Voter ID Pilot Schemes

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim McMahon]

I do not want to explore this cyclical argument too much, but let us say that we learn from this experience and voters become used to it, so that instead of 0.2% the figure falls to 0.1%. Does the hon. Gentleman believe, even so, that it is proportionate for 45,000 people to potentially be excluded, when only 28 allegations of voter fraud were made in the last general election?

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we hear the answer to that intervention, I must say that we shall start the wind-ups at 10 minutes past 5, and I would very much like to get another speaker in.

[Mr Lord]

Of course, Sir Christopher. In response to the intervention, I would say a couple of things. First, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) said when introducing the debate that none of the pilot areas had a history of voter fraud. I am afraid that that is not the case in Woking: there is a history of voter fraud, in one ward in particular. When Opposition Members talk about the very few accusations of and convictions for personation, that is a vast underestimate of the potential level of fraud.

Anecdotally, I am afraid to say, where postal voter fraud has happened in the past, lots of personation was almost certainly going on as well. I have heard horror stories from various parts of the country, including Woking, because personation is so easy. All that is needed is to know that someone is going on holiday, and anyone of the right sex can simply turn up at the polling station giving that name and address. That is all that is required, so in a marginal ward with a history of voter fraud, it is ridiculous to suggest that personation has not been taking place. Furthermore, we know from our history that personation in Northern Ireland did take place.

To sum up, it is well past time for us to have voter ID for our British elections. It has worked in Northern Ireland and worked remarkably well in our pilot areas, and I urge the Minister and the House to adopt it expeditiously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Smith]

I have no time.

I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s response to today’s intervention by Blackstone Chambers. According to Anthony Peto QC, the joint head of Blackstone, and fellow barrister Natasha Simonsen, schemes

“that restrict or discourage voting, or that inhibit voters,”

are beyond the scope of the Representation of the People Act 2000. Those leading barristers concluded that the pilots were illegal because they were incorrectly imposed by ministerial diktat rather than through Parliament. The Conservative party appears to have completely disregarded the rule of law. Does the Minister agree that, following that intervention, it is impossible for her Government to justify their undemocratic and unlawful plans?

The Windrush scandal demonstrated that it can be difficult for some communities to provide official documentation. This is the same hostile environment all over again, and it is shutting our fellow citizens out of public life. The Government were also warned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and more than 40 leading charities and academics in two separate interventions that voter ID requirements have a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority communities, older people, trans people and people with disabilities.

I have to start winding up, because I am running out of time.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

You have run out of time.

[Laura Smith]

I will wind up really quickly.

Does the Minister seriously believe that the Government are making voting accessible for everyone? The Labour party believes in a democracy for the many, not the few. We want everyone’s voice to be heard, no matter what their background, which is why we call on the Government to abandon their dangerous plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I will not. I have to conclude, and the hon. Gentleman and others have had their chance to contribute.

Voter ID is of course just one element of efforts, which I hope command cross-party support, to protect and sustain the electoral system, which should be precious to us all. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for coming along to express his support for voter ID. Indeed, he explained that he would go further and do more to protect the voting system. That is why we at the Cabinet Office, in partnership with the independent Electoral Commission and Crimestoppers, are working to ensure that people feel encouraged to report electoral fraud if they see it. I marvel at how the rest of the Labour party cannot bring themselves to support such efforts.

At the moment, it is easier to vote in someone else’s name than to collect a parcel at the post office, so doing nothing would be wrong. We cannot allow a crime to happen until it reaches a certain level. It is doubly unfortunate that the Labour party continues its scaremongering, especially given that the previous Labour Government introduced photo ID at polling stations across Northern Ireland in 2003. Although today’s Labour party might not think doing that is an acceptable step to protect our voting system, constituency Labour parties think it is good enough for them, as they routinely insist on ID. Doing one thing and saying another seems unprincipled to me. On top of that, Opposition Members came here to quibble about the numbers. This is not about statistics; it is about the principle. Why do they disagree with the principle of tackling electoral fraud?

Electoral fraud is not a victimless crime. The Electoral Commission stated in its 2013 review:

“The majority of people in communities affected by electoral fraud are victims rather than offenders. The people who are likely to be the victims of electoral fraud can be described as vulnerable.”

In his report on electoral fraud, Sir Eric Pickles explained clearly that it was

“local residents who lost out from the crooked politicians who bullied them and wasted their money. The law must be applied equally and fairly to everyone.”

I remain committed to ensuring that equality is integral to everything we do in elections policy. I met the EHRC earlier today, and we share common ground on ensuring that whatever we do has the rights of electors and the fairness, equality and inclusivity of our electoral system at its heart.

The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge made repeated reference to photographic ID. I think she knows that was not helpful. That is not what the pilots required. Let me put on the record that no one needed to purchase ID documents to be able to vote in the pilots. Local authorities provided alternative methods free of charge, to ensure that everyone who was registered had the opportunity to vote.

The Government will reflect on the voter ID evaluation that the Electoral Commission publishes in July. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) will find that the Electoral Commission has published the list of the data that it will use in that evaluation. We will use that as an opportunity to review, among other things, how the awareness-raising campaigns operated and what could be improved.

I say again to the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge that I am grateful to her for bringing forward the points she made and for staying in touch with residents in one of the important pilot areas, but her arguments are not convincing. This really is a simple matter of principle: do we or do we not believe in stamping out electoral fraud? I do.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Ellie Reeves, you have 10 seconds if you want them.

Salisbury Incident

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the actions of the Russian Federation are totally incompatible with membership of the Council of Europe, which believes in democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and will she ensure that we can expel Russia from the Council of Europe as a reprisal? Its continuing membership seems to fly in the face of our commitment to those important values.

[The Prime Minister]

That, too, is an important point. I do not think that it is within the hands only of the United Kingdom to expel Russia from the Council of Europe, but my hon. Friend will have heard our right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) suggest that Members of Parliament who are members of such multilateral groups should be making every effort to make the point about the illegitimate activity that has been undertaken by Russia.

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Border Arrangements

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We do not publish internal ministerial correspondence.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not being provoked by the ridiculous statements coming from the European Union on this subject. I commend to my right hon. Friend the wise words of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), because they show that we can have a border with regulatory divergence, as there is at the moment. Why can that not continue into the future?

[Mr Lidington]

We are certainly seeking no hard border and, helpfully, the Government of Ireland are also committed to that objective. Having served six years as Minister for Europe, I am used to trying to resist provocation, wherever it comes from.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think I will be having to resist the temptation to call the goose Jeremy.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On Thursday last week, there was a very important local referendum in Christchurch. The result was that 84% of the people of Christchurch want to keep it as an independent sovereign borough and are against its abolition. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I cannot understand this atmosphere. I want to hear about the views of the good burghers of Christchurch.

[Mr Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government respect the views of the people of Christchurch and give sufficient time—indeed, extra time—for the council to draw up alternative proposals that properly reflect the wishes of the people of Christchurch?

[The Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend obviously knows, being very close to this, local councils have been considering this issue over a significant period, as has the Department for Communities and Local Government.

UK Plans for Leaving the EU

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

When two countries enter into a trade agreement, both sides agree the set of rules and regulations pertaining to it, but they also agree how disputes will be resolved and what will happen if either side chooses to change or diverge from the rules and regulations. That is the position regarding our trade agreement with the EU, except that we already operate on the basis of the same rules and regulations. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will bring the EU acquis into UK law, so the key question, which will be part of the negotiations, is how we manage divergence on either side after that. It is the same as with any trade agreement.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that the EU genuinely wants a dynamic and creative future trade relationship with the UK in accordance with her vision? If so, where is the evidence for it?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I believe that such a relationship is in the interests of the remaining 27 members states of the EU and that as they come to look at this issue—they were not previously focusing on it, but Florence has now triggered their thinking on it—they will see the benefits of such a relationship not just to us but to them as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I understand that this is a very busy accident and emergency unit: it received more than 13,600 patients through its doors in April alone. It manages, however, to carry out 40,000 operations and more than 62,000 diagnostic tests every year, and since 2010 the trust has recruited 120 more doctors and 280 more nurses, but the Health Secretary will continue to monitor the matter closely. This brings us back, however, to the core argument today: if we remain in, we will have a stronger economy, and then, yes, we will have to take the proceeds of that growth and continue to put them into the NHS, as I have always done as Prime Minister.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am looking forward to the British people giving me the opportunity to vote against the vindictive emergency Budget. Will my right hon. Friend explain, if the Government are so strapped for cash, why they remain intent on spending £50 billion on HS2?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be strapped for cash, if we believe the Institute for Fiscal Studies or the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—both impeccably independent—who say that there would be a hole in our public finances of between £20 billion and £40 billion. You do not have to be an economic expert to see this: if the economy shrinks, and there are fewer jobs and lower wages, there will be less in tax receipts. If there is less in tax receipts, we will clearly need to make cuts, put up taxes or increase borrowing. It is a simple matter of mathematics. There is an easy way to avoid that situation—vote to stay in a reformed European Union next Thursday.

Debate on the Address

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and to hear about his alternative Queen’s Speech. I was particularly interested in his proposal for a real home rule Bill for Scotland. What concerned me was that he made no reference to control by the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament over their own fishing grounds or agriculture policy. Surely the logical position for those in Scotland who want home rule is that they want control over their own fishing and agriculture, which can be delivered only by voting leave on 23 June.

I was very much with the right hon. Gentleman on the concerns he expressed about maritime patrol aircraft. I have raised this issue in the House on a number of occasions. I do not think we have had a satisfactory explanation for how we are going to protect our borders against intruders, whether they are people traffickers, drug smugglers or whoever. It was a great mistake by the Government to disband the very effective maritime patrol system operating out of Hurn airport in my constituency.

I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). It is great to hear she has really dug into the idea of being a Back Bencher. “Don’t give up the chance to make a difference”, she says, “Seize the day”. Indeed, that is exactly what I intend to do on 23 June.

At the heart of the Gracious Speech is the statement:

“My Ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament”.

In my humble submission, that can be delivered only by leaving the EU, because our very membership undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. That is why my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is so much in the Brexiteer campaign: he realises that only by leaving the EU can we truly retain our sovereignty and have control over our own laws.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) on his speech, but he omitted to say that one of the great benefits of the referendum has been that the Government have been forced to come to an accommodation with the British Medical Association and the junior doctors over weekend working. The Government, understandably, are trying to clear the decks of obstacles in the run-up to the referendum.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is still on the Front Bench. I congratulate and thank him for the joke against himself about the plague of locusts. It shows he has taken on board the very serious criticism, in a leader in The Daily Telegraph, over the way he had allowed his capacity for invective to extend to suggesting, through exaggeration, that the whole of our destiny was at stake in the referendum. This time last year, he was saying he could envisage our leaving the EU at his request. He said he would be quite prepared to do that if he did not get a sufficient deal. He went out to get a deal and he thinks the deal was sufficient, but in any event it was quite a marginal situation.

Some of the hyperbole coming from the people who want to remain in the EU—I say this with the greatest of respect to my right hon. Friend—suggests that at no time could it have been in the interests of the people of the UK to leave the EU. That must be manifestly absurd in the light of the fact that he was telling his 27 colleagues in the EU that he would be quite prepared to recommend that we leave the EU, with all the consequences that would flow. That is still one of the big unanswered questions in this referendum campaign. If he thinks it would so obviously be doom and disaster if we left the EU, why did he call a referendum or ever let it be thought he might support the leave campaign?

The Government’s credibility has been damaged by a cavalier misuse of statistics designed to mislead the public in the referendum campaign. This time last year, I was arguing for an independent audit of the economic costs and benefits of the EU. In successive Sessions of Parliament, I have had a Bill providing for such a thing, and I put down a parliamentary question last June asking whether such an independent audit could be brought forward, but I did not get any substantive reply from the Treasury. Yet now we are told that the cost of leaving the European Union would be £4,300 per annum in terms of GDP per household. That rather good programme that the BBC is running at the moment poured scorn on that statistic—on Saturday, I think—when it said that GDP per household is not the same as income per household. In fact, GDP per household is some £66,000 per annum—and would every household not love to have £66,000 per annum on average? GDP per household is not the same as income per household, but it was being suggested that by 2030 every single household would have incurred a loss of that amount.

Then I looked at the leaflet that is part of the Electoral Commission brochure being circulated to every household as part of the referendum campaign and I saw, right at the top of the remain campaign propaganda, the assertion, quoting a CBI figure, that it would cost £91 billion if we were to leave the European Union. Because I was speaking last night to a group of accountants, I went and checked the origins of the figure produced in the remain leaflet. I found that, in March, PricewaterhouseCoopers did indeed do a study at the behest of the CBI. It is quite a substantial study, running to many pages, and is called “Leaving the EU: Implications for the UK economy”. That document makes it clear that if we remain in the European Union, real UK GDP in 2030, the date chosen by the Treasury for these exemplifications, will be about 41% higher than it is at the moment and that if we leave, it will be about 39% higher: a marginal difference of about 1% or 2% in 2030—not tomorrow or the next day, but 15 years out. It is therefore absurd for the remain campaign to use scaremongering, fear-creation tactics by trying to present to the people a totally different picture, which contrasts with data that the CBI itself commissioned from an independent firm of chartered accountants of international repute.

It is against that background that this Gracious Speech must be addressed, because the people are pretty cynical and sceptical. They are pretty sceptical about the Government’s claims that if we remain in the European Union, we will be able to retain control over our borders—implying that we have control at the moment over who comes to our country and who leaves from the European Union, which we manifestly do not. Even if those people have criminal convictions, we cannot deport them or prevent them from coming because of their human rights and the European Union’s freedom of movement rules.

When we have assertions in the Gracious Speech that the Government are going to do lots of wonderful things, including building another 1 million houses, one has to ask the question: if we are that short of houses, why are we contemplating having 3 million more migrants from the European Union by the year 2030? How will we be able to deliver on our manifesto pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands when all the figures show that every year we get more than 300,000 coming in from the European Union? My challenge to my right hon. Friend—I would be happy to give way to the Prime Minister if he wishes to intervene on this point—is: how will we ever be able to deliver on that solemn manifesto promise unless we leave the European Union? I accept that when that promise was made, my right hon. Friend thought he would be able to get a much better deal from his 27 counterparts in the European Union, but having failed to secure that deal, how does he think we will ever be able to meet that important manifesto promise?

The Queen’s Speech refers to more and fairer funding for schools. Speaking as a Member representing a constituency in Dorset, I know how unfair the current funding system is. Surely, we know that the tremendous pressure on our public services is caused by high levels of net migration, and the same is true for infrastructure. The Gracious Speech refers to improving infrastructure for businesses. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visits Dorset, as he does on many occasions, he will know that the traffic conditions are dire—again because of the pressure of population and traffic on the roads, leading to high levels of congestion.

That feeds into pressure on the green belt. My constituents share the Conservative vision of the green belt being sacrosanct, but the erosion of the green belt through pressure from housing and industrial development is very great at the moment, and there is nothing in the Gracious Speech about fishing and agriculture, which are two important parts of the economy of the south-west of England.

A great deal in the Queen’s Speech is premised on the fact that we are going to leave the European Union after the vote on 23 June. I am grateful to the Government for ensuring that it appears in the Gracious Speech. I have already referred to the issue of sovereignty, but the only way to improve the number and quality of housing is to ensure that we do not experience this incredible pressure on our public services—forced on us by uncontrolled immigration.

Let me make a few further points. The Queen’s Speech says that

“further powers will be devolved to directly elected mayors”.

Let me say to the Prime Minister that there is no appetite in Dorset for directly elected Mayors, although there is an appetite for genuinely devolved powers. The Government need to start to think about differentiating large urban areas where an elected Mayor may be appropriate, from largely rural areas where there is no appetite at all for such directly elected Mayors.

The reference in the Queen’s Speech to

“powers governing local bus services”,

is rather vague. If the consequence will be the unravelling of the 1985 legislation—I was a member of the Standing Committee considering the Bill dealing with buses—that introduced choice and competition into this country’s bus services, I would be extremely concerned. My constituents find that bus services are becoming less frequent, which is a real problem. They are prepared, they tell me—even if they are pensioners—to contribute something towards the cost of buses, so that they can retain a service. A free bus pass is no use if there is no bus on which to use it. I hope we will be able to look at that issue when the buses Bill is debated.

There is considerable scepticism about the assertion that local authorities will be allowed to retain business rates. Does that mean that all the business rates raised in a local authority area can be retained by that local authority? The advice I have been given suggests that it does not mean that, and that if a high resource is coming in from business rates in one area, there will be an equalisation system to ensure that not all those business rates will accrue to the local people. That needs to be made clear.

The Queen’s Speech also mentions provisions relating to our prisons. During the last Parliament, the current Leader of the Opposition and I were on the same trip to Denmark, when the Justice Committee visited Danish prisons. We noted that the regime there was so liberal that prisoners received a higher income than they would have received in their home countries in eastern Europe, whence they had come in order to commit crimes in Denmark. There is absolutely no deterrent for people who come to Denmark from another EU country where wage levels are much lower. The number of burglaries being committed by people from eastern Europe is a big issue in Denmark, but there is no deterrent, because, even when those people are incarcerated, the penalties they pay are low, and the income they receive for working in prison is greater than the income they would receive at home.

We talk about the need to get more resources into our prison system and reduce the pressures on our prisons. Why can we not do more to ensure that foreign offenders can be deported rather than filling up our prisons? We have tried to make progress in our negotiations in the European Union, but so far we have failed. When we look at the small print in the Gracious Speech, we see a great deal that will be able to blossom and flourish when the people vote to leave the European Union on 23 June.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

What the Government do, and what the Scottish National party does not always do, is respect the fact that people have different opinions. My view is very firmly that Scotland should remain in the EU, but I recognise and respect the fact that there are people in Scotland, including SNP voters and supporters, who want Scotland to leave the EU. That is why we are having a referendum, and that is why we are having a debate, and the people will have their say.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why has my right hon. Friend not emphasised that when we leave the European Union, the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish people will have sole control over Scottish fishing waters?

House of Commons Members’ Fund (No. 2) Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his generous comments and for accepting the amendments that I tabled in Committee. Often, one can make only modest achievements in this House, but if this Bill has saved £250,000 of Treasury money and will in future enable Members not to have to pay £2 a month, that will put into perspective the contribution made by my hon. Friend in promoting this Bill and including the necessary amendments. I hope that it will continue its passage without further ado.

European Parliament Elections Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I hope that this Bill will shortly be made redundant, because if we leave the European Union we will have no more European Parliament elections. We will then be able to centre our democracy on this Parliament, rather than having to defer to the Parliament of a supranational body. I will go no further than that, the Minister will be pleased to hear, in the debate about the European Union. In any event, those who are elected to the European Parliament should be properly accountable to their electors, but the existing system gives too much power to political parties and lists, and not enough to the people.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the allegiance of those elected to the European Parliament is to their party or group in that Parliament, not their national Governments?

[Mr Chope]

I am not sure that I do; if that is the situation, it is very unsatisfactory. Members of the European Parliament should be elected to represent their constituents, just as we are, but as soon as people become European Commissioners they have to give up their allegiance to their home country and do everything in the name of the Commission.

There are some good examples of Members of the European Parliament who are acting in their constituents’ interests. I hope that many more will do so. The Bill would help to facilitate that, as its purpose is to ensure that there is a system of open rather than closed lists. Anyone whose candidature was put before the electors could have a cross put beside their name and the elector would not just be ticking a list for a particular party membership.

At the moment, someone who wants to vote Conservative in the European elections in the south-west of England, where my constituency is, will have no say over the order of preferences for Conservative candidates. Someone who thinks that the fourth or fifth candidate on the Conservative party list is the best has no opportunity of voting for them because the list has been sorted out by the party in private sessions and a Conservative vote is deemed to be for the first candidate—and, if there are sufficient votes, the second candidate and so on. That is completely different from what most would see as a fair election, in which they can choose the candidate for themselves.

The present system gives a lot of undue power to political parties and makes it more difficult for strong and independent voices to get elected to the European Parliament. It also creates all sorts of perversities—for example, if someone elected on one party list to the European Parliament chooses to change party, as often seems to happen, they retain their position in the European Parliament, but for the different party, without any opportunity for the electors in their region to select somebody else.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

That system also seems to work here, which I think is wrong.

[Mr Chope]

It can work here, although my hon. Friend should remember the courageous move made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell). He said he did not wish to carry on as a Conservative Member and wanted to change his party allegiance. Before doing that, however, he sought the endorsement of the electorate in a by-election. That was a worthy approach. I hope that the mood is changing and that people will not feel that they can ignore the mandate given to them by their constituents and switch parties without reverting to their electors.

The Bill seems quite complicated in the sense that, although it has only three clauses, one clause has nine subsections, but I have been advised that that is the only way in which we can alter the existing system to introduce the open list system for elections to the European Parliament.

I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister says. I expect him to preface his remarks by saying that he hopes we do not have any more European elections, but that, if we do, he can assure us that they are going to be more democratic than those we have had in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comment, but I do not think we will be taking him up on his offer in the near future. The Government made a number of manifesto pledges in this area, and we are going to deliver on our pledges, including on all those involving electoral reform and boundary changes. I thank him, however, for his kind offer.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend said that in the 2011 referendum the people of the United Kingdom overwhelmingly endorsed the first past the post system. Does he share my regret that the European Union is now preventing us from being able to reintroduce first past the post for European Parliament elections? What business is it of theirs? Why can we not decide that for ourselves?

[Mr Wilson]

As my hon. Friend will know, this country agreed to change the electoral system at European level from first past the post, and having done so it would be fairly disingenuous for the Government to go back on it at this stage. Although we may move to another system, we could not now go back to first past the post. I will make a few more comments about that in a moment.

It may help hon. Members if I set out some information about the history of the voting system used in UK elections for the European Parliament. As they will know, direct elections for the European Parliament first took place in 1979. From 1979 until 1994, such elections in Great Britain were held under first past the post. I am very keen to support that system, and I certainly supported it at the referendum in 2011. Great Britain was divided up into a number of single Member constituencies. At each election voters had one vote, and the candidate in each constituency who received the most votes was returned as the MEP for that constituency.

Since the first elections in 1979, the single transferable vote has been used in European elections in Northern Ireland. That reflects the long-standing practice of using proportional representation and specifically STV in Northern Ireland for elections other than to the House of Commons. My hon. Friend’s Bill proposes no change to the type of voting system used in Northern Ireland at European elections.

The Labour party manifesto for the UK general election in 1997, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, gave a commitment to introduce proportional representation for European parliamentary elections. Upon taking office, the new Labour Government announced that they intended to introduce a regional list system for the European parliamentary elections. The European Parliamentary Elections Bill was introduced in Parliament by the then Government in October 1997.

That Bill proposed a system where a voter in each region would have one vote which could be cast for either a party or an independent candidate. Hon. Members may be aware that debate in Parliament centred on the type of list system to be used, with a number of attempts made to introduce a form of open list system, where voters would be able to vote for individual party candidates. The then Government’s preference was for a closed list system. Their concern about the open list system, as suggested by the then Opposition, was that there might be individual candidates who were not elected, while others from another party with fewer individual votes were elected because their party was more successful overall. In other words, voters’ preferences for individual candidates may not necessarily be translated into electoral success. This might call into question the legitimacy of some elected representatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

Obviously, the d’Hondt system is named after the Belgian lawyer who devised it as far back as the 1870s. It is what can only be described as a complicated system. It is certainly somewhat complicated for a simple layman like me. However, I would be very happy to arrange a seminar with officials for any hon. Member who seeks to understand the system in more detail than my remarks in the Chamber today have allowed. I hope that that satisfies the House.

[Mr Chope]

Will the Minister explain how the d’Hondt system relates to open lists?

[Mr Wilson]

I knew that if I mentioned the d’Hondt system I would get questions, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to come to the seminar that I am arranging, and questions of that nature will be answered in great detail. We could arrange a two-day seminar if that would help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

I will certainly try to do that. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will finish the section on returning officers first and then return to that point later.

The functions for which LROs are responsible include the printing of the ballot papers, unless the RRO directs otherwise. The Bill will impact on the design of the ballot paper at European elections. They also include: the appointment of presiding officers and poll clerks; the management of the postal voting system; and the verification and counting of votes. The Bill will have an impact on the counting process at European elections. LROs may appoint one or more deputies to assist them in carrying out their functions, although they cannot delegate their personal responsibility for delivering the election in their counting area. The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland is automatically the regional returning officer for Northern Ireland and is responsible for running the poll there. I know the hon. Member for Ealing North is very keen to hear about Northern Ireland.

I should also say a few words about the roles of the Government and the Electoral Commission in running the elections. The Government are responsible for the legislative framework within which elections are run. For important reasons, the Government have no role in the administration of elections on the ground. Rightly, that is the responsibility of independent returning officers and the electoral administrators in their charge. The Government also have a role in the funding of elections, which I will come on to later. The proposals in the Bill would have an impact on the funding of European elections. The Electoral Commission’s duties include: providing guidance to electoral administrators to help them to carry out their functions in relation to the administration of elections; the setting of performance standards for these elections; and to report on elections once they have taken place.

Turning to the most recent European elections in 2014, the House of Commons Library research paper on the 2014 European elections in the UK, published in June 2014, provides the following summary of results on those elections as follows:

“The UK elections were held concurrently with council elections in England and Northern Ireland on 22 May. The UK now has 73 MEPs, up from 72 at the last election, distributed between 12 regions. UKIP won 24 seats, Labour 20, the Conservatives 19, and the Green Party three. The Liberal Democrats won only one seat, down from 11 at the 2009 European election. The BNP lost both of the two seats they had won for the first time at the previous election. Across Great Britain, UKIP were first with 27.5% of the vote. Labour came second with 25.4%, ahead of the Conservatives with 23.9%.”

It is good to see Labour coming second again—I could not resist that, I am sorry. It continued:

“Labour won the popular vote in Wales, while the SNP came first in Scotland. UKIP came first in six of the nine English regions, with their strongest performances in the East, the East Midlands, the South East and the South West. Sinn Féin won the most first preference votes in Northern Ireland. UKIP’s share of the vote increased by 11.0% points, while Labour’s increased by 9.7% points. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat shares fell by 3.8% points and 6.9% points respectively. UK turnout was 35.4%, slightly higher than 34.5% in 2009, but lower than 38.4% in 2004, when four regions held all-postal ballots.”

Let me comment on the features of the open list voting system, which is central to today’s debate. Under open list systems of proportional representation, electors still elect MEPs to multi-member electoral areas or regions, and will have one vote. However, the key difference between open list and closed list voting systems is that under an open list voting system, electors may cast their vote for an individual party candidate as opposed to a particular party, as happens under the closed list, or indeed an independent candidate.

The seats in each region are still allocated to parties or independent candidates in proportion to the total number of votes they receive—namely, for a party. The total sum of votes given to all the candidates standing for the party in the region will determine the total number of seats allocated. Under an open list system, seats are assigned to party candidates in the order of those receiving the highest number of votes. In some open list systems, voters may choose whether to vote for a political party or a particular candidate within that party’s list. The Bill, however, does not provide for that.

At this point, it may be helpful to inform our consideration of the Bill by saying a few words about the earlier review of the balance of competences, which addressed the voting system used for UK European parliamentary elections. Under the coalition Government in July 2012, the then Foreign Secretary launched the review of the balance of competences. It comprised an audit of what the EU does and how it affects the UK, and it was based on evidence from a range of stakeholders. The voting, consular and statistics report of the review was published in December 2014, and the call for evidence was open for three months from March 2014, while submissions of evidence were received from a range of stakeholders, including electoral administrators, academics, relevant non-governmental organisations and other organisations, and the devolved Administrations.

[Mr Chope]

Can the Minister spare us the pain of taking us through this very expensive and bureaucratic process? Would he accept that it was a complete waste of time?

[Mr Wilson]

Well, that is of course my hon. Friend’s opinion, but if we are to debate the issues in depth, I think it important to get everything out in the open and on the table, so that if the Bill goes any further later in this Parliament or in the next Parliament, we will have solid grounds on which to discuss these issues. I would therefore like to put these matters on the record.

On the voting system for the UK European parliamentary elections, the majority of respondents felt that introducing open list systems for those elections would be “a positive step”, although in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said earlier, he might not want me to say that. Some respondents also felt that a move to an open list system might be of benefit in better engaging electors. For example, this view was expressed by the Electoral Reform Society in its submission of evidence to the review.

Let me read out an extract from chapter 2 of the voting section of the report, which covers the voting system used for UK European parliamentary elections. [Interruption.] I can see the excitement coming from the hon. Member for Ealing North. He has sat up in his seat, bolt upright and to attention, desperate to hear what chapter 2 says. So, here goes:

“At the time of the introduction of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, there was considerable debate in the UK Parliament on the issue of moving from the previous, constituency- based, first past the post system, to the closed list system in use for UK European Parliamentary elections today. The majority of this debate focused on the planned move to a closed rather than open list system of proportional representation.

Respondents expressed mixed views regarding the EU requirement for MEPs to be elected in accordance with the principle of proportional representation. One reason given for this was the potentially weaker electoral connection between MEPs and the electorate. Some attendees at a stakeholder event held in Brussels to discuss the issues in this report felt that the move from first past the post to proportional representation had weakened this link because voters did not select an individual to represent them directly. It was also noted that, given these arrangements and although MEPs do receive a significant amount of casework, electors were more likely to contact MPs in the first instance.

In contrast, the Electoral Reform Society stated that ‘it is correct that the EU only allows countries to use a proportional system…additionally, it is correct that an institution such as the European Parliament, which runs on consensus and scrutiny, should reflect the broad swathe of the British public’. The Scottish Government was also of the view that the requirement that all Member States adopted a system of proportional representation was reasonable. They felt that whilst it was sometimes suggested that first past the post systems created a closer link between candidates and the electorate, equally there was strong support for a proportional system which ensured that voters were more likely to see a candidate from their selected party elected.

The majority of respondents did, however, criticise the closed list system used in England, Scotland and Wales. A few attendees at the stakeholder event in Brussels saw the closed system as an advantage because ‘it gives voters some certainty as to the candidates most likely to represent them on behalf of a party, if that party was elected’. However, the general opinion across respondents was that the closed list system failed to ‘engage voters to the same extent as an open list system’. As the Electoral Reform Society highlighted, ‘polls suggest only around 7-10% of the public can name their MEP’. For this reason, some attendees at a stakeholder event held in London expressed a preference for the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system used in Northern Ireland, or for further research to be undertaken in this area. The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland noted in his evidence that ‘there are no real concerns about the lack of constituency links with regard to…MEPs’ in Northern Ireland.

The majority of respondents considered that to introduce open list systems (used elsewhere in Europe) for UK European Parliamentary elections would be a positive development; for example, the Electoral Reform Society felt that such a move to an open list system would be a ‘vast improvement’ This argument is reinforced in an article published in 2009 by academics Professor Simon Hix and Dr Sara Hagemann, which found that in those countries using open list systems electors were 20% more likely to be contacted by candidates or parties than in those states which used closed list systems. Electors were also 15% more likely to say that they felt informed about elections and 10% more likely to turnout. However in the main it was felt that a change to the current balance of competences was not necessarily the most effective way to achieve stronger links between individual candidates and electors”.

A number of respondents to the call for evidence expressed concerns about the current closed list voting system used at European parliamentary elections in Great Britain. However, as I said earlier, there have been no widespread calls for a change in the open list voting system; certainly, my postbag is not full of such requests. Also, this country recently voted against a change to the voting system used for Westminster parliamentary elections in the 2011 referendum on the alternative vote system. There does not appear to be a great appetite for change on the part of the public across the country, and we have to take that into account when we consider this issue.

As hon. Members are aware, EU legislation stipulates that all member states must adopt a proportional voting system for the European parliamentary elections using either a list system or single transferable vote. I understand that a small number of member states use the single transferable vote for European elections. The Republic of Ireland and Malta are examples of this. However, most member states use a form of list system, with both closed and open list voting systems being used to elect MEPs across the member states.

Seats in the European Parliament are allocated to member states on the basis of degressive proportionality. This is the principle that the distribution of seats to member states should, as far as possible, reflect the range of populations. Larger member states have a higher number of MEPs than smaller member states, but in turn, those MEPs represent a larger number of citizens. There is a minimum allocation of six MEPs for a member state and a maximum of 96. Germany is the member state with the largest number, with 96, while Estonia, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta each have six.

For the record, the current number of MEPs for each member state is as follows: Germany 96; France 74; United Kingdom 73; Italy 73; Spain 54; Poland 51; Romania 32; the Netherlands 26; the Czech Republic 21; Belgium 21; Greece 21; Hungary 21; Portugal 21; Sweden 20; Austria 18; Bulgaria 17; Denmark 13; Finland 13; Slovakia 13; Ireland 11; Croatia 11; Lithuania 11; Latvia 8; Slovenia 8; Cyprus 6; Estonia 6; Luxembourg 6; and Malta 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

It has been a pleasure to listen for so long to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I think that he will be a worthy nominee to the European Commission, because he has today shown his capacity to make a bureaucratic mountain out of a veritable molehill. He has also, in the course of his speech, set out a number of very good reasons why we would indeed be better off leaving the European Union, for which I am grateful. He pointed out that even when all the United Kingdom’s MEPs vote in the same lobby, they have fewer than one in 10 votes, which means we will always be in a minority. We will always find that our national interest cannot be protected in the European Parliament because of the system we have. I hope that the Government will be saved the burden of having to examine the issue any further when the people decide to leave the European Union on 23 June. In anticipation of that result, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill withdrawn.

[Stephen Pound]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your distinguished predecessor, the right hon. Baroness Boothroyd, once ruled me out of order one a Friday morning, during a debate on offshore oil platforms, because I had listed the full names and Latin names of every single species of marine life to be found in the vicinity. She said at the time that the House will not accept tedious and needless repetition of irrelevant facts. Do you agree that listing the voter turnout in 28 European nations and the number of MEPs comes within the aegis of the Boothroyd ruling?