The Bill introduced in this session has provisions identical to those in the Bill of the1997-8 session (as required for the Parliament Acts procedure to be used). There wereonly minor drafting amendments during its passage, apart from an amendment enablingregulations on the limitation of election expenses on a national basis.53 This sectiontherefore alsoacts as a guide to the current Bill and has been updated at appropriateintervals.

This Bill had its first reading on 29 October 1997. In a press notice announcing the Bill54,Jack Straw said:

PR FOR EURO ELECTIONS '99 ANNOUNCED BY JACK STRAW

The Bill paving the way for the 1999 elections to the European Parliament to be run onthe regional list form of proportional representation is published today.

Announcing the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, Home Secretary Jack Straw said:

'We made a manifesto commitment to introduce PR for European electionsand today we are honouring that pledge.

'In June 1999, the electorate in Britain will, for the first time, have theopportunity to vote for their Member of the European Parliament through a system of PR.

'It is a simple, straightforward system which accommodates independentcandidates and allows the public to vote for particular political parties. It still asks theelector to put a single cross on the ballot paper.

'The relationship between Members of the European Parliament and theirconstituents is by its nature different to the closer ties expected of a Westminster MP.

'I believe the system we have chosen appropriately suits the role and workof the MEP and I am pleased to be bringing forward this important Bill.'

The total number of MEPs in the UK would remain the same at 87, (71 England, 8Scotland, 5 Wales, 3 Northern Ireland). However European Parliament constituencies ascurrently known would cease to exist, except in Northern Ireland which will retain itsSTV voting system. Instead Scotland and Wales would form one single electoral regioneach and MEPs for these electoral regions would no longer have territorial constituencies,but represent the electoral region as a whole. England would be divided into nine regionsbased on the current Government Offices for the Regions, except for combining

53 HC Deb vol 307 5.3.98 c1244 Commons committee stage54 Home Office Press Release 29.10.97 "PR for Euro elections '99 announced by Jack Straw"


28

Merseyside and the North West. Between 6 and 11 MEPs would be returned for eachEnglish region, dependent on the electorate of the region. There would no longer be arole for the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions which are at present responsible forredistributing EP constituencies, following reviews of Parliamentary constituencies.Instead the Home Secretary would consider the number of registered electors in the yearpreceding the next EP election and make amendments in the number of MEPs for eachregion to ensure that the ratio of registered electors to MEPs is as nearly as possible thesame for every electoral region in England55. Thus the areas of the regions would not beunder review and there would seem to be no need for the type of redistribution carried outby the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.

The MEPs for each region would be elected by a regional list system, without an openballot. A voter could choose either a party or an individual candidate, and it would be theresponsibility of the party to submit a list of ordered candidates. The allocation of seatswould be decided by the d'Hondt formula56, generally considered to favour larger parties.The Home Office press release of 29 October1997 noted that the new system would besimilar to the ones used in France, Germany, Greece, Portugal and Spain for EP elections.All of these states have closed ballots where voters cannot change the order of candidatessubmitted by a party.

A. The Bill in Detail

Clause One amends the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 by substituting forsections 1 to 3 of that Act new sections 1 to 3D which set out the basis for the newelectoral regions and the regional list system. New section 3 is as follows:

3.-(1) The system of election in an electoral region in Great Britain shall be aregional list system complying with the following conditions.

(2) A vote may be cast for a registered party, or an individual candidate,named on the ballot paper.

(3) The first seat shall be allocated to the Party or individual candidate withthe greatest number of votes.

(4) The second and subsequent seats shall be allocated in the same way,except that the number of votes given to a party to which one or more seats have alreadybeen allocated shall be divided by the number of seats allocated plus one.(5) in allocating the second or any subsequent ~ there shall be disregardedany votes given to-

55 There is no provision in the Bill to make adjustments to the number of MEPs for Scotland, Wales, orNorthern Ireland

56 See Research Paper 98/80 Voting Systems: the Government's Proposals for an exemplification


29

(a)a party to which there has already been allocated a number of seatsequal to the number of names on the party's list of candidates, and

(b)an individual candidate to whom a seat has already been allocated.

(6) Seats allocated to a party shall be filled by the persons named on theparty's list of candidates in the order in which they appear on that list.

(7) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) fractions shall be taken intoaccount.

(8) In this section-

(a)"registered party" means a party registered under any enactmentproviding for the registration of political parties;

(b) a reference to a party's "list of candidates" is a reference to the listsubmitted in accordance with regulations made as required by paragraph 2(3B) ofSchedule 1.

The d'Hondt system used aims to allocate each seat to the party which would at that pointhave the highest average vote per seat. The total votes of each party are divided by thenumber of seats it already has plus the next seat to be allocated. Thus the party totals aredivided first by 1 [0 seats plus 1] then by 2 [ie 1 seat plus 1] then by 3 [2 seats plus 1] etc.The first seat goes to the party with the largest number in the table below the next seat to thenext highest number etc.

In a 4 seat electoral region where Party A has won 430,000 votes, Party B 370,000 and PartyC 200,000 the allocation would be as follows (the number of brackets indicate the order ofallocation of the four seats):

Party A Party B Party C

No. of votes cast 430,000 370,000 200,000Divide by 1 430,000 (1) 370,000 (2) 200,000 (4)Divide by 2 215,000 (3) 185,000 100,000Divide by 3 143,333 123,333 66,666

Party A had the largest number of votes and gained the first seat. The second seat isawarded again to the party with the largest vote and at this stage the other parties still havetheir total votes, whereas Party A's vote is divided by 2, having already won a seat. Party Cwins a seat when Party B's vote is divided, having won seats already.

The Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations) Etc Act 1996 was the first Act to allowelectors in the UK to vote for political parties rather than candidates. The need forregistration was avoided by using a system of nominating representatives to act for eachpolitical party. The elections were a unique event, and there are no plans to use this


30

voting system again. A more permanent system of registration would be required for usethroughout the United Kingdom.57

Under the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations) etc Act 1996 each elector had onevote cast for a party named on the ballot paper for the relevant Parliamentaryconstituency. The ballot paper showed the names of the candidates of each partysubmitting a constituency list. Five delegates were elected from each of the eighteenconstituencies under a party list system using the Droop quota, followed by d'Hondt forany unallocated seats. Then the ten parties with the largest number of votes across theprovince were allocated two delegates each on a simple First Past The Post system. In hisstatement on 21 March 199658 the then Prime Minister, John Major, noted that theGovernment had had to come forward with their own proposals for a system of electionsto the Forum, given the failure of the Northern Ireland political parties to agree on onesystem. At Second Reading of the Bill Sir Patrick Mayhew, then Secretary of State forNorthern Ireland, said: ' I know that the electoral system proposed in the Bill was not thefirst choice of any party, but, as the Prime Minister explained, none of the systems putforward by the different parties had the support of major parties representing each of themain communities.'59

Schedule 2 sets out the new electoral regions (see below). A press pack issued by theHome Office on 29 October 1997 contained a sample ballot paper listing names ofcandidates for a particular party, and the Government are committed to having the namesof candidates appearing on the paper. The Press Pack also proposed that deposits wouldbe set at £5,000 for each list of candidates, to be forfeit if the party received less than 2.5per cent of the vote.60 There is nothing in the face of the Bill at present which specifiesthe deposit; This will be dealt with by subordinate legislation, as will a new system ofcontrolling election expenses which is at present dependent on individual agents andcandidates. The Neill Committee report61 on the funding of political parties in the UnitedKingdom recommended a national limit of £3.5m per party for the 1999 elections, withno separate regional or individual candidate limit. Presumably, Northern Ireland willcontinue with limits on an individual candidate basis, but this was not commented uponby Neill. The Bill was amended at Commons committee stage to allow for regulations togovern 'expenses incurred in relation to the general election as a whole'.62

The STV system for Northern Ireland is preserved. New section 3C sets out the franchise,which is based on the Parliamentary franchise (therefore including overseas voters) plus

57 for a detailed examination of the Northern Ireland Forum elections see Research Paper 96/52 NorthernIreland: Current Political Developments

58 HC Deb vol 274 21.3.96 c49759 HC Deb vol 275 18.4..96 c86060 the equivalent for Westminster is £500 and 5 per cent. An individual candidate would be expected to

provide a £5,000 deposit61 Cm 4057 The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom October 199862 HC Deb vol 307 5.3.98c1243. See Schedule 2, para 6


31

peers and nationals of other EU states who have chosen to include themselves on theregister for the EP elections.63 No changes are therefore planned for the electorate forEuropean Parliament elections. As in the 1978 Act, the Home Secretary sets the date ofthe election by order under new section 3D. The names of the candidates will appear onthe ballot paper; this was most recently confirmed at Lords Report Stage.64 The HomeOffice has commissioned research on the form of the ballot papers to be used for theEuropean Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh National Assembly and GreaterLondon Authority which should be published in January 1999.65

Clauses Two and Three substitute new Schedules to the 1978 Act. Schedule 2 to theBill provides in para 6 for regulations to make provision for the limitation of candidates 'and parties' election expenses, and in para 3B, for the nomination of registered parties,"including provision requiring a nomination to be accompanied by a list of candidatesnumbering no more than the MEPs to be elected for that region". Para 8 provides forregulations to determine the holding of by-elections; these will be held in certaincircumstances, probably when an individual was the previous incumbent of the seat,rather than a party or where the end of the party's list had been reached. It appears thatthe regulations will otherwise require the vacancy to be filled from the next eligible66

candidate on the relevant party list at the last EP election, as is the normal procedure forregional list systems abroad. There would be no provision for the list to be alteredbetween elections, so there is the possibility that the candidates on the list would be nolonger eligible to stand. According to a Parliamentary Answer67 regulations will be madeto require the Regional Returning Officer to find the first eligible and willing candidate;under the Registration of Political Parties Act the nominating officer of each registeredparty will have to signify that the candidate remains an approved candidate. Theseregulations have not yet been published. The Bill as currently drafted provides for theregulations on by-elections to be laid before Parliament after having been made, but doesnot require the regulations to be debated and/or approved by Parliament. The regulationsfor by-elections under the 1978 Act currently do not require Parliamentary approval, butthose regulations simply dealt with the date of the election.68

Schedule 1 to the Bill sets out in a table the electoral regions and the number of MEPs ineach English region.

63 See Research Paper no. 94/23 Votes and Seats for European Parliamentary Elections for backgroundon EU electors

64 HL Deb vol 593 12.10.98 c 73765 HC Deb vol 315 6.7.98 c 346W66 the candidate will need to meet the requirements of electoral law, in terms of age, citizenship etc67 HC Deb vol 313 8.6.98c 436W68 Schedule 1, para 3 (5)


32

TABLE

(1)Name of region

(2)Countries, &c. included

(3)Number of MEPs

East Midlands County of DerbyshireCounty of DerbyCounty of LeicesterCounty of LeicestershireCounty of LincolnshireCounty of NorthamptonshireCounty of NottinghamshireCounty of NottinghamCounty of Rutland

6

Eastern County of BedfordshireCounty of CambridgeshireCounty of EssexCounty of HertfordshireCounty of LutonCounty of NorfolkCounty of PeterboroughCounty of Southend-on-SeaCounty of SuffolkCounty of Thurrock

8

London The administrative area ofGreater London

10

North East County of DarlingtonCounty of DurhamCounty of HartlepoolCounty of MiddlesbroughCounty of NorthumberlandCounty of Redcar andClevelandCounty of Stockton-on-TeesCounty of Tyne and Wear

4

North West County of Blackburnwith DarwenCounty of BlackpoolCounty of CheshireCounty of CumbriaCounty of Greater ManchesterCounty of HaltonCounty of LancashireCounty of MerseysideCounty of Warrington

10


33

(1)Name of region


(3)Number of MEPs

South East County of BerkshireCounty of Brighton and HoveCounty of BuckinghamshireCounty of East SussexCounty of HampshireCounty of Isle of WightCounty of KentCounty of the Medway TownsCounty of Milton KeynesCounty of OxfordshireCounty of PortsmouthCounty of SouthamptonCounty of SurreyCounty of West Sussex

11

South West County of Bath and North East SomersetCounty of BournemouthCounty of the City of BristolCounty of CornwallCounty of DevonCounty of DorsetCounty of GloucestershireCounty of North SomersetCounty of PlymouthCounty of PooleCounty of SomersetCounty of SouthGloucestershireCounty of TorbayCounty of SwindonCounty of WiltshireIsles of Scilly

7

West Midlands County of HerefordshireCounty of StaffordshireCounty of Stoke-on-TrentCounty of ShropshireCounty of WarwickshireCounty of West MidlandsCounty of Telford and WrekinCounty of Worcestershire

8


34

(1)Name of region


(3)Number of MEPs

Yorkshire & The Humber

County of the City of Kingstonupon HullCounty of the East Riding ofYorkshireCounty of North EastLincolnshireCounty of North LincolnshireCounty of North YorkshireCounty of South YorkshireCounty of West YorkshireCounty of York

7

Schedule 1(7) provides that alterations in the Table are to be made by statutoryinstrument, subject to the negative procedure.

The new local government boundaries are not crossed but the Government Offices for theRegions areas do intersect both the boundaries of the current European Parliamentaryconstituencies and the proposed constituencies outlined by the Parliamentary BoundaryCommission for England in its present review 69. The Government Offices for the Regionswere established in 1994 to integrate the regional operations of four departments,Environment, Trade and Industry, Employment (now Education and Employment) andTransport. From April 1997 the Government Statistical Service has adopted these GORsfor the standard presentation of regional statistics for England. Although Merseyside hasa separate Government Regional Office, it is often shown as part of the North West andMerseyside region for statistical purposes.70

Constituencies will no longer exist in the form currently known, as MEPs would beelected for a region. However the EP constituencies will live on as regional electoralareas in Scotland and Wales, as the Additional Member System for the ScottishParliament and Welsh Assembly uses the current EPCs to define the areas from which theadditional members would be elected.

Clause 4 provides for expenses relating to the Bill. The Explanatory and FinancialMemorandum to the Bill notes that it would cost in the region of £4m to train thoseresponsible for the operation of the new electoral system and this would be met from theConsolidated Fund. However, according to the Memorandum,"there will be savings in thelonger term because the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and

69 see above p.21 for progress on this review. See map for the intersecting of boundaries70 Research Paper 97/67 The New Statistical Regions describes the new areas and provides statistical

comparison between them.. It contains maps indicating the regions and the new local government areascomprised within them.


35

Wales will not longer be required to review the boundaries of European Parliamentaryconstituencies". A rough estimate for the cost of each of these reviews would be £1m forEngland and up to £1/2 million for Scotland and Wales respectively71

Clause 5 provides for the Act to come into force on such day as the Secretary of Statemay appoint. The next elections are due in June 1999, but there is considerablepreparatory work to be completed before then on the necessary secondary legislation andin training relevant staff, as well as for political parties unused to operating a regional listsystem. The Home Office have suggested that mid January is the deadline for RoyalAssent, in order for the administration of the elections to be set in place by 10 June 1999.A background note to the Queen's speech by the Home Office stated: 'To hold the June1999 European Elections under proportional representation, the Bill would have to havereceived Royal Assent by mid-January. This is to enable the training of 100,000 people,including returning officers, who are employed to run the election. Detailed secondarylegislation covering the conduct of the election is also needed --which must be consideredby Parliament before it can put it into place.'

B. Initial Reactions to the 1997-8 bill

The Liberal Democrats welcomed the Bill's timing, which should ensure that a PR systemis in place for the 1999 elections, but Alan Beith, Liberal Democrat Home Affairsspokesman said" we would like to see voters given an opportunity to vote on the order ofnames on the party lists. We also believe that the details of the counting system will needto be changed in order to achieve genuine proportionality."72 Writing in the NewStatesman Robert Maclennan expressed concern about the use of the d'Hondt quota, aspresenting a "significant cumulative bias against the smaller parties" when counting wasdone on a regional basis. Richard Burden, chair of the Labour Campaign for ElectoralReform ,commented in a letter to the Guardian73 that while welcoming regional lists "westill need to make decisions about how parties give their members a real say in theselection of candidates" Gerry Bermingham, representing Labour's First Past the Postgroup,. was quoted74 as saying before the publication of the Bill 'Many MPs are concernedabout the loss of constituency identity by going for a regional list of candidates. In myown region in the North -west, it is bound to lead to the Tories regaining a foothold'.75

Hugh Kerr, one of the MEPs criticised for speaking out, has commented that the Bill willnot produce a proportional result since the regions are allocated differing numbers ofseats, and so in the North East Liberal Democrats would need 20 per cent of the vote togain one of the four seats, whereas in the South-East only nine per cent was necessary.76

71 information from the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England72 Press Release 29.10.97 "No obstruction of Fair Votes for Europe insists Beith"73 Guardian 15.10.97 "New Labour New Vote"74 Guardian 13.10.97 "Blair faces poll revolt"75 Financial Times 30.10.97 "Government plans closed list voting system for European elections"

New Statesman 14/11/97 "Bad news for PR".


36

James Clappison, Conservative Home Affairs spokesman, was quoted as saying that"Instead of MEPS being accountable to the people who elected them, they will beanswerable, in the Labour party, to Peter Mandelson"77 Brian Cassidy, ConservativeMEP for Dorset and East Devon has argued that in other Member States, MEPs electedby the list system are dependent on party patronage.78 The Financial Times quoted theConservative MEP Graham Mather as stating that "this mechanism will allow[Conservative] Central Office to rein in enthusiastic pro-Europeans"

Charter 88 welcomed the introduction of nationwide PR for the 1999 EuropeanParliament elections, but regretted the use of closed lists. The Press Notice stated "Wehope that the government will look at amending the Bill so that voters can choosebetween candidates and not for a list decided by party HQ. It is also vital that all partiesannounce soon that they will select those candidates as democratically as possible."79 TheElectoral Reform Society said that the proposal to introduce closed lists for Great Britainwhile retaining STV for Northern Ireland was "illogical and incomprehensible"80 and that"if the Government is now proposing a system which puts the choice of candidates in thehands of party apparatchites rather than the voters we need to know why".

III Open v Closed Lists

A. Background

Five countries in the EU use closed lists for elections to the European Parliament81:France, Germany Greece, Portugal, Spain. All of these are national lists where largenumbers of candidates are elected. The Government has proposed a closed list organisedon a regional basis apart from Northern Ireland which will remain with STV. Theindependent Constitution Unit have argued that under a national list disaffected factionscould have run as splinter parties with some electoral success. The use of relatively smallregions tends to assist larger rather than smaller parties in the allocation of seats.

Six countries have lists where the candidates are ordered by the parties: Austria, BelgiumDenmark, Italy, Netherlands and Sweden. In other states - Luxembourg, Finland, Italycandidate lists are unordered and are usually alphabetical. The UK would have adoptedthe Finnish model in its proposals for a list system for the European Parliament in 1977/8but in the event the Commons voted for First Past the Post. (see above)

77 Guardian 30.10.97 "Straw faces row over closed ballot system"78 House Magazine 4/8/97 "The first step towards PR for Westminster?"79 Charter 88 Press Release "Euro Vote PR Welcomed"80 ERS Press Release 3/11/97 "Electoral Reform Society slams voting plans for Europe"81 EU states do not necessarily use the same system in their domestic elections


37

Another variant is the number of votes an elector is allowed. The most open system is inLuxembourg where the voter can have 6 votes, the total number of seats available, to votefor individual candidates across party lines. In systems with more ordered lists such as theBelgian one electors commonly have one vote which they can either use to endorse aparticular party or to select an individual candidate. Finally the way in which votes arecounted is crucial. In Austria, Belgium, Netherlands and Sweden preference votes forcandidates are supplemented by party votes since the latter are seen as endorsements ofthe order of the list. That is, candidates at the top of the party list receive all the votescast for a party. It is therefore harder for an individual voter to affect the overall outcome.

The independent Constitution Unit82 found that in countries where the lists are ordered,with party votes being allocated to candidates at the top of the list, the impact wasminimal. It instanced the 1989 European elections in Belgium, where preferential votingled to only one candidate from the Socialist Party's list being elected prior to othercandidates placed above him in the party list:

The use and impact of preference voting

This section considers the prevalence of preferential voting and the impact that it has onthe election of particular candidates.

The practice of voting for a particular candidate, as opposed to a vote for a party list,varies widely in European Parliament elections in other European countries. Theincidence of preference voting in four countries in the 1989 European Parliamentelections is shown in Exhibit 3.

The impact of preferential voting is similarly mixed. In countries where party lists areunordered, and where seats are allocated to candidates solely on the number of personalvotes they attract - Finland and Luxembourg - preferential voting is the sole determinantof who gets elected (party votes are translated into a single vote for each of the candidateson the list in Luxembourg). Although lists are ordered by the parties in Denmark andItaly, this has no relevance when seats are allocated to candidates, since only preferencevotes are counted. As a result, candidates are

82 Elections under Regional Lists: a guide to the new system for electing MEPs January 1998


38

Exhibit 3 – Preferential voting in the 1989 European Parliament elections inselected countries

Denmark 68%Belgium 50%Sweden(1995) 50%Luxembourg 40%Netherlands 20%

Figures are percentages of total votes castSources: Europe Votes 3, Tom Mackie (ed), 1990; Constitution Unit survey results

frequently elected out of list order: in the 1989 European Parliament elections, forexample, 7 of the 16 MEPs elected in Denmark were elected out of order.

But in countries where lists are ordered, with party votes being allocated to candidates atthe head of the list, the impact of preference votes is minimal. In the EuropeanParliament elections of 1989, preferential voting in the Netherlands did not lead to thereordering of any party's list (ie all the candidates were elected in the order in which theyappeared on each party's list). In Belgium, preferential voting led to only one candidate -from the Socialist Party's (PS) list - being elected prior to other candidates placed abovehim on the PS's list. Preferential voting in the European Parliament elections in 1984 and1979 in Belgium and the Netherlands was similarly ineffective, with only two candidatesbeing elected out of order from the 49 MEPs for both countries at each election .

Why does preferential voting not lead to greater reordering of the party lists when itcomes to allocating seats? The main reasons are:

many preference votes are cast for the candidates at the top of the list, rather than thosefurther down the order. This obviously reinforces, rather than upsets, the list order.About 90% of preference votes in Italian national elections to the Chamber of Deputiesare for the first candidate on the list. In the 1994 Austrian national elections, one quarterof voters made use of their preference votes, and 16 candidates received more than therequired one sixth of votes to be elected without recourse to party votes; but all 16 werealready placed at the top of their party's list.

preference votes for figures lower on the list are scattered between candidates, so that nosingle candidate receives sufficient preference votes to be elected

there may be thresholds which a candidate relying on preference votes must exceed ifhe/she is to be elected. Until recently, candidates in the Netherlands had to attract 50% ofthe electoral quotient (the number of votes received by their party divided by the numberof seats allocated to it) to be elected. Such a high figure effectively prevented candidateswith a low list position from being elected. In an attempt to strengthen the link betweenvoters' preferences and the election of candidates, it was decided in 1994 to lower the


39

threshold needed to gain a seat to 25% of the electoral quotient; this will take effect from1998.

An open list system in the UK would theoretically allow electors to choose whichcandidates are elected from within a party list. Analysis of the situation in those EUcountries operating an open list system most like that which might be chosen for the UKsuggests, however, that preferential voting has a minimal impact.

The likely impact of this will be to focus greater attention on the parties' candidateselection procedures: which candidates are chosen and in what order? The likely impactof preference votes will act as a constraint on the parties, should they wish to includeunpopular candidates on their list, or to give a low list ranking to popular candidates (seesection on 'Candidate selection by the parties' on page 8).

Key issues for the selection of candidates are the consultation of party members, themechanism for ranking candidates, and measures to promote the selection of women orethnic minority candidates. The Constitution Unit found that most parties in EU countriesfall between wholly centralised systems as in France where it is determined by the party'scentral executive, and wholly decentralised systems as in the Austrian People's Partywhere candidates are chosen through primaries which include both party and non partymembers. In most countries candidates list are drawn up by the local and/or regionalmeetings of party members and submitted to national executive bodies for approval InFinland the selection procedure is subject to statutory regulation under the ParliamentaryElections Act 1969, which stipulates that party members must have a vote in candidateselection. The Constitution Unit document83 summarises this legislation as follows :

• a decision on how many party candidates to put forward is taken by the constituencyexecutive

• primaries are to be held where the number of candidates put forward exceeds the number of constituency seats (in practice, this rarely occurs)

• the nomination of candidates is by district level party branches• the national executive has the power to appoint up to one quarter of candidates to

the final list

Primaries are rarely held, and candidates are usually nominated by groups of partymembers and local executive bodies, rather than individual members. Nominations arethen put to the parties’ national executives for a final decision on which candidatesshould appear on the list.

Proponents of open or ordered lists argue that the fact that the use of open lists does notnecessarily affect the outcome does not negate the principle that voters ought to have theopportunity to register individual choice. In addition, parties may modify their lists toreduce the likelihood of voters choosing individual candidates rather than parties. The

83 Elections under Regional Lists: a guide to the new system for electing MPs January 1998


40

creation of MEPS arguably more beholden to their party than the electorate has continuedto attract criticism.84 Developments in New Zealand, where an additional memberselected from a party list subsequently resigned from the party to become an independenthas highlighted the problems with the lack of by-elections in list-type elections.85

The Government have argued that electors have very little personal knowledge of theirexisting MEPs and that voting is on party lines. As Mr Straw noted during theconsideration of Lords amendments: 'Many - indeed most- electors will have noknowledge of any of the candidates standing in their region. The names of the candidateson the Conservative party regional list may well mean nothing to a Conservativesupporter. Under an open list system, he would be obliged to make his choice fromamong those candidates. He could not simply cast his vote for the Conservative party ashe would probably prefer.'86 He also argued that even under the fully open Finnishsystem, candidates could be elected with fewer votes than candidates of other parties withlarger personal votes. This because under the Finnish system the total number of votescast for a party is counted first, by totalling the number of votes cast for candidates of thatpart; once a party has won a certain number of seats according to the quota, these aredistributed amongst its candidate, the candidate with the highest number of votes gainingthe first seat and so on. There may be difficulties where one party has an extremelypopular candidate as instanced by the Home Secretary:

'Under the open list system a party's total vote is the sum of the votes cast for itsindividual candidates. It may well happen that the total vote of one party - as Iwish to be neutral I will call it Party A- is high, but that is due almost exclusivelyto the popularity of the first candidate on its list. Another party - Party B- mayhave a smaller total vote, but that vote is almost evenly spread among all thecandidates on its list. Each Party B candidate could poll more votes than all butone of the candidates on Party A's list, but Party A would have moreseats…Therefore, the second most popular candidate on Party A's list will win aseat even though he or she polled fewer votes than all the candidates on Party B'slist who are not then elected.'87

84 European Journal November 1997 "1999 Euro Elections"85 New Zealand Press 21.10.97 and Sunday Star Times 12.10.9786 HC Deb vol 319 10.11.98 c 21287 c 209


41

Other commentators have noted that the open list system might cause problems for aparty divided on Europe, since pro and anti candidates could canvass separately for theirelection. 88 There have also been concerns expressed by the Home Secretary and othersthat ethnic minority and female candidates might be disadvantaged, citing evidence fromlocal elections that minority candidates received fewer votes than their colleagues in thesame party.89

B. The debates on the 1997-8 bill

During the Second Reading debate concerns were expressed about the decision to useclosed lists, rather than open list systems used by Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland,Luxembourg, Italy, Netherlands and Sweden, as well as the opportunity to votepreferentially under STV in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A Labour MP,Tony Wright, suggested that there be a free vote on the type of PR system to beintroduced. The Home Secretary, Jack Straw, said that he was prepared to listen to thearguments presented by the Liberal Democrats and Charter 88 for adopting a Belgiumtype system of open ordered list However he noted that the electoral regions would bevery large and individual candidates were unlikely to be known by more than a smallfraction of the electorate.90 A final decision on open lists was announced at Report stage.(see below)

At Second Reading the Home Secretary emphasised his general opposition toproportional representation as a method of electing governments. He drew attention to thedifferent nature of the European Parliament as a representative body with weakconstituency links.91 He also defended the use of the d'Hondt formula, in contrast to StLague (1,3,5,7) or modified St Lague (1.4,3,5,7) as not necessarily less proportional ineffect. (c 811-20). Sir Brian Mawhinney, for the Opposition, argued that the newelectoral system would be significantly worse than the old, in terms of severing the linkbetween constituent and individual MEP. He also deplored the fact that voters would bedenied the right to vote for individual candidates. Alan Beith for the Liberal Democrats,welcomed the Bill but called for an open list system. Following the debate Professor IainMcLean pointed out to the Home Office that Mr Straw had based his comments on theoperation of the d'Hondt and St Lague formulas on incorrect calculations. This has beenacknowledged by the Home Office.92 The use of St Lague rather than d'Hondt would

88 see Lord Bethell's letter to Daily Telegraph 16.11.98 pointing out the dangers to the Conservative party89 see Peter Riddell Times 17.11.98 and comments by Professor Patrick Dunleavy in Counting on Europe

(1998) that in STV simulations at the 1997 general election Conservative voters were more keen on menthan women and in many regions voters of all parties tended to avoid candidates with recognisableethnic names in favour of those with more British-sounding names. (p 24)

90 HC Deb vol 301 25.11.97 Mr Straw deposited in the Library a description of the operation of theBelgian electoral system Dep 3/5596

91 HC Deb vol 301 25.11.97 c 80492 HC Deb vol 304 20.1.98 c 516W


42

appear to make the result of the election more proportional in Wales in particular, with afour party system within a small five seat region.

Professor Patrick Dunleavy published a paper with the results of a sample survey on twotypes of ballot papers for open and closed lists. He found that both forms of ballot paperswere liked by two thirds of respondents, and neither ballot paper was seen as complex andoff-putting. On the open list ballot two out of five voters surveyed chose to supportindividual candidates rather than vote for a party. If a closed list system were to beadopted most people believed that a secret ballot of party members in each region was thebest option for ordering the list.93 In the publication Counting on Europe94 however,Professor Dunleavy noted survey evidence that British voters did not like complicatedballot papers with multiple names and tick boxes, and strongly preferred simple shortballot papers. (p18)

The Home Office commissioned a study of voter opinion from National Opinion Pollswhich has been placed in the Library.95 This found that voters had a very low awarenessof European election procedures at present, and examined various aspects of the closedlist or Belgian system, finding both that voters appreciated the Belgian variant, but werelikely to express a negative reaction if the consequences of the counting procedures werenot explained, that is, that party list candidates were most likely to be elected due to theweight of party votes. However the Liberal Democrats argued that the survey revealedsupport for open lists.96

No decision on whether to adopt the Belgian system was announced at Commonscommittee stage, because the Home Secretary was awaiting the results of the NOPsurvey. The issue of open lists was discussed, however, and a Labour MP, StephenTwigg, noted that there was substantial support on Government benches for the adoptionof an open list on the Belgian model.97 For the Conservatives, James Clappisoncondemned closed lists as undemocratic (c526). A New Clause, requiring an independentreview of the electoral system following the 1999 elections was also tabled by theConservatives. (NC1).

93 Open or Closed List Voting for the European Parliament Elections 1999: State of the Nation ReportProfessor Dunleavy, Dr Helen Margetts and Stuart Weir February 1998

94 Professor Patrick Dunleavy, Dr Simon Hix and Dr Helen Margetts February199895 Attitudes to Euro-Elections and Electoral Reform Dep 6226 March 199896 Liberal Democrat News 3.3.98 "Public support for open lists should guarantee government support97 HC Deb vol 307 26.2.98 c543


43

Jack Straw announced on 9 March that he had concluded against adopting the Belgiansystem:98

European Parliament

Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department ifhe will make a statement on the electoral system for elections to the European Parliament.

Mr. Straw: It is fundamentally important that any voting system isappropriate to the nature and functions of the body which is being elected. On SecondReading of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill on 25 November 1997, OfficialReport, column 803, 1 stated that the Government believed the regional list system set outin the Bill to be the most appropriate system for elections to the European Parliament inGreat Britain. Under such a system, an elector may cast his vote in one of two ways-for aparty list or for an independent candidate. However, having received separaterepresentations from the Liberal Democrats and Charter 88, I undertook to listen to thearguments for adopting a system similar to that which operates in Belgium, whereby anelector may cast his vote in one of three ways-for a party list, for an individual candidateon a party list or for an independent candidate.

I have studied the matter very carefully. As part of the considerationprocess, I commissioned a study of voter opinion by National Opinion Polls, the results ofwhich have been placed in the Library.

I have concluded that there is no advantage in adopting in Great Britain asystem of the kind used in Belgium.

The type of system which is in use in Belgium has some superficialattractions. An elector may express a preference for a particular candidate, rather thansimply endorsing all the candidates on a party's list. However, the system suffers from afundamental and incurable weakness, in that voters' preferences for individual candidatesare not necessarily translated into electoral success.

I am placing in the Library some numerical examples to illustrate howthe system works in practice. These indicate that even where votes for individualcandidates amount to as much as 40 per cent. of a party's total vote, those candidatesreceiving the fewest individual votes can be elected while those receiving the most arenot. I believe that such an outcome could lead to substantial disillusionment among theelectorate following an election.

The overwhelming majority of citizens in the European Union elect theirMembers of the European Parliament using a system of the kind for which the Billcurrently provides. This seems to me to be the most suitable one to use in a situationwhere (as the National Opinion Poll study demonstrated) most people vote for partiesrather than individuals.

The Government are committed to fulfilling their manifesto promise toput in place a proportional voting system for elections to the European Parliament. I

98 HC Deb vol 308 9.3.98 c 17-8W


44

remain convinced that the simple regional list system in the European ParliamentaryElections Bill is the most appropriate way of delivering that commitment.

The Electoral Reform Society commented that this would be the first election in GreatBritain where voters would be deprived of the right to vote for an individual candidate.99

Charter 88's Parliamentary briefing publication Central Lobby stated that the decision had'come as a surprise to those following the debate. All contact with the Government gavethe impression that adopting the open list was a formality. This included Labour MEPswho were collectively briefed two days before the announcement that the new systemwould indeed include open lists. The swiftness of the reversal and the lack of aconvincing explanation for the decision has led many to believe that it was taken by TonyBlair rather than Jack Straw.'100

The announcement was criticised during Report stage of the Bill. James Clappison forthe Conservatives argued that the decision to reject the open list was not supported byobjective evidence.(c765-69) He proposed new clause 4 to establish an independentreview of the electoral system after the 1999 elections. Robert Maclennan, for the LiberalDemocrats said that the small size of the regions to be used in the UK militated againstthe use of closed lists:101

The Home Secretary also says in his written answer that the system in theBill is used by the majority of European Union citizens to elect MEPS. It is true thatclosed lists are used in Germany, France, Spain, Greece and Portugal, but in all thosecountries the regions used are far larger than in the United Kingdom, and have at least 25Members-it is up to 99 members in Germany.

The system in the Bill provides for between four and 11 Members perregion. A closed list system might be more appropriate in Germany because it would notbe reasonable to expect voters to know the candidates when they are electing from 99members. In most European countries where regions are small, as in the UnitedKingdom, or where national delegations are small, some form of open list is used.

The arguments in support of open lists are overwhelming, and isconfirmed by the polling and focus group research. That is why I urge hon. Members tosupport amendments Nos. 10 to 13, to allow voters an opportunity to influence theelection of candidates to represent them.

This is not the final stage of the Bill's consideration by Parliament, and I profoundly hopethat the arguments we are deploying will be considered carefully by the Government, notonly this afternoon but between now and the Bill's later stages. I hope that theGovernment will, as hitherto, approach this with an open mind. I hope that they do not

99 Times 10.3.98 "Straw decides on closed list system for Euro election" The numerical tables referred toby Mr Straw are Dep 6200

100 Central Lobby April/May 1998101 HC Deb vol 308 12.3.98 c 771


45

firmly close the door to all the representations that have been made and seek to justifysomething that appears to have no parentage-an argument for closed lists-and which noone other but they appears to be prepared to support.

In response Mr Straw said that the overriding problem was that preferences did nottranslate into electoral success:102

I wish to deal with the questions raised about the Belgian system. Inbalancing the Belgian system against the closed-list system, we must give great weight tothe need for simplicity. We are moving to a new system and, although such systems arewell understood abroad, they are not necessarily well understood in this country. Everyhon. Member who has read the NOP report will agree that British electors are remarkablyignorant about the European Parliament and what Members of the European Parliamentdo. We hope to see an increase in interest following the change in the electoral system,but the new system must be simple.

NOP had problems-which were one reason for the delay-in setting upfocus groups. It tried to create groups at least half of whose members had definitelyvoted in the previous European parliamentary elections, but that proved impossible.Instead it had to make do with people who were assumed to have voted in those elections,because they claimed always to vote. That may be regrettable, but it is something that wecannot ignore. We need an electoral system that, while meeting the basic goal ofproportionality, is as simple as possible and does nothing to discourage people fromvoting. In my judgment, the Belgian system does not deliver that.

The overriding problem with the Belgian system is that apparentpreferences do not translate into electoral success. As I said when I announced theGovernment's decision, it is not necessarily the candidates with the most personal voteswho are elected. It has taken me some time to assess the weight that should be given tothat factor, but I have placed in the Library several examples of what could happen underdifferent patterns of voting, comparing votes for a party list and for individuals on a list.Even when as many as 40 per cent. of voters express a personal preference for anindividual candidate-which is unlikely to happen-in almost all cases the first threecandidates on the party list are elected. For those hon. Members who have a copy of thereport before them, that is shown in example 1. Votes can be cast for candidates ininverse weight to the order of the list, so that candidates at the bottom of the list get themost personal votes and those at the top the fewest, but the candidates at the top of the listare still elected. Therefore, while one can see the attractions of the system before theelection because it might seem to offer voters an extra element of choice, we might findthat after the election we would reap a whirlwind.

In the Lords debates on the Bill attempts to introduce either an ordered list or acompletely open list were ultimately successful at Third Reading when an amendment tointroduce an open list system on the Finnish model was passed against the Government.103

102 HC Deb vol 308 12.3.98 c 785-6103 HL Deb vol 593 20.10.98 c 1331


46

At Lords Committee stage on 24 June the Liberal Democrats had introducedamendments in favour of the Belgian list model, while the Conservatives tabledamendments on the Finnish model. The Conservatives abstained on the Liberal Democratamendment104. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for the Conservatives made no secret ofhis preference for First Past the Post for European elections and accepted the HomeSecretary's arguments against the Belgian system, citing an example from the Antwerpconstituency in Belgium in 1991:

The head of the CVP list was Leo Tindemans. Not surprisingly, he was very popular. Hegained 79,000 personal votes. The list is quite long and the print rather small. If I stumbleit is because I have trouble with the small print. Leo Tindemans gained 79,087 votes.There is a list of perhaps more than a dozen candidates for the CVP party, following theparty order; and that is the important point. The next person on the list was Blanckaert.He received 3,700 votes. That is a long way behind Leo Tindemans. The next peoplegained 3,200, 3,000, 2,700, and 2,200. Then Demeester-De Meyer gained 4,674. He waswell down the party's list, but he did quite well and beat all the people above him. Smetsgot 4,207; Cauwenberghs gained 4,022; and Ansoms was second in the people'spreference. He gained 6,009 votes. The remainder were also-rans.

In addition to all the personal votes, there was a list vote of 56,000. With the method ofquotas used in Belgium, the CVP was to have six members. A quota is worked out. It was24,857. As I might have said all those years ago, if you have all been listening it will beclear that Leo Tindemans at 79,000 cleared the hurdles by miles, so he is elected. No oneelse got near the 24,000 quota. So the next person on the party list is looked at. Blanckaertgained 3,700 votes, and was not even the next choice of the people. So 21,000 votes werepulled down from the party's total to reach the quota; he is elected. Suykerbuyk gained3,200 and was well behind some of the others lower down. So nearly 22,000 was pulleddown which were needed for him and he was elected. Swaelen needed 14,000 votes toreach the quota; he was elected. There were no more party votes to pull down so the votesof the four chaps who were second, fourth and fifth were looked at. But there were onlytwo seats left. Therefore Mr. Demeester-De Meyer and Mr. Ansoms were elected, butSmets and Cauwenberghs were not elected despite the fact that they personally receivedmore votes than three of the people who were elected. If anyone does not believe myusual description of proportional representation as fiddle voting, it seems to be a clear,real example where the system in front of the Committee is totally and absolutely unfair.105

In response, Lord Steel, for the Liberal Democrats, argued that the voters had chosen totick the party box and therefore had endorsed the party list system.(c282). Lord Mackayof Ardbrecknish argued for the fully open Finnish system as getting around the problemsof the Belgian system. Once again at Lords committee stage the Conservatives tabled aNew Clause for an independent commission to conduct a review following the 1999election (c 351).

104 HL Deb vol 592 24.6.98 c 283105 HL Deb vol 591 24..6.98 c 273


47

On Report the arguments on open and closed lists continued with another Conservativeamendment for an independent commission106, but it was at Third Reading that theConservative amendment in favour of a Finnish open list system was finally successful.The amendment was carried by 165 votes to 140.107 As part of his response, the ministerLord Williams of Mostyn stressed that the Finnish system also created anomalous resultsin that candidates in Finland could also be elected with fewer votes than candidates whoare not elected (c 1331). This argument was more fully developed in the subsequentdebates on the Lords amendment.

In the Commons the Government also developed the argument that the Conservatives hadintroduced the closed list system for the election to the Northern Ireland Forum in 1996.The Conservatives pointed to the lack of backbench speeches in support of the closed list,and apparent resentment among Labour party members about the methods used to selectcandidates. They also noted that Lord Jenkins had strongly supported open lists in thereport of the Independent Commission on the Voting System.108 Although theGovernment secured the passage in the Commons of an amendment requiring a review ofthe system of election, following the 1999 election, (rejected as inadequate in the Lords)neither side in the battle attempted a compromise by proposing a Belgian type orderedlist. Rather curiously, the Government was not directly pressed on this possibility as away out of the crisis, but presumably its unequivocal rejection of the Belgian system inMarch would have made its later adoption unsustainable. On an alternative reading, theGovernment simply decided to use the battle as a way of highlighting the perceived'problem' of the hereditary peers.

On 19 November the Lords refused to back down on its Finnish open list amendment forthe fourth time that Commons reasons for disagreeing with Lords amendments had beendebated. Baroness Jay immediately announced that the Bill would be introduced in thenext session under the Parliament Acts (c 1360). She also stated that to hold the electionsunder a regional list system a new Bill would have to achieve Royal Assent by midJanuary 1999. (This is to allow the necessary administrative work to be carried out in timeand regulations governing nomination of candidates, counting procedures, expense limitsto be passed). In response Lord Cranbourne for the Conservatives, said: 'we are aware ofthe limitations of the rights of this House…and I hope we will behave accordingly whenthe Bill is reintroduced' (c 1361).

106 HL Deb vol 593 12.10.98 c 751107 HL Deb vol 593 20.10.98 c 1333108 Cm 4090 October 1998


48

However William Hague gave no indication of backing down on the Conservativeopposition to the Bill and in his response to the Queen's speech reiterated his argumentthat there had been no manifesto commitment to closed lists109 In an article in the DailyTelegraph.110 Tony Blair said that: 'we will bring back the Bill under the Parliament Act.But whether it is on the Statute Book in time for next year's elections depends on theTories'. A by-election for the North East Scotland constituency on 27 November 1998was won by the SNP, with the Conservatives polling second ahead of the Labour andLiberal Democrat parties.111 Norman Fowler maintained in reply to the Queen's Speechdebate that closed lists were not a manifesto commitment and that this type ofconstitutional proposal was the kind that any self-respecting second chamber shouldchallenge.112 In response Mr Straw said that by using that argument the Conservativeswere saying that the manifesto should be treated as gospel and where it is detailed, therecould be no doubt that the Government should be allowed to secure their business (c 575).

C. Bill 4 of 1998-9

The Bill is identical in form to the previous bill of 1997-8 (as amended) and does notinclude any requirement for a review of the new electoral system, as this Commonsamendment was not accepted by the Lords. Closed regional lists also remain. See Part IIfor a detailed examination of its provisions. At the time of writing it is expected that theBill will be taken through all its stages in the Commons on 2 December, and if passed,will be sent to the Lords. For details of the Parliament Acts procedure see ResearchPaper 98/103 Lords Reform: Legislative Role of the House of Lords. According to theExplanatory Notes to this Bill, the Home Secretary has made a statement that the Bill iscompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights, as required by s19 of theHuman Rights Act 1998.

109 HC Deb 24.11.98 c 20110 20.12.98 'The House of Lords is a One Party Chamber'111 Guardian 28.11.98 'Labour a poor third in Scottish poll'112 HC Deb 30.11.98 c 564


49


50

Appendix 1

Systems in other EU States

There were 12 different systems in use for the 1989 and 1994 elections, according toMichael Shackleton et al113 but it is important to note that only the UK retains a majorityonly system and all the other systems are based on either national or regional lists (exceptthe Republic of Ireland which uses STV).

Austria, France, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Denmark, Luxembourg, andFinland114 have a national list. Belgium, Italy, Germany have regional lists, but Germanyhas a national element to the list as well. Germany, Greece, France, Spain, Portugal haveparty lists where the order cannot be changed by the voter. Austria, Denmark, Belgium,Finland, Luxembourg, Italy, Netherlands and Sweden operate lists (as does NorthernIreland and the Republic of Ireland under STV) where voters can vote preferentially. InLuxembourg voters may vote for candidates from different lists. In Sweden voters canalso add or delete names.

Full details of the electoral system used in fifteen member states is contained in aEuropean Parliament document115 revised in 1997 which also looks at eligibility ofcandidates and procedures for filling vacant seats.

Andrew Duff has compiled a table116 comparing the various EU systems:

113 The European Parliament (3rd ed 1995 p.16)114 but there is a regional element in Finland as well115 Legislation governing elections to the European Parliament, Directorate General for Research Political

Series no. 13/Rev. 2116 in Electoral Reform of the European Parliament (Federal Trust 1996) Annex Two


51


52


53

Appendix 2

Table 1 shows the average electorate per MEP for each proposed Electoral Region. Theregions are based on the Government Office Regions but for these purposes Merseysideand the North West region are combined. The region with the highest electorate per MEPis Yorkshire and The Humber. However, with one more MEP the region would have thelowest average electorate in England.

Table 1

Average electorate per MEP by Electoral Region: 1997

Parliamentary Proposed Averageelectors number of electorate

MEPs per MEP

East Midlands 3,159,678 6 526,613Eastern 4,005,677 8 500,710London 4,940,271 10 494,027North East 1,981,509 4 495,377North West 5,204,719 10 520,472South East 5,951,137 11 541,012South West 3,736,230 7 533,747West Midlands 4,023,038 8 502,880Yorkshire & The Humber 3,804,298 7 543,471

England 36,806,557 71 518,402Wales 2,222,533 5 444,507Scotland 3,984,406 8 498,051Northern Ireland 1,190,198 3 396,733

United Kingdom 44,203,694 87 508,088

Sources: Electoral Statistics 1997 - New Parliamentary Constituencies, ONS

Monitor EL 97/1

Table 2 looks at the results of the 1994 Elections to the European Parliament on the basisof the proposed Electoral Regions. There are a number of European constituencies thatare partly contained within more than one Electoral Region117. In these cases, the seat hasbeen allocated to the region containing the majority of the electorate of the constituency.

117 These are: Bedfordshire & Milton Keynes (included within South East but partly in Eastern), Cleveland& Richmond (Yorkshire & The Humber, North East), Itchen Test & Avon (South East, South West),Lincolnshire & Humberside (East Midlands, Yorkshire & The Humber), Peak District (East Midlands,West Midlands), London South & Surrey East (London, South East), The Cotswolds (South West,South East), Staffordshire West & Congleton (West Midlands, North West), Staffordshire East andDerby (West Midlands, East Midlands)


54

The table compares the number of seats won in 1994 with the outcome under theproposed system, assuming no change in voting behaviour. The table shows that had theproposed system been in operation in 1994, Labour would have won 43 seats, 19 fewerthan the actual result while the Conservatives would have won 26, a gain of 8. TheLiberal Democrats would have gained 9 seats from the change, and the Scottish NationalParty and Plaid Cymru would have both gained one seat.

Although the result is more in proportion to the number of votes cast, Labour with 44% ofthe vote would have still won 51% of the seats.

Table 3 looks at notional results for European Elections on the basis of 1997 GeneralElection results by Electoral Region. Again, Labour would win most seats with 42, theConservatives would have won 28, the Liberal Democrats 12 and the Scottish NationalParty two. Both Labour and the Conservatives would have had a larger share of MEPsthan they did of votes.


55

Table 2

1994 European Election Results by Electoral Region

Con Lab LD SNP/PC Green Other Total% of votes

East Midlands 30.4% 49.7% 13.6% .. 3.8% 2.4% 100.0%Eastern 33.5% 39.9% 19.0% .. 3.4% 4.1% 100.0%London 29.8% 50.3% 12.1% .. 3.8% 4.0% 100.0%North East 18.6% 65.9% 10.4% .. 2.9% 2.2% 100.0%North West 27.1% 55.0% 12.1% .. 2.9% 3.0% 100.0%South East 37.4% 26.1% 27.2% .. 3.8% 5.6% 100.0%South West 32.9% 23.9% 32.7% .. 3.7% 6.7% 100.0%West Midlands 29.0% 49.5% 13.9% .. 3.5% 4.0% 100.0%Yorkshire & The Humber 24.4% 54.5% 15.2% .. 3.6% 2.3% 100.0%

England 30.5% 43.5% 18.4% .. 3.5% 4.1% 100.0%Wales 14.6% 55.9% 8.7% 17.1% 2.0% 1.8% 100.0%Scotland 14.5% 42.5% 7.2% 32.6% 1.6% 1.7% 100.0%Great Britain 27.9% 44.2% 16.7% 4.2% 3.2% 3.7% 100.0%

Actual seats won

East Midlands 0 6 0 0 0 0 6Eastern 2 6 0 0 0 0 8London 1 9 0 0 0 0 10North East 0 4 0 0 0 0 4North West 0 10 0 0 0 0 10South East 9 2 0 0 0 0 11South West 4 1 2 0 0 0 7West Midlands 1 7 0 0 0 0 8Yorkshire & The Humber 1 6 0 0 0 0 7

England 18 51 2 0 0 0 71Wales 0 5 0 0 0 0 5Scotland 0 6 0 2 0 0 8Great Britain 18 62 2 2 0 0 84

Seats won under proposed system

East Midlands 2 3 1 0 0 0 6Eastern 3 4 1 0 0 0 8London 3 6 1 0 0 0 10North East 1 3 0 0 0 0 4North West 3 6 1 0 0 0 10South East 5 3 3 0 0 0 11South West 3 2 2 0 0 0 7West Midlands 2 5 1 0 0 0 8Yorkshire & The Humber 2 4 1 0 0 0 7

England 24 36 11 0 0 0 71Wales 1 3 0 1 0 0 5Scotland 1 4 0 3 0 0 8Great Britain 26 43 11 4 0 0 84

Notes: (a) Existing European constituencies have been allocated to Government Ofice Regions on a best-fit

basis. Cases where a constituency falls within more than one region are descibed in the text.

Sources: House of Commons Library Elections Data on disk


56

Table 3

Notional allocation of seats on basis of 1997 General Election results by Electoral Region

Con Lab LD SNP/PC Other Total% of votes

East Midlands 34.9% 47.8% 13.6% .. 3.7% 100.0%Eastern 39.5% 38.6% 17.1% .. 4.8% 100.0%London 31.2% 49.5% 14.6% .. 4.7% 100.0%North East 19.8% 64.0% 12.6% .. 3.6% 100.0%North West 27.6% 53.6% 14.5% .. 4.4% 100.0%South East 41.9% 29.1% 23.3% .. 5.7% 100.0%South West 36.7% 26.4% 31.3% .. 5.5% 100.0%West Midlands 33.7% 47.0% 13.8% .. 5.5% 100.0%Yorkshire & The Humber 28.0% 51.9% 16.0% .. 4.1% 100.0%

England 33.7% 43.5% 17.9% .. 4.8% 100.0%Wales 19.6% 54.7% 12.4% 9.9% 3.4% 100.0%Scotland 17.5% 45.6% 13.0% 22.1% 1.9% 100.0%Great Britain 31.5% 44.3% 17.2% 2.6% 4.5% 100.0%

Seats won under proposed system

East Midlands 2 3 1 0 0 6Eastern 4 3 1 0 0 8London 3 6 1 0 0 10North East 1 3 0 0 0 4North West 3 6 1 0 0 10South East 5 3 3 0 0 11South West 3 2 2 0 0 7West Midlands 3 4 1 0 0 8Yorkshire & The Humber 2 4 1 0 0 7

England 26 34 11 0 0 71Wales 1 4 0 0 0 5Scotland 1 4 1 2 0 8Great Britain 28 42 12 2 0 84

Share of seats (%)

England 37% 48% 15% 0% 0% 100%Wales 20% 80% 0% 0% 0% 100%Scotland 13% 50% 13% 25% 0% 100%Great Britain 33% 50% 14% 2% 0% 100%

Sources: House of Commons Library Elections Data on disk


57

Appendix 3 The Parliamentary Stages of the EuropeanParliamentary Elections Bill [Bill 65 of 1997-8] -

Date Reference Stage Reached

29.10.97 299 c914 Presentation and first reading (Bill 65 1997/98)

29.10.97 Bill 65 1997/98 Presented by Jack Straw

25.11.97 301 c803-77 Second reading debate. Agreed to on division (355to 150). Committed to a Committee of the WholeHouse. Money resolution (formal).

24.02.98 307 c190-272 Committee stage first day. Clause 1, new clauseand new schedule under consideration

26.02.98 307 c509-96 Committee stage first day. Clause 1 to 4 agreed to,Clause 1 as amended. New clause and newschedule considered. Clause 5 under consideration.

05.03.98 Bill 130 1997/98 As amended in Committee.

05.03.98 307 c1210-49 Committee stage third day. Clauses 5 and 6 agreedto. New clauses considered. Schedules 1 to 4 asamended agreed to. Bill reported with amendments(Bill 130 1997/98).

12.03.98 308 c763-830 Report stage and third reading debate. Agreed to ondivision (198 to 87).

13.03.98 587 c417 Brought from the Commons. Lords first reading.(HL Bill 88 1997/98)

13.03.98 HL Bill 88 1997/98 Brought from the Commons.

01.04.98 HL 92 1997/98 Delegated Powers and Deregulation SelectCommittee (HL) fifteenth report on;… EuropeanParliamentary Elections Bill..

09.04.98 588 c856-901 Lords second reading debate. Agreed to on question.Committed to a committee of the Whole House.

24.06.98 591 c247-326, Lords committee stage first day. Clause 1 under 336-40 discussion.


58


25.06.98 591 c351-78 Lords Committee stage second day. Clauses 1-5agreed to. Schedules 1-3 and remaining scheduleagreed to. Bill reported without amendment.

12.10.98 593 c701-53 Lords report stage.

20.10.98 Bill 246 1997/98 Lords amendments.

20.10.98 593 c1316-36 Lords third reading (formal). Debate onamendments. Passed on question and returned to theCommons with amendments.

27.10.98 318 c163-212 Lords amendments considered. Motion that Housedisagrees with Lords amendment No 1 agreed to ondivision (338 to 131). Lords amendments 2, 3 and 4disagreed to. Committee appointed to draw upreasons for disagreeing to amendments. Reasonsreported and agreed to. To be communicated to theLords.

29.10.98 HL Bill 159 1997/98 Commons reasons for disagreeing to Lordsamendment.

04.11.98 Bill 255 1997/98 Lords reasons for insisting on their amendments.

04.11.98 594 c272-91 Commons reasons for disagreeing to the Lordsamendments considered. Motion that the House doinsist on a Lords amendment agreed to on division(221 to 145). Remaining Lords amendments alsoinsisted on. Committee appointed to proposereasons for such insistence. Bill returned to theCommons with reasons.

10.11.98 319 c206-48 Consideration of Lords Reasons for insisting ontheir Amendments disagreed to by the Commons.Motion that House insists on its disagreement withthe Lords in their Amendments. Agreed to ondivision (307 to 125). Motion, pursuant to StandingOrder 15, that at this days sitting the Bill may beproceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.Agreed to on question. Lords reasons for insistingon certain of their amendments to which theCommons have disagreed, again considered.


59


Government amendment in lieu of the Lordsamendment agreed to.

11.11.98 HL Bill 162 1997/98 Commons amendment in lieu of Lords amendments.

12.11.98 Bill 260 1997/98 Lords reason for insisting on their amendments towhich the Commons have disagreed and fordisagreeing to the Commons amendment in lieu.

2.11.98 594 c846-71 Commons amendment considered. Motion thatHouse insists on the Lords amendments to whichthe Commons have disagreed and disagree with theCommons in their amendment in lieu agreed to ondivision (237 to 194). Committee appointed topropose reasons for such insistence anddisagreement. Bill returned to the Commons with areason.

16.11.98 319 c673-721 Consideration of Lords reasons for insisting oncertain of their amendments to which the Commonshave disagreed and for disagreeing to the Commonsamendment to the Bill in lieu. Motion that, pursuantto Standing Order 15 the Bill may be proceededwith, though opposed until any hour. Agreed to onquestion. Motion that House insists on itsdisagreement with the Lords in their amendments,but does not insist on its amendment in lieu. Agreedto on division (309 to 122). Amendment in lieu ofthe Lords amendments agreed to.

17.11.98 Bill 262 1997/98 Lords reason for insisting on their amendments towhich the Commons have disagreed and fordisagreeing to the further Commons amendment inlieu.

17.11.98 HL Bill 166 1997/98 Further Commons amendment in lieu of Lordsamendments.


60


17.11.98 594 c1128-54 Commons amendment considered. Motion thatHouse insists on their Amendments 1 to 4 to whichthe Commons have disagreed and disagree with theCommons in their amendment 4C in lieu thereof.Agreed to on division (261 to 198). Committeeappointed to propose a reason for such insistenceand disagreement. Bill returned to the Commonswith a reason.

18.11.98 319 c956-98 Consideration of Lords reasons for insisting oncertain of their amendments to which the Commonshave disagreed and for disagreeing to a furthercommons amendment in lieu. Motion that Houseinsists on its disagreement with the Lords in theirAmendments but does not insist on its Amendmentin Lieu. Agreed to on division (326 to 133).Amendment in lieu of the Lords amendments agreedto.

18.11.98 319 c1042 Statement explaining the Government's position onthe Bill which has now been lost for the 1997/98session.

18.11.98 594 c1341-62 Commons amendment considered. Motion thatHouse insists on Lords amendments to which theCommons have disagreed and disagrees with theCommons in their further amendment in lieu agreedto on division (212 to 183). Committee appointed topropose a reason for such insistence anddisagreement. Bill returned to the Commons with areason. Statement by Baroness Jay of Paddingtonexplaining that Bill has now been lost for theSession.

Source: POLIS database


61

Extract from Commons Votes and Proceedings 18 November 1998

48 European Parliamentary Elections Bill (Lords Amendments),—The House, according to Order, proceeded to consider the Lords Reason for insisting on their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and for disagreeing to the further Commons Amendment in lieu.

The Lords Reason for insisting on their Amendments in page 2, line 1, page 2, line 2, page 2, line 15, and page 2, line 18, and for disagreeing to the Commons Amendment in lieu, was read, as follows:

Because the review proposed by the Commons is not an adequate substitute for an electoral system that allows electors to vote for the individual party candidate of their choice.

A Motion was made, and the Question being put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments but does not insist on its Amendment in lieu—(Mr Secretary Straw);

The House divided.

Tellers for the Ayes, Mr Keith Hill, Jane Kennedy: 326.

Tellers for the Noes, Mr Stephen Day, Mr Nigel Waterson: 133.

So the Question was agreed to.

An Amendment was made to the Bill, in lieu of the Lords Amendments, in page 3, line 46, at the end, to insert—

'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


62

(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 voters 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) Before making an appointment under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult such persons appearing to him to be interested as he thinks appropriate.

(5) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of any report received under subsection (1)(b) before each House of Parliament.'.—(Mr Mike Hall.)

This Commons amendment was rejected by the Lords later on 18 November 1998.

european parliamentary elections bill...assembly was part of the original treaty of rome but when...

Documents