Bovine TB

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo
Thursday 3rd April 2014

(10 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Primarolo Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. May I remind the House that we have a Select Committee report and two Back-Bench debates this afternoon? The convention for statements is that Members ask one question of the Secretary of State—not make statements, but ask one question. We will get everybody in if that convention is followed by Members, so I hope from now on we can move at a slightly faster pace.

Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
- Hansard - -

I think people around the country will be really shocked by this statement, not just because it represents a complete disregard of the science and the evidence, but because it is also likely to make bovine TB worse, not better. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that he will bring this issue back to the House so we can have a vote before it goes any further?

Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo
Wednesday 6th November 2013

(11 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas
- Hansard - -

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who must have been looking over my shoulder, because these are exactly the points that I would make. When we compare nuclear with renewables, we see that in some cases renewables are already cheaper. They are also asking for a strike price of £91 by 2018, which is substantially less than what we are going to be giving to nuclear.

Consumer Futures said that the Hinkley deal

“moves the risks of future variations in wholesale prices from investors onto consumers, will likely see household bills increase and will distort future investment in electricity generation.

Consumers will again feel that the energy market is stacked against them.”

I just cannot understand why there is not greater outrage at the way in which we are allowing ourselves to be locked into these long contracts with EDF, paying over and above market prices for decades to come. I repeat that it is hard to take seriously the crocodile tears we are seeing from hon. Members on both sides of the House while we are suggesting paying hand over fist to the nuclear companies, which will be laughing all the way to the bank.

In conclusion, I welcome the greater focus on the problem of high energy bills that we have seen in recent months. It is a massive issue in all our constituencies; people come to us on a daily basis worried about how they are going to be able to survive the winter. It is a matter of life and death, not just of discomfort; we are talking about people who are going to be suffering from radically ill health and about the premature deaths associated with fuel poverty. So I welcome this debate, but I regret that most of the solutions put forward do not fully address the root causes of fuel poverty and high energy costs. A fundamental shift should be at the heart of energy market reform. I am worried that we have heard much more about tinkering around the edges of a system that keeps the big six in power and far too many people in fuel poverty, rather than about much more radical energy transformation, which we are beginning to see in other countries. There is a precedent and we could be following it here—if the political will existed.

Baroness Primarolo Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call Christopher Pincher. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo
Thursday 13th June 2013

(11 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Straw Portrait Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Before the hon. Lady goes on, may I say in respect of Mr Hans Blix—I have made this point outside the House—that there is a profound disconnection between what he is saying now and what he said at the time? What he said at the time, and he repeated it in a book in 2004, was that he thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat. I know of no provenance whatsoever for the claim that the inspectors were prevented from continuing their work in Iraq by either the US or the UK in January 2003.

Moreover, the final reports from Hans Blix complained about a lack of co-operation, the inability of inspectors to interview scientists from Iraq inside or outside Iraq, and the continuing intimidation. The final report that he made, which I had to force him to publish, on 7 March 2003, catalogued in 29 chapters of 170 pages the unanswered questions that Mr Blix thought Saddam had to answer, even at that stage, about all the chemical and biological weaponry that had been known about in the past and which Saddam had failed to explain. That is where Blix was at the time. My last point is this—

Baroness Primarolo Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No. Will the right hon. Gentleman please sit down? I am trying to be very tolerant to facilitate the debate but there are lots of Members who want to participate, and making a speech on an intervention, however important the point, is not acceptable. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to make the rest of his points.

Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas
- Hansard - -

I thank the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) for his intervention. Obviously, he has a great deal of information from that time.

--- Later in debate ---
Baroness Primarolo Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. It would really help me to chair the debate if Members made brief interventions and stayed on their feet while they were doing so. I know the hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way under some considerable pressure, but I am sure she will bear in mind the length of time that she is speaking and the others wishing to participate.

Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas
- Hansard - -

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I was saying that many people will say that if they had known then what they know now, they would not have supported the war, and I said that that was not an adequate justification, precisely because of those Members of Parliament who were not taken in by the spin. Members of Parliament could have known then much of what they know now. A vast amount of the evidence available now was in the public domain then. We know this because of those hon. Members who did see through the lies and the deceptions, who asked the right questions, who trawled through the documents, who stood up in Parliament and said that the war was based on a false prospectus, and many of those hon. Members are in the Chamber today.

Let me give an example of three others, starting with an hon. Member who is no longer in the Chamber, the former Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, Lynne Jones. She saw that Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) made the misrepresentation of the French position a centrepiece of their efforts to win the vote on 18 March 2003. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, France had the power to veto a second UN resolution. In an interview on 10 March 2003 President Chirac indicated that, as things stood, France would use its veto in the unlikely event that a second resolution authorising military action got the necessary majority of nine members of the Security Council.

I quote from the transcript of the interview. Chirac says:

“My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq.”

But by selectively quoting the words “regardless of the circumstances” when describing the French position on authorisation of the use of force, proponents of the war blamed France for blocking military action against Iraq, no matter what evidence emerged of a breach of resolution 1441. Tony Blair even included the selective and misleading quote in the motion in support of military action that was put to the House on 18 March 2003. [Interruption.] I want to finish this section. The importance of the inclusion of this misrepresentation in the motion was huge. Some MPs have stated that it alone changed their minds on whether or not to vote to go to war.

Giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, the right hon. Member for Blackburn suggested that President Chirac’s use of the phrase “this evening” did not describe the French position on the evening of the interview, thereby indicating that this could change in the future, but was simply an introduction to what he was going to say that evening. He put that argument to the panel by specifically stating the order of Chirac’s phrasing, down to where a comma is used. However, the transcript shows that he did not give the phrasing in the right order. The phrase “this evening” came after “regardless of the circumstances”, but he said that it came first, changing the meaning of Chirac’s words to suit the argument. The right hon. Gentleman said:

‘I know there has been some textual analysis of the use by President Chirac of the word “Le soir”, but I watched him say this and I took this as no more than saying, “This evening”, comma, and then he announces, “France will, whatever the circumstances”, he says, right?’

Well, that was not right. In fact, the transcript shows that Chirac explicitly ruled in the possibility that military action might be needed, stating in the same interview that if the weapons inspector reported after more time that they were unable to do their job, war would be inevitable. To quote directly, he said:

“But in that case, of course, regrettably, the war would become inevitable. It isn’t today.”

The French position, then, was that progress was being made on the weapons inspections and that France was therefore opposed to replacing the existing inspections process with an ultimatum that would lead to war in a few days’ time. The phrase “regardless of the circumstances” was not helpful, and it was unfortunate that Chirac used those words, as they were easily taken out of context. However, that does not detract from the responsibility of those, including Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who—I argue—misinterpreted, and continued to misinterpret, President Chirac’s interview of 10 March in order to blame France for the failure to obtain a second UN resolution. The reason that it was not possible to obtain UN authorisation for the use of force is that there was no evidence showing Iraq to be an active and growing threat; it was not because of French intransigence, as UK Ministers said.

Hansard shows that Lynne Jones was ridiculed when she tried to raise the misrepresentation of Chirac’s interview in the House, but the fact that she raised it shows that there were hon. Members who bothered to get the transcript of what was actually said before the vote and that it was not necessary to accept the interpretation being given by the Government at face value. It was not a detail; President Chirac’s words were placed at the heart of the motion that Parliament debated and voted on.

Charities Act 2011 (Amendment)

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo
Wednesday 19th December 2012

(11 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday in my Adjournment debate on high-carbon investment, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) said that

“the Committee on Climate Change has recognised in its recent progress report…that we are on track to meet our first three carbon budgets”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 828.]

That did not sound right to me, so I returned to the report to check the details to which he had referred and sought clarification from the committee directly. I can confirm that the committee’s report states clearly that the current rate of progress is

“sufficient to meet the first and second…budgets, but not the third and fourth budgets,”

and that the

“rate of underlying progress is only a quarter of that required to meet future carbon budgets.”

Given this afternoon’s debate on the Energy Bill and the crucial matter of decarbonisation, I wonder whether you might invite the Minister to correct the record on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Baroness Primarolo Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The content of speeches in this House, whether by Back Benchers, Ministers or shadow Ministers, is thankfully not the responsibility of the Chair. The contributions made as a matter of debate in this House are the responsibility of the Member who makes those observations, so it is not a point of order for the Chair. The Minister is here; I am sure he took note of the hon. Lady’s comments and will want to engage again in debate on those facts.

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo
Wednesday 26th October 2011

(13 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
- Hansard - -

I am gratified by the extent to which successive Governments have sought to brand themselves as green—after all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery. However, I also see it as part of my role to scrutinise the authenticity of any promises made and, most importantly, to inquire whether fine and noble rhetoric is backed by fast and ambitious action.

It is important to say at the outset, as the Green party always has, that environmental policies cannot be just bolted on to business as usual. We have always said that to judge the greenness of a Government, we should look not so much at their environmental policies, but at their economic programme. If a Government’s economic policies are simply about promoting more and more conventional economic growth based on the production and consumption of yet more finite resources, it does not really matter how many green trimmings they add to their manifesto. The direction of travel will still be fundamentally unsustainable. Judged by that measure, sadly not one of the main parties has come close to understanding the true nature of green politics.

Therefore, although I welcome the fact that Labour has chosen the Government’s green record as the subject for today’s debate, and although I am heartened by the commitment that I have heard in the Chamber today, it is interesting to contemplate why those aspirations, commitments and statements are not made when we discuss the Budget or growth, for example. In those debates, all the “business as usual” economic arguments are trotted out, as ever. We do not marry up all the nice words about the environment that we have heard today with the arguments that we hear in those economic debates, which is when it really matters. To say that this shows remarkable inconsistency would be a kind way of putting it.

Over a year ago the Prime Minister pledged that this would be the greenest Government ever. The first thing to say about that aspiration is that it is sadly not particularly ambitious, given Labour’s poor record on the environment in the preceding 13 years in office. At the end of that Labour term, the UK was getting more of its energy from fossil fuels than in 1997, when Labour came to power. Everyone rejoices in a sinner who repents, but one cannot help but think that, at best, Labour’s criticism of the Government’s record today shows an almost heroic degree of collective amnesia.

It is significant that one of the first acts of this Government, who aspire to be the greenest ever, was to abolish the very body that could have had a role in judging whether they could achieve that. I refer, of course, to the Sustainable Development Commission—I support the comments that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made about that. As a critical friend, the commission was a vital in providing well-informed scrutiny of Government policy. The commission also saved the Treasury around £300 million over 10 years, against running costs of just £4 million a year. The scrapping of that commission undermines the Government’s assertion that they are committed to green issues. It is also the first of many examples of ideology trumping common sense, economic sense and environmental sense.

Much has been said today about the green investment bank, and of course it is a good idea to have such a bank. It is very badly named, however, in that it is not very green and, so far, it is not even a bank. The Government are actively considering using it to subsidise nuclear power, and its wings are being clipped from the outset through insufficient capitalisation and no initial borrowing capacity for several years at least.

I could refer to many other issues, but I would like briefly to mention the complete chaos that the solar industry is now in, thanks to the way in which the Government keep moving the goalposts in relation to the level at which the feed-in tariffs are going to be secured. That is a tragedy not only for the environment but for some of the fantastic solar industries in this country that could be at the forefront of solar power internationally. Because the Government keep changing their level of support, however, the industry has been left in great confusion.

In conclusion, I shall return to my first point. Slavish adherence to the same economic model that has created the economic crisis and the climate crisis will not empower us to build a sustainable future and make the transition to a zero-carbon economy, yet that is what the Government and the Opposition are relying on. Yes, efficiency gains can help, and yes, technology will have a vital role to play, but there is a real risk—which has not been addressed today—that, with a rising population and understandably rising expectations from a growing middle class around the world, those efficiency and technological gains will be undermined by the overall level of net growth. That means that behaviour change will have to be a far greater part of the solution when it comes to adopting sustainable development, yet the dogma that we can carry on with business as usual provided that there is more and more economic growth to get us out of this economic crisis—never mind the long-term environmental, social and economic consequences—is barely questioned by politicians. Professor Tim Jackson states:

“Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must.”

We must—

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo
Wednesday 14th September 2011

(13 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Primarolo Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, let me say that the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he should address the Chair, that I am “you”, and he should not therefore ask me what my views are. The hon. Lady should be referred to as either his hon. Friend or the hon. Member.

Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas
- Hansard - -

Thank you. I commend to the hon. Gentleman the report of the all-party parliamentary group, which was co-chaired by myself and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, as it contains all the detail in it. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the overall number of years, but my essential point is that both for attacking fuel poverty and for environmental rigour, it makes more sense to target all the ECO resources for at least the first three years on low-income, vulnerable households, including those living in solid-wall and hard-to-heat properties, rather than trying to separate out the ECO into hard-to-treat homes that might belong to able-to-pay groups. A focus for at least three years solely on low-income and vulnerable households would have stronger fuel poverty and environmental outcomes.

Let us not forget that the Government are still bound by their statutory commitments to the eradication of fuel poverty in England by 2016. If that objective is to be met, we need significant additional resources for programmes that will improve heating and insulation standards in dwellings occupied by those households. An impoverished Exchequer, a coalition Government who are averse to high taxation and a policy of funding a range of programmes through levies on consumer bills can only exacerbate the appalling scale of fuel poverty. I think we need a major investment in a national programme to improve domestic energy efficiency, giving priority, as I say, to those in greatest need.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Baroness Primarolo
Tuesday 12th October 2010

(14 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
- Hansard - -

I beg to move amendment 7, page 1, leave out from line 7 to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert—

‘(3) The questions that are to appear on the ballot paper are—

“(1) Do you want to change the current “first past the post” system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?

(2) If there were a change, list your order of preference, 1, 2, 3, for the United Kingdom to adopt:

(a) The ‘alternative vote’ system,

(b) The ‘additional member’ system, or

(c) The ‘single transferable vote’ system with multi-member constituencies?”.

(4) In Wales, a Welsh version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers.

(5) The voting for the second question in the referendum shall be in accordance with section (Counting of votes on second question of referendum).’.

Baroness Primarolo Portrait The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 230.

Amendment 140, page 1, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—

‘Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons (a) Alternative Vote (b) First Past The Post (c) The Single Transferable Vote.’.



Amendment 204, page 1, line 9, after ‘vote’, insert ‘plus’.

Government amendment 231.

Amendment 141, page 2, line leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—

‘Graddiwch pa gyfundrefn o ethol aelodau i Ty’r Cyffredin sydd well gennych chi. (a) Pleidlais Amgen (b) Cyntaf i’r Felin (c) Pleidlais Sengl Drosglwyddadwy.’.

Amendment 205, page 2, line 2, after ‘amgen’, insert ‘plws’.

Amendment 142, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

‘(4) In Scotland, the following Gaelic version of the question is also on ballot papers—

Rangaich do roghainn a thaobh an t-siostaim taghaidh buill gu Taigh nan Cumantan? (a) Bhòt Eadar-roghnach (b) A’Chiad Bhuannaiche (c) Bhòt Mhalairteach Shingilte.’.

Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 15, line 30 leave out

‘in favour of each answer to the question’

and insert

‘in answer to the questions’.

Amendment 15, page 19, line 24, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 26, line 39, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 17, line 17, leave out ‘answer’ and insert ‘answers’.

Amendment 18, page 32, line 16, after ‘only’, insert

‘in relation to each question’.

Amendment 19, page 47, line 22, leave out ‘to the referendum question’ and insert

‘either or both of the referendum questions’.

Amendment 143, page 54, leave out lines 7 to 16 and insert

‘In England the ballot shall be as follows:

Front of ballot paper

Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons Please rank in order of preference (1,2,3) You must mark at least one number on the ballot

Alternative Vote

First Past the Post

Single Transferable Vote



In Wales, the ballot paper shall be as follows:

Front of ballot paper

Graddiwch pa gyfundrefn o ethol aelodau i Ty’r Cyffredin sydd well gennych chi

Rhowch pa gynfundrefn sydd well gennych chi yn ôl trefn blaenoriaeth (1,2,3) Rhaid i chi farcio o leiaf un rhif ar y papur pleidleisio.

Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons Please Rank in order of preference (1,2,3) You must mark at least one number on the ballot.

Pleidlais Amgen/ Alternative Vote

Cyntaf i’r Felin/ First Past the Post

Pleidlais Sengl Drosglwyddadwy/ Single Transferable Vote



In Scotland, the ballot paper shall be as follows:

Front of ballot paper

Rangaich do roghainn a thaobh an t-siostaim taghaidh buill gu Taigh nan Cumantan Rangaich iad a rèir do roghainn (1,2,3) Feumaidh tu co-dhiù aon àireamh a chomharrachadh sa bhaileat. Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons Please Rank in order of preference (1,2,3) You must mark at least one number on the ballot.

Bhòt Eadar-rognach/ Alternative Vote

A’Chiad Bhuannaiche/ First Past the Post

Bhòt Mhalairteach Shinglite/ Single Transferable Vote





Amendment 20, page 54, leave out lines 9 to 16 and insert—

Vote (X) once for question 1

1. Do you want to change the current “first past the post” system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons

Yes

No

Then list your preference for what new system might be adopted by numbering 1, 2, 3 for question 2

2. If there was a change do you want the United Kingdom to adopt:

(a) The “alternative vote” system or

(b) The “additional member system” or

(c) The “single transferable vote” system with three member constituencies?’.



Government amendment 232.

Amendment 223, page 54, line 12, after ‘vote’, insert ‘plus’.

Amendment 21, page 55, leave out line 3.

Amendment 22, page 55, line 4, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 23, page 55, line 5, leave out ‘question’ and insert’ questions’.

Amendment 24, page 55, leave out line 20.

Amendment 25, page 55, line 25, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 26, page 55, line 26, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 27, page 55, line 27, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 28, page 55, line 32, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 46, page 57, line 15,after ‘only’, insert

‘in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 47, page 57, line 18, leave out ‘you are voting for’ and insert

‘to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 48, page 58, line 32, after ‘only’ insert

‘in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 49, page 59, line 2, leave out ‘you are voting for’ and insert

‘to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 50, page 60, line 6, leave out ‘you are voting for’ and insert

‘to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 51, page 60, line 7 after ‘only’ insert

‘in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 52, page 63, line 15, leave out ‘you are voting for’ and insert

‘to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 53, page 63, line 17, after ‘only’, insert

‘in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 54, page 67, line 5, leave out ‘you are voting for’ and insert

‘to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 55, page 67, line 9, after ‘only’, insert

‘in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 56, page 73, line 5, leave out ‘you are voting for’ and insert

‘to question 1 you are voting for, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 57, page 73, line 7, after ‘only’ insert

‘in relation to question 1, and indicate your preferences in relation to question 2’.

Amendment 144, in clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—

‘(a) the answer “alternative vote” is selected in the referendum, and’.

Amendment 8, page 4, line 28, after ‘“No”’, insert

‘to Question 1, and the alternative vote system is selected in response to question 2 in the referendum’.

Amendment 9, page 4, line 32, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section (The single transferable vote system: amendments) if—

(a) the single transferable vote system is selected in response to question 2 of the referendum, and

(b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 8(6) below) which provides for multi-member constituencies, in accordance with subsection (4) of section 3 of that Act as amended by section 8(5A) below, has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.

(1B) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section (The additional member system: amendments) if—

(a) the single transferable vote system is selected in response to question 2 of the referendum, and

(b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 8(6) below) which provides for the additional member system, in accordance with subsection (4) of section 3 of that Act as amended by section 8(5A) below, has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.’.

Amendment 145, page 4, line 33, leave out from ‘if’ to second ‘the’ in line 34 and insert

‘the answer “alternative vote” is not selected in the referendum’.

Amendment 10, page 4, line 34, leave out from ‘“No”’ to end and insert

‘to Question 1, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions and section (The single transferable vote system: amendments) and section (The additional member system: amendments).’.

Amendment 11, page 4, line 39, leave out ‘subsection (1)’ and insert ‘subsections (1), (1A) or (1B)’.

Amendment 206, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 2 to 11 and insert—

‘How constituency votes are to be given

37A (1) A voter votes by marking a constituency ballot paper and a top-up ballot paper.

(2) A voter marks the constituency ballot paper with—

(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote),

(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s second preference,

and so on.

(3) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of candidates) as the voter wishes.

(4) A voter marks the top-up ballot paper with a mark opposite a single political party list of candidates.’.

Amendment 207, page 5, line 13, after ‘How’, insert ‘constituency’.

Amendment 208, page 5, line 16, leave out

‘ballot papers and so to determine which candidate is elected’

and insert

‘constituency ballot papers and so determine which constituency candidate is elected, and how top-up votes are to be counted and so determine the allocation of top-up seats to political parties.’.

Amendment 209, page 5, line 34, at end insert—

‘(5A) Top-up ballots shall be counted simultaneously’.

Amendment 210, page 5, line 36, after ‘no’, insert ‘constituency’.

Amendment 211, page 5, line 40, after ‘each’, insert ‘constituency’.

Amendment 212, page 5, line 42, after ‘which’, insert ‘constituency’.

Amendment 213, page 5, line 43, after ‘rejected’, insert ‘constituency’.

Amendment 214, page 6, line 5, after ‘each’, insert ‘constituency’.

Amendment 215, page 6, line 7, after ‘which’, insert ‘constituency’.

Amendment 216, page 6, line 8, after ‘the’, insert ‘constituency’.

Amendment 217, page 6, line 9, at end insert—

‘(2A) After rule 50 in that Schedule there is inserted—

“50A(1) The returning officer shall give public notice of the total number of votes given for each political party together with the number of rejected ballot papers under each head shown in the statement of rejected ballot papers and return this information to the Clerk of the Crown.

(2) The Clerk of the Crown shall determine the allocation of top-up seats in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, by applying the D’Hondt formula to the total aggregated top-up votes in each of the four parts of the United Kingdom, as declared by each and every returning officer in that part.”.’.

Amendment 221, in schedule 6, page 144, line 29, at beginning insert—

‘Constituency ballot’.

Amendment 222, page 144, line 39, at end insert—

‘Top-Up ballot

Vote for one political party only. Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may note be counted’.

Amendment 12, in clause 8, page 7, line 9, at end insert—

‘(5A) In subsection (4) the words are inserted at the end—

“and each such report shall also provide for multi-member constituencies of three members, stating the name by which they recommend that each such area should be known, and for the additional member system as provided for in the Scotland Act 1998, as close as possible to 57 per cent. to be allocated for constituency representatives and the remaining seats to be allocated for closed party lists.”.’.

Amendment 13, in clause 16, page 13, line 3, at end insert—

‘(1A) Section (The single transferable vote system: amendments) comes into force in accordance with provision made by an order under section 6(1A).’.

New clause 3—The single transferable vote system: amendments—

‘(1) Within one month of the coming into force of this section, the Minister must lay before Parliament a draft of an order amending the parliamentary elections rules as set out in Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act so as to provide for a system of a single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation necessary to give effect to the use of the single transferable vote in the United Kingdom parliamentary elections.

(3) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

New clause 4—The additional member system: amendments—

‘(1) Within one month of the coming into force of this section, the Minister must lay before Parliament a draft of an order amending the parliamentary elections rules as set out in Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act so as to provide for an additional member system.

(2) An order under subsection (1) above may make any amendments to primary or secondary legislation necessary to give effect to the use of the additional member system in United Kingdom parliamentary elections.

(3) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’.

New clause 5—Counting of votes on second question of referendum—

‘(1) A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with—

(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the option that is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only option for whom the voter wishes to vote),

(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the option that is the voter’s second preference, and so on.

(2) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of options) as the voter wishes.

(3) Votes shall be allocated to options in accordance with voters’ first preferences and, if one option has more votes than the other options put together, that option is selected.

(4) If not, the options with the fewest votes is eliminated and that option’s votes shall be dealt with as follows—

(a) each vote cast by a voter who also ranked one or more of the remaining options shall be reallocated to that remaining option or (as the case may be) to the one that the voter ranked highest;

(b) any votes not reallocated shall play no further part in the counting.

(5) If after that stage of counting one option has more votes than the other remaining options put together, that option is selected.

(6) If not, the process mentioned in subsection (4) above shall be repeated as many times as necessary until one option has more votes than the other remaining options put together, and so is selected.

(7) If no option is selected at the first stage of counting, the returning officer shall, immediately after that stage, record and make publicly available the following information—

(a) the number of first-preference votes obtained by each option;

(b) which option was eliminated;

(c) the number of rejected ballot papers.

(8) Immediately after each subsequent stage of counting, except the final stage, the returning officer shall record and make publicly available the following information—

(a) the number of votes obtained by each option at that stage;

(b) which option was eliminated at that stage;

(c) the number of votes for the option eliminated at the previous stage that were not reallocated.’.

New clause 14—Counting of votes in the referendum—

‘(1) A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with—

(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the option that is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only option for whom the voter wishes to vote),

(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the option that is the voter’s second preference, and so on.

(2) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of options) as the voter wishes.

(3) This rule sets out how votes are to be counted, in one or more stages of counting, in order to give effect to the preferences marked by voters on their ballot papers and so to determine which options are selected.

(4) Votes shall be allocated to options in accordance with voters’ first preferences and, if one option has more votes that the other options put together, that option is selected.

(5) If not, the options with the fewest votes are eliminated and that option’s votes shall be dealt with as follows—

(a) each vote cast by a voter who also ranked one or more of the remaining options shall be reallocated to that remaining option or (as the case may be) to the one that the voter ranked highest;

(b) any votes not reallocated shall play no further part in the counting.

(6) If no option is selected at the first stage of counting, the returning officer shall, immediately after that stage, record and make publicly available the following information—

(a) the number of first-preference votes obtained by each option;

(b) which option was eliminated;

(c) the number of rejected ballot papers.’.

New clause 15—Commencement or repeal of amending provisions: Single transferable vote—

‘(1) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section (Single transferable vote system: amendments), Schedule (Single transferable vote system: further amendments) and Part 1 of Schedule 7 (Single transferable vote provisions) if—

(a) the answer “Single Transferable Vote” is selected in the referendum, and

(b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 8(6) (below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.

(2) If the answer “Single Transferable Vote” is not selected, the Minister must make an order repealing the single transferable vote provisions.

(3) An order under subsection (1) must bring the single transferable vote provisions into force on the same day as the coming into force of the Order in Council in terms of the draft referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection.

(4) An order under subsection (1) may make transitional or saving provision.’.

New clause 16—Single transferable vote system: amendments—

‘(1) In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (Parliamentary elections rules), after rule 37 there is inserted—

“How votes are to be given

37A(1) A voter votes by marking the ballot paper with—

(a) the number 1 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s first preference (or, as the case may be, the only candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote),

(b) if the voter wishes, the number 2 opposite the name of the candidate who is the voter’s second preference,

and so on.

(2) The voter may mark as many preferences (up to the number of candidates) as the voter wishes.”.

(2) After rule 45 in that Schedule there is to be inserted—

“How votes are to be counted

45A(1) This rule sets out how votes are to be counted, in one or more stages of counting, in order to give effect to the preferences marked by voters on their ballot papers and so to determine which candidate is elected.

First stage

45B(1)The returning officer shall sort the valid ballot papers into parcels according to the candidates for whom first preference votes are given.

(2) The returning officer shall then—

(a) count the number of ballot papers in each parcel;

(b) credit the candidate receiving the first preference vote with one vote for each ballot paper; and

(c) record those numbers.

(3) The returning officer shall also ascertain and record the total number of valid ballot papers.

The quota

45C(1)The returning officer shall divide the total number of valid ballot papers for the constituency by a number exceeding by one the number of members to be elected at the election for that constituency.

(2) The result of the division under paragraph (1) (Ignoring any decimal places), increased by one, is the number of votes needed to secure the return of a candidate as a member (in this Schedule referred to as the ‘quota’).

Return of members of House of Commons

45D(1)Where, at any stage of the count, the number of votes for a candidate equals or exceeds the quota, the candidate is deemed to be elected.

(2) A candidate is returned as a member of the House of Commons when declared to be elected in accordance with paragraph 8(1).

Transfer of ballot papers

45E(1)Where, at the end of any stage of the count, the number of votes credited to any candidate exceeds the quota and, subject to paragraphs 5 and 8, one or more vacancies remain to be filled, the returning officer shall sort the ballot papers received by that candidate into further parcels so that they are grouped—

(a) according to the next available preference given on those papers; and

(b) where no such preference is given, as a parcel of non-transferable papers.

(2) The returning officer shall, in accordance with this paragraph and paragraph 5, transfer each parcel of ballot papers referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to the continuing candidate for whom the next available preference is given on those papers and shall credit such continuing candidates with an additional number of votes calculated in accordance with sub-paragraph (3).

(3) The vote on each ballot paper is transferred under sub-paragraph (2) shall have a value (‘the transfer value’) calculated as follows—

where:

A = the value which is calculated by multiplying the surplus of the transferring candidate by the value of the ballot paper when received by that candidate; and

B = the total number of votes credited to that candidate, the calculation being made to five decimal places (any remainder being ignored).

(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)—

“transferring candidate” means the candidate from whom the ballot paper is being transferred; and

“the value of the ballot paper” means—

(e) for a ballot paper on which a first preference vote is given for the transferring candidate, one; and

(f) in all other cases, the transfer value of the ballot paper when received by the transferring candidate.

Transfer of ballot papers: supplementary provisions

45F(1) If, at the end of any stage of the count, the number of votes credited to two or more candidates exceeds the quota the returning officer shall—

(a) first sort the ballot papers of the candidate with the highest surplus; and

(b) then transfer the transferable papers of that candidate.

(2) If the surpluses determined in respect of two or more candidates are equal, the transferable papers of the candidate who had the highest number of votes at the end of the most recent preceding stage at which they had unequal numbers of votes shall be transferred first.

(3) If the numbers of votes credited to two or more candidates were equal at all stages of the count, the returning officer shall decide, by lot, which candidate’s transferable papers are to be transferred first.

Exclusion of candidates

45G(1) If one or more vacancies remain to be filled and—

(a) the returning officer has transferred all ballot papers which are required by paragraph 5 or this paragraph to be transferred; or

(b) there are no ballot papers to be transferred under paragraph 5 or this paragraph, the returning officer shall exclude from the election at that stage the candidate with the then lowest number of votes.

(2) The returning officer shall sort the ballot papers for the candidate excluded under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph into parcels so that they are grouped—

(a) according to the next available preference given on those papers; and

(b) where no such preference is given, as a parcel of non-transferable papers.

(3) The returning officer shall, in accordance with this article, transfer each parcel of ballot papers referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to the continuing candidate for whom the next available preference is given on those papers and shall credit such continuing candidates with an additional number of votes calculated in accordance with sub-paragraph (4).

(4) The vote on each ballot paper transferred under sub-paragraph (3) shall have a transfer value of one unless the vote was transferred to the excluded candidate in which case it will have the same transfer value as when transferred to the candidate excluded under sub-paragraph (1).

(5) This paragraph is subject to paragraph 45H.

Exclusion of candidates: supplementary provisions

45H(1) If, when a candidate has to be excluded under paragraph 6—

(a) two or more candidates each have the same number of votes; and

(b) no other candidate has fewer votes, sub-paragraph (2) applies.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies—

(a) regard shall be had to the total number of votes credited to those candidates at the end of the most recently preceding stage of the count at which they had an unequal number of votes and the candidate with the lowest number of votes at that stage shall be excluded; and

(b) where the number of votes credited to those candidates was equal at all stages, the returning officer shall decide, by lot, which of those candidates is to be excluded.

Filling of last vacancies

45I(1)Where the number of continuing candidates is equal to the number of vacancies remaining unfilled, the continuing candidates are deemed to be elected.

(2) Where the last vacancies can be filled under this paragraph, no further transfer shall be made.

By-elections

45J(1) Where a vacancy occurs in any constituency, paragraphs (45A) to (45H) apply to the subsequent by-election.

(2) Where more than one vacancy exists in a constituency when a writ for a by-election in that constituency is moved, only one by-election is to be held for the vacant seats and this rule applies as if the number of members to be elected is the total number of seats vacant in that constituency.”.’.

New schedule 1—The single transferable vote system: further amendments—

Part 1

Amendments of the parliamentary elections rules

1 Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.

2 For rule 18 (poll to be taken by ballot) there is substituted—

“18 The votes at the poll shall be given by ballot in accordance with rule 37A below, the result shall be ascertained in accordance with rule 45A below and the successful candidate shall be declared to have been elected.”.

3 In rule 29 (equipment of polling stations), in paragraph (5), for the words after “the notice” there is substituted—

“Remember—use 1, 2, 3, etc... at this election—this is an election using the Single Transferrable Vote system.

Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate). You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on. You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish.

Do not use the same number more than once.

Put no other mark on the ballot paper, or your vote may not be counted.”.

4 In rule 44 (attendance at counting of votes), in paragraph (5), for “the candidate for whom the vote is given” there is substituted “the candidates to whom votes are allocated under rule 45A below”.

5 (1) In rule 46 (re-count), for paragraph (1) there is substituted—

“(1) At the time when any stage of the counting or re-counting of the votes is completed, a candidate or candidate’s election agent who is then present may request the returning officer to have the votes re-counted or again re-counted in respect of any or all of the stages so far completed.

(1A) The returning officer may refuse to comply with a request under paragraph (1) above if in the officer’s opinion it is unreasonable.”.

(2) In paragraph (2) of that rule, after “on the completion of” there is inserted “any stage of”.

(3) After that paragraph there is inserted—

“(3) At any time before the declaration of the result, the returning officer may, if the officer thinks fit, have the votes re-counted or again re-counted in respect of any or all of the stages.”.

6 (1) In rule 47 (rejected ballot papers), in the heading there is inserted at the end “and invalid markings”.

(2) In paragraph (1) of that rule—

(a) for sub-paragraph (b) there is substituted—

“(aa) on which the number 1 has not been marked against the name of any of the candidates, or

(b) on which the number 1 has been marked against the name of more than one candidate, or”,

(b) in sub-paragraph (d), for “void for unertainty” there is substituted “is marked in a way that does not indicate a clear choice as to the voter’s first (or only) preference”;

(c) for the words after that sub-paragraph there is substituted “shall, subject to the following provisions, be rejected as void and not counted at any stage.”.

(3) For paragraph (2) of that rule there is substituted—

“(2) A ballot paper on which a number is marked elsewhere than in a proper place shall not be deemed to be void for that reason alone.

(2A) If a ballot paper is marked with the same number (other than the number 1) against the name of more than one candidate, that number (each time it appears) and any numbers after the repeated numbers shall be ignored for the purposes of rule 45A above.

(2B) If—

(a) one or more preferences are validly marked on a ballot paper, and

(b) other marks are made on the paper which do not indicate a clear intention as to the voter’s next preference,

those other marks shall be ignored for the purposes of rule 45A above.

(2C) A ballot paper on which the voter makes any mark which—

(a) is clearly intended to indicate a particular preference for a particular candidate, but

(b) is not a number (or is a number written otherwise than as an Arabic numeral),

(2D) In paragraph (2C) above a reference to a mark includes a reference to more than one mark.

(2E) Paragraphs (2B) and 2(C) above apply only if the way the paper is marked does not itself identify the voter and it is not shown that the voter can be identified by it.”

(4) After paragraph (3) of that rule there is inserted—

“(3A) Where—

(a) any mark on a ballot paper is ignored by reason of paragraph (2A) or (2B) above, and

(b) the vote in question is not reallocated in accordance with rule 45A above, but would have been if the mark had been treated as indicating a preference for a remaining candidate,

the returning officer shall endorse the ballot paper in question with the words “not reallocated” and an indication of the stage at which the mark was ignored.

(3B) Where the returning officer endorses a ballot paper as mentioned in paragraph (3A), the officer shall add to the endoresement the words “decision objected to” if an objection is made by a counting agent to the decision.”.

(5) In paragraph (4) of that rule—

(a) for sub-paragraph (b) there is substituted—

“(aa) not marking the number 1 against the name of any of the candidates;

(b) marking the number 1 against the name of more than one candidate;”;

(b) for sub-paragraph (d) there is substituted—

(d) unmarked or marked in a way that does not indicate a clear choice as to the voter’s first (or only) preference.”.

7 (1) For rule 49 (equality of votes), and the heading, there is substituted—

“Equality of votes: which candidate to be eliminated

49(1) This rule applies to determine which candidate is eliminated under rule 45A(3) above in a case where—

(a) there are two or more candidates with fewer votes than the others but an equal number to each other, or

(b) there are three or more candidates, or remaining candidates, and they all have an equal number of votes to each other.

The candidates with an equal nunber of votes to each other are referred to in this rule as “the tied candidates”.

(2) The candidate to be eliminated where there has been a previous elimination is—

(a) whichever of the tied candidates was allocated the fewer or fewest votes in accordance with voters’ first preferences, or

(b) if that fails to resolve the tie, whichever of them had the fewer or fewest votes after the next stage of counting (if any),

and so on.

(3) Where there has been no previous elimination, or where there has been a previous elimination but the tie is not resolved under paragraph (2) above, the returning officer shall forthwith decide by lot which of the tied candidates is to be eliminated.

Equality of votes: which candidate to be elected

49A (1) This rule applies to determine which candidate is elected under rule 45A(4) or (5) above in a case where there are only two remaining candidates and they have an equal number of votes.

(2) The candidate to be elected is—

(a) whichever of the remaining candidates was allocated the more votes in accordance with voters’ first preferences, or

(b) if that fails to resolve the tie, whichever of them had the more votes after the next stage of counting (if any),

and so on.

(3) Where the tie is not resolved under paragraph (2) above, the returning officer shall forthwith decide by lot which of the remaining candidates is to be elected.”.

8 In rule 50 (declaration of result), in paragraph (1), for sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) there is substituted—

“(a) declare the number of votes obtained by each candidate (including any reallocated in accordance with rule 45A above), starting with the candidate with the fewest and proceeding in order to the candidate with the most;

(aa) declare which is the candidate who (in accordance with that rule is) elected;

(ab) declare the stage at which each eliminated candidate was eliminated and the stage at which the elected candidate was elected;

(b) return the name of the elected candidate to the Clerk of the Crown;

(c) give public notice of the name of the elected candidate, the number of rejected ballot papers under each head shown in the statement of rejected ballot papers, the number of votes allocated to each candidate in accordance with voters’ first preferences, and for each subsequent stage of counting—

(i) the name of the eliminated candidate;

(ii) the number of votes reallocated to each of the remaining candidates, and

(iii) the number of votes of the candidate eliminated at the previous stage that were not reallocated.”.

9 In rule 53 (return of forfeiture of candidate’s deposit), in paragraph (4), for the words after “is completed,” there is substituted “the number of first preference votes obtained by the candidate is found to be not more than one twentieth of the total number of first-preference votes obtained by all the candidates.”.

10 (1) In rule 61 (deceased independent candidate wins), in paragraph (1), for “the majority of votes is given to the deceased candidate” there is substituted “the deceased candidate would have been elected (in accordance with rule 45A above) had he not died”.

(2) In paragraph (2) of that rule, for sub-paragraph (a) there is substituted—

“(a) declare the number of votes obtained by each candidate (including any reallocated in accordance with rule 45A above, starting with the candidate with the fewest and proceeding in order to the candidate with the most,

(aa) declare that the deceased candidate would have been elected had he not died,”.

(3) For sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph there is substituted—

“(c) give public notice of the number of rejected ballot papers under each head shown in the statement of rejected ballot papers, the number of votes allocated to each candidate in accordance with voters’ first preferences, and for each subsequent stage of counting—

(i) the name of the candidate eliminated,

(ii) the number of votes reallocated to each of the remaining candidates, and

(iii) the number of votes of the candidate eliminated at the previous stage that were not reallocated.”.

11 (1) For rule 62 (deceased independent candidate with equality of votes) there is substituted—

“62(1) This rule applies in relation to an election mentioned in rule 60(1) above.

(2) The reference in rule 45A(3) above to the candidate with the fewest votes, in a case where—

(a) there are two or more candidates with fewer votes than the others but an equal number to each other, and

(b) one of them is a deceased candidate,

shall be taken as a reference to the deceased candidate.

(3) The reference in rule 45A(4) or (5) above to the candidate with more votes than the other remaining candidates put together, in a case where—

(a) there are only two remaining candidates,

(b) those two candidates have an equal number of votes, and

(c) one of them is a deceased candidate,

shall be taken as a reference to the candidate other than the deceased candidate.

(4) Where paragraph (2) or (3) above applies, it applies in place of rule 49 or 49A above.”.

12 (1) The Appendix of forms is amended as follows—

(2) In the Form of Front of Ballot Paper—

(a) for “VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE ONLY” there is substituted—

“Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate).

You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on.

You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish.

Do not use the same number more than once.”.

(b) the numbers on the left-hand side are omitted, together with the vertical rule separating them from the particulars of the candidates.

(3) In the directions as to printing the ballot paper—

(a) in paragraph 2(a), for “the direction to vote for one candidate only” there is substituted “the directions beginning “Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice” and ending “Do not use the same number more than once.””;

(b) in paragraph 2(b), for the words “the vertical rules separating those particulars from the numbers on the left-hand side and the spaces on the right” there is substituted “the vertical rule separating those particulars from the spaces on the right”.

(4) In the Guidance for Voters—

(a) for paragraph 1 there is substituted—

“1 When you are given a ballot paper go to one of the compartments. Put the number 1 on the ballot paper in the box to the right of the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate).

You can also put the number 2 in the box to the right of the name of the candidate who is your second choice, the number 3 in the box to the right of the name of the candidate who is your third choice, and so on. You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish. Do not use the same number more than once.”,

(b) in paragraph 2, the words “Vote for one candidate only.” are repealed.

Part 2

Amendments of other provisions of the 1983 Act

13 The 1983 Act is amended as follows.

14 (1) In section 66 (requirement of secrecy), in subsection (2)(b), for “the candidate for whom any vote is given on any particular ballot paper” there is substituted “how any particular ballot paper has been marked”.

(2) In subsection (3)(b) and (c) of that section, for “the candidate for whom” there is substituted “how”.

(3) In subsection (3)(d) of that section, for “the name of the candidate for whom he has or has not” there is substituted “how he has”.

(4) In subsection (4)(d) of that section, for “the candidate for whom any vote is given on any particular ballot paper” there is substituted “how any particular ballot paper has been marked”.

(5) In subsection (5) of that section, for “the candidate for whom” there is substituted “how”.

(6) Subsections (7) and (8) of that section are repealed.

(7) The amendments made by this paragraph do not apply to a local government election (within the meaning given by section 204(1) of the 1983 Act) in Scotland.

15 In section 113 (bribery), in subsection (7)—

(a) for “this section the expression” there is substituted “this section—

(a) the expression”;

(b) at the end there is inserted—

“(b) a reference to voting or refraining from voting, in the case of a parliamentary election, includes a reference to marking or refraining from marking preferences on the ballot paper;

(c) a reference to the vote of any voter, in the case of a parliamentary election, includes a reference to the marking of a voter’s preferences on the ballot paper.”.

16 In section 114 (treating), at the end there is inserted—

“(4) Subsection (7)(b) of section 113 above has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that one.”

17 In section 115 (undue influence), at the end there is inserted—

“(3) Subsection (7)(b) of section 113 above has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that one.”.

18 (1) In section 117 (savings as to parliamentary elections), in subsection (2)(b), for “to record his vote for any particular candidate” there is substituted “to vote in any particular way”.

(2) In subsection (2)(c) of that section, for “recording his vote for any particular candidate” there is substituted “voting in any particular way”.

19 (1) In section 139 (trial of election petition), in subsection (6) the words “the parliamentary elections rules or”, in both places, are repealed.

(2) After that subsection there is inserted—

“(6A) If the petition relates to an election conducted under the parliamentary elections rules and it appears that there is an equality of votes between any candidates (a ‘tie’)—

(a) rule 49, 49A or 62 of those rules (whichever is relevant) shall apply for the purposes of the petition;

(b) where under rule 49 or 49A the tie fails to be resolved by lot—

(i) any decision made by lot by the returning officer under that rule shall, in so far as it resolves the tie, be effective also for the purposes of the petition, and

(ii) in so far as the tie is not resolved by such a decision, the court shall resolve it by lot.”.

20 In section 165 (avoidance of election for employing corrupt agent), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

“(3A) In the case of a parliamentary election—

(a) a vote shall be deemed in accordance with subsection (3) above to be thrown away only to the extent that it indicates a preference (whether a first preference or any other) for the person who was under the incapacity, and

(b) any number on the voter’s ballot paper indicating a subsequent preference shall be treated as reduced by one.”.

21 In section 166 (votes to be struck off for corrupt or illegal practices), in subsection (1), for the words from “election there shall” to the end there is substituted “election, then on a scrutiny—

(a) there shall be disregarded any preference for the candidate (whether a first preference or any other) indicated by a voter who is proved to have been so bribed, treated or unduly influenced, and

(b) any number on the voter’s ballot paper indicating a subsequent preference shall be treated as reduced by one.”.

22 In section 199B (translations etc of certain documents), in subsection (6), for the words “in the case of a parliamentary election or” in paragraph (a) there is substituted—

“in the case of a parliamentary election, must have printed the following words both at the top and immediately below the list of candidates:

“Put the number 1 next to the name of the candidate who is your first choice (or your only choice, if you want to vote for only one candidate).

You can also put the number 2 next to your second choice, 3 next to your third choice, and so on.

You can mark as few or as many choices (up to the number of candidates) as you wish.

Do not use the same number more than once.”,

(aa) in the case of”.

Part 3

Amendments of other enactments

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41)

23 In section 3A of the 2000 Act (four Electoral Commissioners to be persons put forward by parties), in subsection (7), for “votes cast for” there is substituted “first-preference votes obtained by”.

24 In section 1 of the 1986 Act (Parliamentary constituencies) in subsection (1), for “a single member” there is substituted “no fewer than three members except for constituencies named in Schedule 2, rule 6 of this Act”’.

Amendment 224, in title, line 3, after ‘vote’, insert ‘plus’.

Amendment 35, in title, line 3, after ‘system’, insert

‘or the single transferable vote system or the additional member system’.

Amendment 139, in title, line 3, leave out

‘if a majority of those voting in the referendum are in favour of that’

and insert

‘or the single transferable vote system if either option is selected in the referendum’. ‘

Caroline Lucas Portrait Caroline Lucas
- Hansard - -

I am pleased to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians. We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers. It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.