HC Deb 06 July 1967 vol 749 cc2139-65

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 13, at end, insert: 'Provided that without prejudice to the generality of4this subsection. Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the registration of electors in Bermuda and for the law in regard to the disqualification of candidates for election to the House of Assembly.'—[Miss Lestor.]

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

A few days ago, on 26th June, we were discussing this question and we were stopped by the passage of time that morning. Since then, I have felt a bit like Mahomet's coffin, suspended in the middle of a most elaborate statistical argument. I was interrupted by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—he is not present at the moment—who volleyed below me, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State kindly interpolated some figures of her own.

We were discussing the visit of Mr. Hucks, who did some very good work on the question of registration of electors, the whole object being that as many people as possible should get to the polls. My hon. Friend the Minister of State had said that, according to the P.L.P. memorandum, about 75 per cent. of voters had registered in 1963. I hope that she will, with her usual courtesy, allow me to go on to explain the matter further. Now that I have, in the meantime, had the benefit of studying the results of Mr. Hucks' work, I think that I can put it more correctly.

To establish where we are, I quote, first, from paragraph 8 of the Opposition Party's memorandum. On the registration of Parliamentary electors, it says: The present system is defective. It is unfair and prejudices the working-class elector. As will be seen from Appendix I, only 61 per cent. of potential electors were registered in Pembroke North, which contains one-third of the total coloured vote in the Colony. I could go on to quote other figures.

At the end, the Opposition Party suggested that the United Kingdom Government might consider lending to the Colony, under Technical Aid, an expert who has experience in the compiling of electoral registers and who would be in charge of the preparation of a full and up-to-date register". This was done. Mr. Hucks went out.

I have now the benefit, which I had not on the last occasion, of some solid figures and the statements made by the expert who was sent out by the Government. On the first page of his report, dated Friday 14th April, 1967, he says, in paragraph 4: My terms of reference were, 'to undertake a review of the existing system of registration for Parliamentary elections in Bermuda, and to see what improvements can be made in the system'. Unhappily, in paragraph 6, on the next page, I read: I interpret my terms of reference to confine me to the consideration of improvements to the existing voluntary system in Bermuda. In other words, he was not sent to change the system, but a number of people, not least the delegates to the conference, thought that that was what he was being sent to do. Mr. Hucks was under no illusions about what he had to do. He got on with the job, and the result is seen in paragraph 29, on page 5: The actual number registered for the 1963 election was 14,896 which is 64 per cent. of this registrable total. But as the registration was done earlier in the year the registrable total would be slightly less and the percentage actually registered slightly over 64%. Therefore, these citizens have two elections, first to get registered, in which about 64 per cent. take part, and the second when possibly half of that 64 per cent. actually make a mark on the paper and try to elect their members.

10.45 p.m.

This is quite unsatisfactory. I wonder why Mr. Hucks was sent out. I understood that this expert was being sent to look at the whole system and alter it if possible. It has not been possible. The U.B.P., which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West has unkindly called the "United Bankers' Party," met the minority party with a view to the alteration of the law. We now know, although we did not know it when we had our first debate, that the U.B.P. has not accepted any alterations, and it will go into battle at the next election in mid-1968 under conditions which I think to be unfair to the mass of the coloured electors, who will find some difficulty in making clear their right to vote.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer some of our questions and tell us what she thinks of the situation. I do not think that she is any more happy about it than I am. What chances are there of possible changes for the coming elections? She may say that they are nil, because the Select Committee there is deciding what it wishes in its own society, where its members live and pay their taxes. I understand that they pay nothing but indirect taxes, although many people there could well pay a form of income tax.

I hope that my hon. Friend will also tell us what are likely to be the conditions after the mid-1968 elections, whether it will be possible to consider changes in the light of what has happened for a future election, which may come in the 1970s. This is where the crunch conies, because we cannot now alter the Select Committee's decision, which the Minister, I am afraid, may be forced by the Constitution to accept.

What we want is some form of guarantee—I notice that my hon. Friend the Minister is nodding; I think that she is nodding assent—or, if not a guarantee, at least an assurance that when the elections are over we shall have another look at the position in the light of our experiences in mid-1968, which, I hope, will not be too unhappy, and see what should be done.

The second part of the Amendment was about the qualifications of candidates. It is a fact that has never been denied that those working in the public sector are debarred from standing as candidates. It is a fact of life in Bermuda that should be changed as soon as possible. Looking at other colonial territories, in some of which I have actively worked at election time, particularly in Africa, it seems absurd that bus conductors, mechanics and fitters looking after publicly owned buses should not be allowed to stand for election. An obvious example is teachers. It is most unfair, to put it at its mildest, that bankers, builders and contractors in an island like this, where they have so much at stake financially and in the way of contracts, should be able to stand for the Assembly and even the Executive Cabinet.

It is not only unfair but unusual in my experience elsewhere. I have worked with leaders of other independence and opposition parties in other parts of the coloured Commonwealth, and it is out of the ranks of teachers—an example is Kenneth Kaunda, of Zambia—mechanics, bus conductors and the like, and union leaders—Tom Mboya of Kenya is an example—that the leaders of independence movements come. It should be the same in Bermuda.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

It is the same in this country, too.

Mr. Johnson

Of course, but I was speaking in a colonial context, where education is much more hardly got—or was in the past—and where there are masses of illiterate and even inarticulate workers. It is there that the teacher or union leader, by virtue of his gifts and qualifications and by being able to understand what the authorities are proposing. comes to the top.

I congratulate the Minister of State—I know she will take no offence at this—on the wide-upmanship of the Government in putting this business on the Order Paper for this late hour. Good-natured people like myself and my colleagues do not wish to penalise Ministers by sitting after midnight, unlike the mischievous Opposition, who always do it. But so should we if we were in opposition. But I think that we should use a little moderation and common sense about this and later, perhaps on Clause as a whole, we might make the point I mentioned earlier about what is to happen about consultation and decision-making after the next election in 1968.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State on two grounds, first, because I have not previously taken part in the debates on the Bill, and, secondly, because I fully appreciate that it is extremely hard on Ministers that they should have to sit up late at night. It is hard on us, but it is also hard on them.

But having read the proceedings on the Bill so far, I wish that I had taken part earlier. My hon. Friend is one of the best members of the Government. I do not hold her absolutely responsible for everything presented here, although I am sure she will defend what is presented. But I say to her and the Government, if they are listening, that, as I read through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the previous debates, I became more and more concerned about the whole proposition which is now being put before us.

It is right, therefore, that we should make it clear to the people of Bermuda that the House of Commons is extremely concerned about this Bill and that if we do pass it we shall do so only with great reluctance among hon. Members on this side. I say that because of the peculiar position that arises under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) has referred, also, to what I consider to be the most important aspect, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State also mentioned it on Second Reading.

It concerns what will be the position under the Orders in Council and what will be the possibility of putting the kind of proposals contained in this Amendment following the elections which will take place in 1968 under this Constitution—assuming that the Orders in Council are put into operation. The situation is peculiar, because the Government first told us, in the Report of the Bermuda Constitutional Conference: It was pointed out on behalf of the United Kingdom Government that the form of the new Constitution could be made an election issue and that if a majority of members were elected to the House of Assembly who were opposed to some or all of its features, the new Government would then have a mandate from the electorate to seek further changes which the United Kingdom Government would, of course, consider. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, that we should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for going considerably further than that. It would be graceless on our part if we did not acknowledge that her statement on Second Reading did go further. Perhaps that was due to the fact that some of my hon. Friends had been pressing the Government strongly. I would like detailed clarification of what her undertaking meant. She said: …it does not have to be a request made by the electors of the majority party, and it does not have to be the majority party only in the House of Assembly which asks us to consider further changes to be considered. That was a concession beyond what was said at the time of the Conference.

My hon. Friend went on. If the P.L.P., after the next election, says that we should look again at this matter, we shall consider that request although, obviously, I cannot give a free commitment because one does not know just what the request might be." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 1061.] This is a very interesting statement. I repeat. My hon. Friend says: If the P.L.P., after the next election, says that we should look again at this matter, we shall consider that request… 11.0 p.m.

The P.L.P. is asking that we should look again at the matter now. It must appear somewhat strange to the P.L.P. representatives and supporters in Bermuda that they are told that after the election their representations will be considered further, but that their representations are being rejected now; that is, their representations about the two matters in the Amendment about registration and qualifications for standing.

On the face of it, that is a peculiar undertaking. I cannot recall such an undertaking being given in those circumstances. It seems very strange that the Government should say, "We will be prepared to look at your representations after the election, but we are not prepared to look at them before. We think they may be valid after the election, but they are not valid now."

That is a very strange situation. I think that the Government realise the faulty position in which they have been placed and wish to make a concession which shows that they recognise this and are prepared to put it right. However, in the process of doing so they have made a commitment to listen to the representations of the P.L.P. after the election when they are not prepared to accept their representations now.

What are the results of the election that are likely to influence the Government? I acknowledge and repeat that the Government have gone further than the previous undertaking and have agreed that they will, after the election, not merely pay heed to representations from the majority party, according to this registration and according to this electoral law, but they will also be prepared to pay heed, if necessary, to the minority party.

Suppose there is an aggregate vote under this election and under that aggregate vote it is clear that there is a majority against the Constitution that we are discussing. Although that majority is not represented in the House of Assembly, will the Government then give an undertaking that they will certainly revoke the Constitution or come back with new proposals if the total aggregate vote shows that there is a rejection of the present Constitution, or will the Government give an undertaking about a timetable when they will reconsider this matter?

I think that, having gone so far, the Government must now go further still and make clearer what is the commitment. I am glad that the commitment was made that there will be a reconsideration of all these matters, because it casts a strange reflection on the whole of the Bill that we are now considering when the Government is seeking to get it through the House by saying, "We will reconsider the whole of the matter again immediately after the election or very soon after the election if any representations are made to us then."

The Government know now that representations will be made to them immediately after the election, whichever way the election goes. It may be that the representations will be greatly reinforced by what happens at the election, but there is not the slightest doubt—my hon. Friend the Minister of State knows it as well as I do—that the P.L.P. will not change its views. If the election goes very favourably for it, she may be able to say, "This Constitution was not so badly rigged as some of us have charged." She may be able to argue that, but, even if that is the case, she will have the representations.

The Government must not think that they are disposing of this matter by this Bill when they get it through. They are not disposing of it, because we will soon have it all back again. Some of us are arguing—and the more I look at it the more I think it will be a good case—that it will be better to go through the whole process again before the election and remodel it, and we have put forward proposals for the way in which it could be improved. But the Government have agreed that to a great extent our work will be superfluous, because it will be superseded by what happens soon after the election.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made a major concession, and, if it has not driven a coach and horses through the Bill, it has driven a very large hole through it. But in many respects it would have been better for the Government to hold up the whole Bill. I understand that they have plenty of time.

The Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It will be obvious to the Committee that the debate is proceeding well beyond the rather narrow limits of the Amendment. In view of the way in which the debate has taken place so far, it may well be convenient to have a wide debate on the Amendment now to enable us to save time later.

Mr. Foot

That is perfectly agreeable to me, Sir Eric. This is the first time for a long time that I have been interrupted with an invitation to widen the discussion, but I resist the temptation and will conclude within a few minutes.

Those of us who have come to press this matter on the Government are extremely serious about it. We do not think that it is right to push through this archaic Constitution in the way in which the Government propose. I know that my hon. Friend has argued on several occasions that this is an advance on what has happened before, but we all know that when an institution is reformed and the reform does not go far enough, the fact that there has been a reform gives it a respectability.

This Constitution is regarded by those who think that they are to benefit from it as being a Constitution which will last for a considerable time. As the position has not been changed for about 1,000 years, it would be difficult to introduce a Bill which did not make any improvements and, of course, there have been some. But those who predominantly shaped it and who think that they will benefit from it think that the Constitution will last for a considerable time.

However, the Government do not say that. They say that immediately after the elections they will probably have to reconsider the whole matter. I do not know whether that is fully understood in Bermuda, and it ought to be understood. My major suggestion is that the Government should withdraw the Bill in which case we might be able to discuss it in November. I do not believe that the Government fully appreciate the implications of the concessions which they have made.

If they are not prepared to do that, this discussion will have served a useful purpose in making it absolutely clear to the people of Bermuda that this Constitution is a temporary affair and that once they have gone through elections, representations can be made, whatever the results of the election might be, and that the Government will consider those representations very carefully.

All I am saying is that as a matter of logic and convenience it might have been very much better if the Government had now fully taken into account the representations of the P.L.P., which probably represents the majoritiy of the people of the island, rather than to take them into account in a year's time, or whenever it may be, when the Government will be committed to taking them into account and presenting fresh Orders in Councils and, perhaps, fresh legislation on the subject.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

Since the introduction of the Bill the tone of the debates on it has been notable for the conflict between the figures given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) pointed out the vast contradiction between the two sets of figures. I should like to clarify the position by presenting the figures which I have, so that there can be no room for further argument in this respect.

Paragraph 8 of the P.L.P. report made it quite clear that what was being asked for was that the British system of registration should be introduced into Bermuda. It made this quite clear, and the wording cannot be contradicted. It states: The Party therefore proposes that the Conference should decide upon the adoption of a registration system based on that in force in the United Kingdom. It is quite clear what the Progressive Labour Party wanted in the new Constitution. In the Second Reading debate the Minister said: A suggestion was discussed at the Constitutional Conference that the registration system in Bermuda should be chanced to the kind of system used in this country. I would suggest to the hon. Lady, as she is a lady, that there is a vast difference between a suggestion and a proposal. One can be caught for breach of promise on a proposal, but one cannot be caught on a suggestion.

My hon. Friend went on to say: But there was no convincing evidence that the present system operated unfairly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1967; Vol. 748. c. 1055.] I suggest to her that there was overwhelming evidence that the present system was operating unfairly because everyone at the conference agreed that the registration system was ineffective. That was the reason why it was decided to have new boundaries drawn up in Bermuda, and that they would be drawn not on the registration, but on the estimated potential electorate. Since then that has happened. What is the use of drawing up a constituency on the estimated total of the people who will have the right to vote if those people are not registered as voters?

The whole academic exercise is of no avail if the boundaries are divided on the estimated voting population and then, when the election comes round, one finds that those voters are not registered and, therefore, not entitled to vote? It was agreed at the conference that an expert from the Colonial Office, a man with vast experience in these matters, would go out to Bermuda to see whether the existing system could be improved. The P.L.P. has made it clear, in all its publications, and in its personal submissions to hon. Members on this side of the Committee, that it was under the impression that this expert would go out to Bermuda to see whether the British system could be implanted in Bermuda.

It was in no doubt whatever about that. Then it found that when Mr. Hucks got there one of the first decisions that he arrived at was that this matter was outside his terms of reference, and that he could not implement the British system in Bermuda. Many of my hon. Friends have had made available to them Mr. Hucks's report and I suggest that no one who had paid any attention to the report would be under any doubt that the registration system there is totally inadequate to bring about a democratic electorate in Bermuda.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be bound to agree with me in this. In paragraph 15 of the report, he says: Registration officers do not question or check the qualifications of the persons applying to them for registration. This means that a person in Bermuda can walk into a registration centre, give his name and address, and the registration officer, in the words of Mr. Hucks, would have no opportunity to check that person's bona fides. It is possible for the same person to do the same thing in a number of centres. There are 18 registration centres in Bermuda.

Mr. James Johnson

My hon. Friend should read the succeeding paragraph, paragraph 16, which says: With the births and immigration records available to the Registrar in Hamilton City it should not be difficult to check the qualifications of any applicant. This is true.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Fitt

I agree with my hon. Friend. Paragraph 16, however, seems to contradict paragraph 15, because paragraph 15 states that registration officers do not question or check the qualifications, but the succeeding paragraph states that it should not be difficult to check them.

Let us take paragraphs 69 to 72 in relation to paragraph 15. Paragraph 69 states: My terms of reference permit me to consider improvements to the registration system that do not necessarily lead to increasing the number of persons registered. I fail to understand this terminology. What is the intention of trying to improve the existing system if it does not lead to an increase in the number of persons registered? It seems to be a waste of time.

Following on in paragraph 70, it is stated that In England millions of people are registered; millions go to vote. If a few unqualified persons are left in the registers and vote. the chances of their voting having any effect on the election results are infinitesimal. The most important paragraph, however, is paragraph 71, which states: In Bermuda with 18 constituencies sharing a total electorate of less than 18,000 (so far) the value of individual votes is enormously greater than in England. In the 1963 election. the losing candidate in Hamilton East lost by four votes; the best loser in Smith's East lost by 69 votes; in Paget West the best loser lost by 96 votes; in Southampton West the best loser lost by 36 votes; in Sandys South the best loser lost by 45 votes. It is now proposed to increase the constituencies to 20 so that unless the electorate is increased margins may be even smaller in future. This is the most important part of the report, because it highlights what can happen under the present ineffective registration system.

Paragraph 72 reads: In such conditions the registration of even a few unqualified persons and their subsequent voting may easily affect election results. Paragraph 15 states that there is to be no check on any person who walks into a registration office and says, "My name is John Smith. I live at…" and goes to another registration centre and yet another and does the same thing. It is pointed out in paragraph 72 that this could influence the result of an election. Therefore, the recommendation, not of the Progressive Labour Party or of any other person in Bermuda, but of an expert sent from this country, proves that the system is totally ineffective.

I have tried to illustrate what could happen under the existing system if it is maintained. It may not benefit the United Bermuda Party, it may not benefit the Progressive Labour Party. Whatever party it may benefit, in those circumstances it negates the whole democratic concept of elections as we know them.

That is why I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). The next election in Bermuda will be fought under the present system. In paragraph 72 of his report, Mr. Hucks states that even a few unqualified voters could decide an election. We are in the position of accepting the situation that a few voters may find themselves in the position of dictating the outcome of an election and then, later, we are to be asked to take steps to remedy the effect of what has happened.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that now is the time to take steps to make certain that what I have illustrated does not happen. The case which my hon. Friends have put forward is unanswerable. It has been proved conclusively that the system is not effective. Mr. Hucks himself goes on to say that the present system was 64 per cent. effective and the recommendations which he had made might increase the effectiveness up to 70 per cent.

We should not be prepared to accept that a 70 per cent. effectiveness in the registrations is right. In the system in this country—and I am the first to say that it could not be bettered—we must have a 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. accuracy. What is good in this country is good for Bermuda.

Mr. Hucks said in his report that the system in Bermuda did not operate unfairly against one party or another. He said that the system provided for publicity and that the people had to read the papers to find out when and where they had to register. But, in paragraph 45, he said: For publicity media. Bermuda is exceptionally well equipped. But its advertisement of the 1967 registration period in the newspapers was rather meagre. It was confined to a reproduction for the formal Government notice giving dates, times and places for registration and inserted once in each paper over a week before the registration period was due to begin. Bermuda newspapers bulge with advertisements of all sizes and shapes. I found the registration notices very inconspicuous; indeed, I have considerable difficulty in finding them at all. This is from the expert who was sent out from this country. He said that one could hardly notice the advertisements in the press because the papers were all taken up with all sorts of other advertisements. He found the greatest difficulty in finding the Government's notice telling the people where and when to register.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart)

My hon. Friend has described what Mr. Hucks found to be the case at the last election. If he will go on he will see that Mr. Hucks made lists of recommendations for giving greater publicity of the voluntary registrations.

Mr. Fitt

I agree that he makes recommendations, but even these recommendations, he believes, will increase the total amount registration from 64 per cent to only 70 per cent. This is not a figure which we should accept. We should make provision for the highest possible registration because when the next election comes, irrespective of the new boundaries which have been drawn for the estimated total of the electors in any given area, if they are not registered the whole purpose of the exercise will be lost.

The present system will react against the poorer political parties. The United Bermuda Party has been in existence for many years. It was established long before the Progressive Labour Party was established. Its roots are firmly embedded and it will have advantages financially and in every other way. The Progressive Labour Party and the people who support it will be at a disadvantage in the forthcoming elections. I have good reason for saying that. The United Bermuda Party had drawn up the constituencies which existed during the 1963 elections—

The Chairman

The hon. Member is wandering very far from the Amendment. I think that he had better confine himself to it.

Mr. Fitt

The constituencies which existed in 1963 led to the election of a majority of members of the United Bermuda Party. In one constituency there were nearly 5,000 electors and in another 351. This party would have a decided advantage over its political opponents if the present system were maintained.

The Amendment also takes account of the disqualification of candidates, and many of my hon. Friends have voiced their concern at the present situation. In reply to the Second Reading debate, my right hon. Friend said that the disqualifications which existed in Bermuda were not new and did not relate only to that island. She said that in this country we had disqualification of candidates for various reasons. Many people are disqualified from candidature at local authority elections because they work for the local authority. This is done for specific reasons. Persons are disqualified if they are employed by the local authority on the ground that if they work for that authority, and then are elected, they will be able to influence decisions in their own favour. The words "pecuniary interest" are normally attached to that type of disqualification.

But in Bermuda, bus drivers, bus conductors and manual labourers, for example, are classified as public servants, and in that case any personal interest between their jobs and the situation if they were elected to the authority seems remote. Bankers have a much more direct interest. Bankers who are members of the United Bermuda Party are elected to the House of Assembly. There is a far more direct line of personal interest in their case than with a manual labourer, bus driver or bus conductor who is elected to the Assembly.

The directors of banks are making financial arrangements with the Government and deciding the rate of interest on loans in respect of Government projects which would be financed through the banks. These matters can be closely related to a decision taken by a Member of the Assembly, especially when a member of the United Bermuda Party is a banker. The direct interest is more clearly defined.

It is generally accepted that the Select Committee promised by the United Bermuda Party, to look into the disqualification of candidates to see whether improvements can be made, will make no improvement but will keep the system as it is. I have not had notification of such a decision, but I feel that unless we have information about what has been stated in that respect, my hon. Friend should be reluctant to go ahead with the Bill.

I do not want to delay the debate, but I know that my hon. Friends who wish to take part in it are deeply concerned about the situation which may arise in Bermuda. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) is here, no doubt, in the hope that I shall mention Northern Ireland. He may be disappointed that I have not done so. I will relieve his anxiety. It will be accepted that where the Gerrymandering of constituencies and the non-registration of voters is concerned, no one in the House can speak with greater authority than I, because I live in a country where all these elements are an every-day occurrence in elections in Northern Ireland.

If a situation develops in Bermuda where it is obvious that the present registration system is not working and that the number eligible to vote is not increasing, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to deal with the matter? If the total number of electors in the area at the next election—irrespective of the number of candidates elected—is against the party which has been elected to the House of Assembly, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking tonight that in those circumstances a new constitutional conference will be called and that all these elements will then be taken into consideration?

In the interests of Bermuda and for the reputation of this country, solemn undertakings should be given that this House will keep a close watch on the developing situation in Bermuda and that Her Majesty's Government will, should it prove necessary, take immediate action without hesitation.

11.30 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair (Dorking)

When the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was speaking you intervened, Sir Eric, and said that you saw some advantage in allowing wider considerations to come to the surface in discussing the Amendment. That is why I have sought, at this stage, to speak very briefly indeed.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made it clear that he would prefer that further consideration of the Bill should be deferred and that the considerable political advance which the Measure is designed to make possible should be extended still further before a revised constitution is put before this House for consideration.

I can see the force of his argument, but the important feature of the Bill is that, as the Minister recognises, this is a stage; a flexible approach to political advance. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale also recognises this, for he said that this Constitution is not designed to last as long as the previous one.

We hope that this advance will provide useful experience in the working of a wider Constitution in Bermuda. It is, therefore, useful in itself. It will provide the new conditions in which new political pressures and new demands may become clearer. In the meantime, it will provide useful experience.

We naturally hope that the constitutional arrangements which will emerge from the passing of the Bill will help to maintain good race relations in Bermuda and that tranquillity and respect for law and order, on which so much of the prosperity of Bermuda depends, will prevail.

The Bill has increased the powers of Her Majesty's Government to intervene in Bermuda, and this in itself is a source of reassurance to anybody who is worried about the Measure. The Minister has given far-reaching assurances tonight, including the assurance that if, during the next Parliament in Bermuda, substantially based political demands emerge, Her Majesty's Government will be ready to consider changes. Because of this, because we believe that this is a useful advance which results from careful local consultations, and because we believe that the Bill has a good measure of local support, my hon. Friends and I do not seek to oppose the Measure.

Mr. James Johnson

I assume, from what the hon. Gentleman has said, that if a request is made for a conference to be held fairly soon after the mid-1968 elections he would support that request; that is, if it was felt that the existing arrangements were unsatisfactory.

Sir G. Sinclair

The dominant party in this House is, at the moment, the Labour Party. The Minister has given the assurances she thinks fit. I thought them to be assurances which, in the circumstances of Bermuda today, were reasonable.

Mr. Maurice Orbach (Stockport, South)

I, too, will take advantage of your invitation, Sir Eric, to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to range somewhat wider than the Amendment so as to shorten the debate.

The hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) raised a question in which I am interested. The Bill is not concerned only with electoral boundaries or qualifications, but that is its core, because behind the Bill rests something on which every hon. Member has declared himself. The United Bermuda Party has also declared itself, and the facts of that declaration should be made known to the House.

Behind the Bill as it stands lies the spectre of discrimination and racialism. Clause 1 and the Amendment deal with the power of the United Kingdom to revoke Acts of Parliament, by Order in Council, or other measures, if necessary. I want to draw the attention of the House —and of the Minister, if her attention has not already been drawn to it—to the atmosphere that now prevails in Bermuda.

I was not aware of this as a problem at first. I had never been to Bermuda, and I thought that this was a simple Bill which would give Bermuda a little more independence than she now has. But since I got interested in the subject as a result of my hon. Friend's intervention in this debate, I have had placed in my hands a most extraordinary document.

It is a report of a meeting that took place in a church at Shelly Bay, Bermuda, which started off with a hymn: Grant us wisdom, grant us courage, For the facing of this hour. I do not know the hymn. As I have said, I am a humanist, and, therefore, do not attend church unless I have to do so on behalf of a constituent from time to time.

The meeting was attended by Sir Henry Tucker, leader of the United Bermuda Party, and by Mr. Walter Robinson, of the Progressive Labour Party. It was an interesting meeting because they both made speeches which are extensively reported in this document. The meeting took place towards the end of April of this year, so that it is relevant to our present discussion.

The leader of the United Bermuda Party said: Bermuda must have a Government 'determined to stamp out bias, prejudice, segregation.' The future leaders must grow up side by side. It was a speech that all in this House would have applauded, as we have had to break with the present leaders of Rhodesia on the subject of race. I hope that next Session the House will declare itself on racial discrimination, and make it an offence in this country.

The leader of the United Bermuda Party was later interrupted by his opponent, Mr. Walter Robinson, who mentioned the Hotel Keepers' Protection Act of 1930, which had never been amended. He went on: I know Sir Henry is going to shake his head at this. Even though now coloured people do go into hotels, hotels can still with the protection of the law exclude Negroes. To that, Sir Henry retorted: It is not true that the Hotel Keepers' Act of 1930 was to prevent Negroes. It was to enable the hotels which had that policy in those days to allow only non-Jewish people. It was wrong because it was directed against a single religion. But it is a good law because it enables hotels to exclude anyone who is not desirable. I think every hon. Member of this Committee will think that that law ought to fall by the wayside before we agree to this Constitution. I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has now had her attention drawn to the sort of atmosphere in which people live in Bermuda, and the resentment which can he created not only among racial majorities but against religious minorities, will agree that ought not to be accepted by this Committee. I hope that she will make quite clear that so far as she is concerned a law of that type, and any other taw which may be in existence there—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden)

Order. I understand that my predecessor in the Chair was very generous about the width of the debate. I do not wish to depart from that, but I would like the hon. Member to come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Orbach

I was just finishing, and saying that I hoped that my hon. Friend would make an effective reply to these points.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not go quite as wide as that.

Mrs. Hart

May I deal, first, with points of detail and then come to the point of substance in the debate.

I think that I will take, first, the question of the qualifications for standing as a candidate, which has been a matter of a great deal of detail and is also one of the central points of the Amendment. I have been asked to say whether I know what the Select Committee in Bermuda has had to say about this. I think that hon. Members will remember that when we began our discussion of the Amendment I said that I did not at that point know when the Select Committee would be reporting. Hon. Members will like to know that the Select Committee has now reported. It has just reported. There is a majority Report and there are two minority Reports. There is the majority Report which is signed by Sir Henry Tucker and other members. There is a minority Report which has been submitted by the Bermuda Democratic Party, and by Mr. Arnold Francis on its behalf. The second minority Report is submitted by Mr. Walter Robinson, on behalf of the P.L.P.

One thing they all have in common will, I think, be welcomed by hon. Members. They all share the view, the majority and both the minority Reports, that industrial employees of the Government of Bermuda should be allowed to stand for Parliament. This is one of the essential points on which my hon. Friend has laid stress. A distinction has been made clearly, in the discussion in the Select Committee, between, on the one hand, industrial employees and, on the other, other kinds of professional employees of the Government. On the question of professional employees—that is to say, non-industrial employees—there is, again, a measure of agreement, but not so general. The majority and both minority Reports are prepared to say that school teachers should be able to stand, but the two minority Reports stress very firmly that this should be so and the majority Report says, in effect, "Yes, they can stand, but we do not think that it is very desirable that they should. Nevertheless, they may."

There is, I must say to the Committee, to be quite frank, another point of disagreement between both the minority Reports and the majority Report, and that concerns the question of what degree of guarantee of re-employment there should be given to employees who resign to fight an election and who do not win seats and who wish to come back again to Government employment. I do not wish to mislead the Committee. There is a measure of disagreement about that.

There is a second point on which there is a considerable advance, although the degree of advance is a matter of disagreement, and that concerns the question of payment to members of the Assembly, and the way the Assembly should organise its sittings. The majority Report suggests that the House should meet for one full day a week instead of the three half days on which it meets at the moment, and suggests that there should be an increase of attendance fees from 24s. to £10 a day. This is, of course, highly relevant to the question of industrial employees standing for election. It is a relevant point to take into account before making a decision to stand. There is disagreement on the point in that the two majority parties agree on an annual allowance which would work out at rather more.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson

Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee how many sitting days and half-days a year there have been?

Mrs. Hart

I could not without a check. This is the very question on which there is disagreement between the majority and minority Reports. The minority Reports suggest that there should be an annual salary. The majority Report suggests that there should be these increases. This is a very relevant matter for debate in Bermuda. It is a matter which is within the responsibility of the Government of Bermuda, and we can make our comments on it, as, indeed, many comments will be made on it in Bermuda.

But at least the Committee can see clearly that on at least two points on which it has expressed itself as being deeply concerned, there has been a considerable change recommended by the majority Report, quite apart from the minority Reports. I think that my hon. Friends will take the view that there is a degree of what they would consider to be progress in this matter.

I must comment on the question of figures, which has loomed so large from time to time during the debate on this Amendment. Although I know that she could not be here tonight, I must refer to something that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said at the beginning of our debate on this Amendment. She quoted figures which suggested that the present registration system could be shown to militate against the coloured community in Bermuda. I want to quote the P.L.P. memorandum. So far as the proportions registered are concerned, there is a difference in the numbers that the P.L.P. memorandum quotes and the numbers that the Hucks Report quotes as having registered. The proportions, one can assume, are not substantially changed by the difference in totals.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said that what I had said about Southampton and Hamilton bore out her point that the system did, in fact, militate against the coloured community. But the point here is that in these two smallest parishes 77 per cent. of the electorate registered and the constituency in which the highest percentage registered was a constituency with a coloured majority. In other words, the highest percentages registered tended to coincide with the small parishes with coloured majorities. There was no case for arguing that the smallest percentage registered indicated or could be held to prove that this was militating specifically against the coloured community.

Mr. Fitt

This is most important and will help to support the argument that I have advanced. In these two small constituencies, although there may be coloured persons residing in those areas, the residents are of a higher social status. They are the supporters of the U.B.P. The U.B.P. have made certain that they have registered. They are not industrial constituencies. They are up the social scale and they had a higher percentage of registrations than the industrial constituencies.

Mrs. Hart

With respect, my hon. Friend is proving my point. He is now shifting his ground from saying that the existing system militates against a certain colour to saying that it militates against a certain class. If he is going to argue that, we are on very different ground. This was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough when she introduced this theme. She said that this is a matter not just of colour, but of class. On that one could have a good deal of discussion, of course.

I wish to quote from paragraph 7 of the Hucks Report. By the end of the evening, we shall have quoted from pretty well every paragraph, I think, but this is a passage to which attention should be drawn as an indication of the degree of advance there has been in Bermuda in these matters over quite recent years. One should not suppose that the new Constitution and the suggestions that Mr. Hucks made for improving the voluntary registration system came on the scene after years and years of inanition on these questions in Bermuda. This is what Mr. Hucks says in paragraph 7: Up till 1958"— only 10 years ago— the franchise was restricted to property owners whose registration entailed the detailed checking of individual title deeds and has therefore little relevance to the present situation. In 1963 a more democratic franchise was introduced but the voluntary registration system was retained. In 1966 a fully democratic franchise was established and the extra property vote abolished and again the voluntary registration system was retained. Thus, we are considering a situation in which there has been a move in less than 10 years from a system of registration based upon property to a system of registration based upon individual rights irrespective of property. This is a very big advance in 10 years.

In paragraph 39, Mr. Hucks makes a comment on one of the fundamental questions which we are discussing tonight. On the one hand, it is about whether the present system of registration is fair to the coloured community in Bermuda. On the other—and a great many of my hon. Friends' arguments have been directed to this—it is about whether it must always be regarded as essential to abandon voluntary registration and move towards a system like our own, whatever territory we are dealing with. I think that my hon. Friends will agree that that is a fair summary of the two basic points arising out of the Hucks report which we have discussed.

In paragraph 39, Mr. Hucks says: No voluntary system ever yields anywhere near 100 per cent. of all possible registrations. The present system is perfectly fair to all. The reason that not more advantage is taken of it at present is that Bermuda is only just beginning to establish political parties—But once political parties oppose each other on principle and struggle for power the arguments begin. People join one side or the other and the desire to register as a voter and to vote rapidly increases. A high rate of voluntary registration arises from political strife. To a considerable exent, this is true of the way in which we operate our own electoral system. No system in any country, however good, however democratic, is likely to ensure anything like 100 per cent. of the electorate expressing its view at an election. We count ourselves lucky in this country when we achieve voting proportions in the region of 70 or 75 per cent. In 1959, my own constituency had the second highest percentage vote in the country, touching 85 per cent. But this was regarded as a most remarkable achievement.

Mr. Fitt

It had a good candidate.

Mr. James Johnson

With respect to my hon. Friend the Minister, this is not the matter we should be getting our teeth into. We have a voluntary system of voting here. People are on the register, and they can either vote or not. What we object to in Bermuda is not a voluntary system of voting, but a voluntary system of getting on the voters' list. Why should this be so in the fairly advanced society of Bermuda? It is not like some parts of Africa. I am told that people can be located. One can find out where they live. The postman can find them. Why cannot there by a system whereby they are on the electors list, as people are here? Is that impossible?

Mrs. Hart

Perhaps I may continue with the argument I was developing. I was going on to say that with a system of registration like ours it must be accepted that there are put on the register a certain proportion of the electorate who will have no desire to vote and will refrain from voting or are unlikely to have sufficient interest to vote. Whatever the system of registration, one must allow for a certain proportion of people of this kind.

A voluntary system of registration may mean that instead of having 10 per cent. of the people registered but consciously refraining from voting there are 10 per cent. who refrain consciously from voluntarily registering. We are not talking about a 100 per cent. poll but percentages of 60, 70, 75, or even, perhaps, 80 per cent., which we sometimes have in this country.

There is a strong argument that wherever it is physically possible every territory should have our system of registration, but this is very debatable. It is very debatable in Bermuda, where there are not yet the conditions which would allow it to operate easily. I have driven around places in Bermuda where the postman may be able to find the people, but I do not know how, unless he knows them personally, because there is no system of numbers and roads as we know it. I am not saying that it would not be possible to have our system of registration, but it would be necessary to have addresses such as we have.

What matters is that we had a constitutional conference at which, although there was disagreement on this point, it was accepted at the end of the day that an expert should go to see what improvements could be made to the existing system. It is a fact of life which the House must accept that this was the agreement, the end result of a constitutional conference on the basis of which we now have the Bill and shall have the Order in Council setting up the Constitution.

These things cannot be thrown overboard as I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) would have me do. The conference, which was held last November, lasted a full fortnight. It has always been, correctly, the habit of the British Government to observe the conclusions of constitutional conferences which have been correctly conducted and in which there have been full opportunities for discussion, even though—and when this occurs it is very much regretted—there are disagreements at the conference and there cannot be a totally unanimous report but there are minority reports expressing differences.

Mr. Hucks was to look at improvements to the voluntary system, and that is what he has done. Broadly, his recommendations on improving the effectiveness of the voluntary system and achieving a higher proportion and number of registrations have been accepted by the Select Committee.

Mr. Michael Foot

Would my hon. Friend say which recommendations it has not accepted?

Mrs. Hart

There is just one. I have had no explanation from Bermuda of the arguments on this, but only the results of the Committee's conclusions. To the best of my knowledge the only recommendation not accepted was that relating to the provision of a mobile van to do registration. It may be that there are practical reasons that the Committee took into account. All the other recommendations have been accepted.

12 m.

The recommendations in the Hucks' Report are very far-reaching, and should lead to very considerable improvements. There are recommendations about greater publicity and more facilities. As Mr. Hucks said very well, one cannot have too much publicity if one has a voluntary system and voluntary registration. As he points out, those left unregistered at the close of each period ought to be only those who chose for reasons of their own not to register. It is a reproach to the Government's publicity machine if anyone should remain unregistered because he did not know or had forgotten that he had the opportunity to register. This is what will apply in the 1968 election under the new Constitution and with the improvements that are made in the voluntary system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale has asked me to clarify the assurance that I gave at the beginning of the debate of the Bill, and I am very ready to do so. What I meant to indicate then —I hope I did—was that after the 1968 election if any of the parties in Bermuda want to discuss further changes in any direction involving constitutional matters the Government will be ready to discuss them. I think that that is a perfectly clear assurance.

As the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said, I think that we can reject the Amendment and regard the Bill as representing a very big step forward. We can see how the 1968 election works out and what the feeling of the parties is after that, and it will then be for consideration if they choose to bring points to us as to whether the stage has been reached for further evolution and advance. I hope that on the basis of that assurance my hon. Friends will feel more content.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman

I think that the substance of Amendment No. 4 has been fully discussed.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman

I think that the substance of new Clause No. 1 has been fully discussed, but I invite the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to move new Clause No. 3 if he so desires.