CONDUCT OF REFERENDUM (Hansard, 24 April 1975)

§ Mr. MacFarquhar
I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 18, at end insert 'and the Counting Officer shall arrange for the counting of votes cast in each of the areas referred to in subsection (4) below to be held in such local place or places as he may think fit with respect to that area'.

Mr. Speaker
With this we shall consider the following amendments: No. 2, in Clause 1, page 2. line 2. after 'expedient', insert 'for securing that the counting of the votes takes place in each of those parts of the United Kingdom as are respectively specified in subsection (4) of section 2 of this Act'. No. 5, in Clause 2, page 3, line 18, at end insert 'who shall appoint Assistant Counting Officers who shall be responsible for the counting of the vote cast in each of the areas mentioned in subsection (4) below; and the said Assistant Counting Officers shall upon conclusion of such counting for which they are responsible certify and report to the Counting Officer each total referred to in the said subsection'. No.6, in page 3, line 18, at end insert '; and he shall appoint appropriately qualified persons in each area, specified in subsection (4) below as returning officers to conduct the area counts and declare the results as they become available'. No. 7, in page 3, line 18, at end insert— 'Provided that the count of the votes cast in each of the areas referred to in subsection (4) below shall, in every case, be carried out in a convenient place in each such area'. No. 8, in page 3, line 22 after 'total', insert 'arrived at at a central count'.

§ Mr. MacFarquhar
My hon. Friends the Members for Goole (Dr. Marshall) 1812 and Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and I have put down this amendment because it became clear at the end of the debate on Amendment No. 49, in Committee last night, that the Lord President believed that even if that amendment were carried —as it was—the Government could still hold the count nationally at Earls Court although the result would have to be declared on a regional basis.
When I moved Amendment No. 49 I was firmly under the impression that it would entail regional counts as well as regional declarations. I believe that that was also the impression of all hon. Members who supported Amendment No. 49 last night. I must apologise to them and to the House, but I was mistaken and, therefore, it is necessary to take time to discuss this further clarifying amendment. I certainly did not disguise what was in my mind.
On Second Reading on 10th April I specifically rejected both the central count and the single United Kingdom result. I spoke then as if the two were inextricably intertwined. Yesterday I stated that I was proposing that the result of the count should be declared by regions and counted in the regions. When the Lord President indicated that although Amendment No. 49 certainly laid down declarations by regions but did not necessarily lay down counts by regions, I immediately intervened to point out that it was my intention that the counts should be done locally. I believe that that intervention expressed not only my intention in moving the amendment, but the will of the House.
I am encouraged in this belief by the presence on the Order Paper today of the amendments put down by myself and my hon. Friends, and by several other clarifying amendments from both sides of the House.
I do not wish to refer again in detail to all the practical arguments that were cited yesterday and on Second Reading against that psephological grotesquerie—the Earls Court count, an event which would turn London into the confetti capital of the Western World. Suffice it for me to list the problems. There is the risk of the loss or destruction of boxes transported from all over the country. What will happen if the train on which the hon. Member for Moray 1813 and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) is riding shotgun crashes? Heaven forfend! What will happen if the boxes go up in flames? There are transportation problems in a General Election at a local level, but they are far less in magnitude than the transportation problems that would arise if we had an Earls Court count.
The dangers of sabotage and practical jokes have also been mentioned. Perhaps most important—now that the House has decided that the result will have to be declared on a regional basis—the most stringent care would have to be taken to see that the boxes were not mixed together. With a national count there would be no problem, but now the boxes would have to be kept separate, county by county, region by region, not just at Earls Court but all the way to Earls Court, which would be even more difficult.
A single train from Glasgow might be the simplest way of getting ballot boxes down from the west of Scotland to London, and from many places in between, and then down to Earls Court, but how easy it would be for a mistake to occur. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn and her shotgun could not be in every place at the same time. One lorry delivering ballot boxes to Earls Court could be misdirected, and the result for my county—Derbyshire—could quite easily be confused with the result for, say, Leicestershire. I could go on with this argument, but I do not need to, because I know that the majority of hon. Members have already indicated that their minds boggled at the concept of the Earls Court count
. Amendment No. 4 seeks to ensure that counting is done in or near the regions the results for which are separately to be declared. The amendment is deliberately vague in specifying at what level the count should take place in different places; that is left to the discretion of the counting officer. What is not vague in this amendment is the fact that counts should take place at local level and not at one central place. One proviso, in the light of the rejection last night of the amendment suggesting a count on a constituency basis, is that the counting officer would clearly have to take care not to 1814 order counting to take place in such a way that constituency results might leak out.
I shall list a few important concrete advantages of having the count locally. First, I am sure that the result would be obtained sooner. As the Government have rejected a number of amendments that were put forward in Committee on the ground that they desired speed for the referendum, I should have thought that this was a powerful argument.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, there is the question of a recount. Most hon. Members are aghast—I am sure that the counting officers would beat the idea of a recount, at Earls Court, of millions upon millions of votes. Yesterday, when talking to Amendment No. 49, the Minister of State indicated the problems that might be posed if there had to be a recount at local level two or three days after the initial count had been assessed.
May I suggest the solution to that? The counting officer could well reply that every local counting centre should in every case have an immediate recount before the declaration, whatever the tally of votes "Yes" or "No". That would be a relatively simple and quick procedure, as at General Elections. When the figures were put together for the overall national result it would be known that they had been double-checked at the beginning, and however narrow the margin in the referendum result, it would command general acceptance.

§ Mr. Emery
rose—

§ Mr. MacFarquhar
No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman has spoken many times and I am trying to be quick. I usually give way, but not today.
But, Mr. Speaker, the strongest argument now for local counts as opposed to a national count is not the considerable administrative problems involved. The strongest argument now is that by passing Amendment No. 49 last night the Committee indicated, if somewhat imperfectly, that it is the will of the House that there should be a local count and not a single national count. I therefore ask the Government to recognise the will of the House and accept the amendment without a Division.

§ Mr. Edward Short
It may help the House if I intervene at this early stage in the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) said, the Committee yesterday carried his amendment. That amendment leaves open the question where the count takes place. The Government would be free to have a central count at Earls Court, as we planned, or to have the count locally. The effect of the amendment is that the result must now be declared by counties.
There are two methods of counting the votes. They could be brought to London and counted centrally or they could be counted locally. It is not true that chaos would ensue if they were counted centrally. This exercise has been planned over the last few weeks with military precision, and I have assured myself that it could and would be carried out efficiently. I am also sure that it could be carried out efficiently locally. Administratively, therefore, there is probably nothing in it or, it there is anything in it, the edge is slightly on the side of a central count. As I say, that has been planned down to the last detail, even to the kind of seal that is to be used on the boxes.
One of the great merits of a central count is that it enables a recount to take place quickly. A recount is difficult at any time. I am not minimsing the problems of a recount at Earls Court, but it can be done there. All the counters would be there, and the voting papers would be there. On the other hand, if the count is done by counties, the counties will finish at different times, spread over perhaps 36 or 48 hours. The counters will have gone home and the voting papers will have been put away. If the national result is close, say, within 1 per cent. or 2 per cent., the national counting officer, Sir Philip Allen can order a recount. in those circumstances every county counting officer would have to be contacted, his people who had gone home would have to be brought back, the hall would have to be reopened and the votes would have to be counted again. That is a difficulty. One of the great merits of a central count is that in this exercise a recount could take place much more effectively and quickly. It would be difficult, but it could be done.

§ Mr. MacFarquhar
Will my right hon. Friend comment on the suggestion I made to take account of that difficulty in a local recount?

§ Mr. Short
My hon. Friend made a useful suggestion. I imagine that if the local result were close there would be a local recount, but whether there is to be a national recount cannot be decided until the aggregate of the votes is known. If, in the aggregate, the majority were 1 per cent. or even 2 per cent., the national counting officer would no doubt order a recount. That is a matter which is in his discretion and nobody else's.
I explained the effect of Amendment No. 49 in my speech last night, but not many hon. Members were present. I think it is true to say, as my hon. Friend said, that hardly any hon. Members who had not been in the Chamber understood what they were voting for. I do not complain of that. Hon. Members are very busy, Bills move very quickly—or reasonably quickly—and amendments are complicated. Frequently we all vote for amendments without understanding them. Almost everyone, including, from the look of today's Order Paper, my hon. Friend, believed that the amendment provided for a local count as well as a local declaration. In view of that and of the views expressed in the debate yesterday, I got to work early this morning contacting counties. I rang up two county clerks, one of a large rural county and the other of a large metropolitan county, to see whether they could do a local count.
One problem is that counties have not counted before. They have no experience of counting unless the clerk has previously served in an authority which has counted. There is a peculiar problem in Scotland, where the new regions do not take over until 16th May—about three weeks before the referendum. I explained previously to the House that in Scotland there are considerable problems, which I do not underestimate. I sent Sir Philip Allen there to talk to local authorities, and he came back and said that he thought they could do it—although only just, and perhaps with some help from the Scottish Office.
Nevertheless, as a result of all our inquiries today, I believe that the county authorities can do this job. In view of 1817 the views expressed in the House and the misunderstanding in the minds of a great many hon. Members, I am prepared to accept this principle.
I must point out that all the amendments on this subject appearing on the Order Paper are defective in one way or another. If hon. Members will withdraw their amendments, I undertake to ensure that an amendment is tabled in another place which will provide for the counting to be done in counties, so that there is a county count and a county declaration of results. I have tried to meet the wishes of the House, and in view of that fact I hope that hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

§ Mr. Goodhart
Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say what arrangements he is making for counting and announcing the Service votes?

§ Mr. Short
If there is a county count the Service votes will have to be announced separately, as I think I said in my speech yesterday. One of the advantages of a national count is that the Service votes would go into the aggregate, but in a county count they would be announced separately.

§ Mr. Emery
How will the right hon. Gentleman overcome the problem, which was so central to the argument he put yesterday, of preventing the results being announced locally at different times, or leaking out the moment the count is known? That would mean a slow presentation of the results before all the figures were brought together. That was a strong point which he put to the Committee yesterday.

§ Mr. Short
That is one of the problems. For once, the hon. Gentleman supports my previous attitude. I have left him in the lurch now, and I am sorry about that. There is a problem here, which the House has faced me with in the amendment. It would be undesirable for the results to come out over a few days. I do not yet know how we shall get over that problem but we are working on it. I think that it will be possible to ensure that no counties start the count before the next morning at a given hour and that no results are announced before a certain hour that evening. That arrangement will not 1818 entirely get over the problem, but it will ensure that the announcements are telescoped into a relatively short period.
In a General Election the announcement of the Orkney vote is usually delayed. It would help if we could ensure that the results were announced within a maximum period of 24 hours, but there are difficulties and dangers in a long delay with results coming out in dribs and drabs. We shall do our best to minimise those difficulties. That is one of the difficulties with which I have been landed by the decision of the Committee yesterday.

§ Mr. English
Does my right hon. Friend consider that metropolitan districts can be appropriately considered as being equivalent to non-metropolitan counties in terms of size? Does he agree that that would speed up the count in London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, for example?

§ Sir David Renton
I am sure that the House is grateful to the Lord President for having kept an open mind and for having come clean with us. He has revealed that although he was in favour of the administrative arrangements for a central count he thought it was possible to do the counting locally. He is now prepared to follow up logically the amendment that was moved yesterday by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar), which was carried by a large majority.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that all the amendments on the Notice Paper are defective in drafting. That is not surprising in the circumstances. We have done our best. I ask to stake a claim as regards the method of drafting which I have put forward, which differs from that of the other amendments. It is an important difference in principle. I suggest that what is now to be done should be done by Order in Council rather than by the counting officer appointed by the Secretary of State. The other amendments all suggest that the arrangements should be made by the counting officer. There might be a difficulty for the House because if anything goes wrong the Lord President may well say "This is a matter for the counting officer and I am not answerable for it." However, if we proceed by Order in Council the matter rests with the Lord President. I do not ask 1819 for an answer this evening but I think that it is a matter worth bearing in mind.
What the right hon. Gentleman has said has still left open one or two important matters. He told us that the counties have no experience of elections. All I can say is that there are people in the counties in England and Wales, and in the regions in Scotland, who have great experience of being returning officers. They will have to arrange the local polling stations, the ballot boxes and other matters. It is not asking very much more of them to arrange those matters centrally within each county or region.
It is a fact that the DOHO, the Dear Old Home Office, has no experience of conducting a poll involving 20 million or 30 million votes and collecting those votes at one point. Therefore, we have reason for rejoicing that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this decision. However, I am very worried by the remarks about recounts that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and by his hon. Friend the Member for Belper. This is a national referendum with only one constituency. To my mind it is unthinkable that there should be claims to have recounts in counties or in regions. Who will make the claims?

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)
Members of Parliament.

§ Sir D. Renton
The hon. Gentleman interrupts from his seat and says "Members of Parliament", but as far as I know there will be no special status given to Members of Parliament in the referendum or in the counts which are to take place locally. Of course, a local recount would be irrelevant to the national result. It is only a national recount that could have any relevance. Who will have the right, if there is to be such a right, to claim a national recount? Will that right be possessed by the leaders of the parties or by the well-known protagonists in the House on either side of the argument? Are different members of the Cabinet going to have that right? I think that we should know the position now.
I very much doubt whether any arrangements for a recount could possibly be workable in the circumstances which we are now envisaging. I doubt whether there could be any feasible arrangements made either for a local 1820 recount, which I believe to be irrelevant, or for a national recount. As the Lord President indicated, if we were to have a national recount it would mean a recount in every place where the original count had taken place. I do not think that that is a practicable proposition.

§ Mr. Gerry Fowler
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that I pointed that out to the Committee three times yesterday and that his right hon. and hon. Friends did not recognise the point?

§ Sir D. Renton
I am obliged to the Minister. As Members of Parliament we all have duties which take us out of the Chamber from time to time. I have had such a duty in the past two days. That is why I have not been able to attend the whole of the debate. If any apology is needed to the Front Bench on either side of the House it is readily forthcoming. There is a good deal more in the way of practical decisions that needs to be considered. I hope that the practical difficulties will be ironed out.
I must add that on Second Reading I interrupted the hon. Member for Rox-burgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) when he was arguing in favour of a constituency count and was complaining about the proposed central count. I asked him whether he considered that in that context constitutional principle and administrative convenience were in serious conflict. At that time I felt that a central count was the right thing. However, the more I thought about the administrative problems involved the more I realised that constitutional principle would have to give way. I felt I should say that in courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, and to indicate to the House that on that point I have changed my mind.

§ Dr. Edmund Marshall (Goole)
I reecho what has been said in the way of appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Lord President for indicating that the Government will introduce an amendment in another place to put the principle into the Bill that counting should take place locally rather than centrally.
I take this opportunity to press my right hon. Friend further on three points. First, will there be one counting place for each of the areas for which the results are to be separately declared? Secondly. 1821 will that place be within the area to which it relates? Thirdly, will the announcement of the result for the area take place at that place?

§ Mr. Peyton
I am sorry that I was not in my place when the Lord President rose to speak. By way of reward I thank him very much for gracefully giving way on this point.

§ Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)
I am overwhelmed by the brevity of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. May I echo my thanks for what the Leader of the House has decided to do? It is always the sign of a good Leader of the House when he is willing to look again at something, however fundamentally he may have opposed a particular view on an earlier occasion. Hon. Members knew what they were voting for last night, despite their confusion. Their wishes were not in doubt, the right hon. Member met those wishes and we are grateful to him.
I have one tiny regret in this matter. It is that in the course of yesterday's debate we never did learn from the right hon. Gentleman how the Earls Court escapade was to be conducted. We never learned, and no doubt we never shall. That will go down as one of the great "might have beens" in British constitutional history. I am sorry that we were never let into that secret, but that is a minor complaint.
On a serious note, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the problems in Scotland. If in the course of his consultations he finds it more convenient to put sheriffs, rather than returning officers in control. I am sure the House will not mind if he substantially alters the provisions in that respect.
I should like to deal shortly with the question of a recount. I assume that the only possibility of a recount would be where the total number of votes was wildly out and was not reconciled with the final count. However, I do not think there could be a recount because the result in an area was close. I gather that in Norway the results came out area by area. Such a procedure would heighten the interest in what is going on, and I see no reason why that should not happen.
1822 I repeat my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, but my mind will continue to boggle over the possibilities of what might have happened at Earls Court.

§ Mr. Gordon Wilson
I too, wish to join in thanking the Leader of the House for taking this sound decision. Had the decision not been taken, I believe that there would have been a good deal of fuss about what had or had not been decided. I think that it can be said that reason and common sense have prevailed. I do not think the Scottish people would have accepted a result in the referendum, for or against the Common Market, had they not been in a position to see how they voted. It will be necessary to have a declaration in Scotland, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted in principle area or regional declarations.
There is one other matter that remains to be dealt with—namely, the question of scrutineers. It has been said that Members of Parliament may have no special locus in this matter, but it was said yesterday that under various orders hon. Members would be entitled to attend the central count. When the right hon. Gentleman comes to look at the orders in regularising these procedures, I hope that he will allow Members of Parliament and others to act as scrutineers in this important referendum.
With those few words of thanks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5—

Mr. Speaker
We shall deal with that in a moment.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)
I, too, wish to add my voice to what has been said, especially as hon. Members have asked for an interpretation of what happened last night. A little earlier in this discussion I heard the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, say that he had told us "several times tomorrow". That is a new version of Nye Bevan's remark—in other words, why look at the book when one can look into the crystal ball!
I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Lord President for what he has done. We have aired a number of problems in these discussions. There was an amendment yesterday which was not selected 1823 and which dealt with a number of important minutiae—such as the question of scrutineers, recounts, the count itself and the locus of Members of Parliament. I wonder whether the right thing to do is to let the other place sort these matters out and then for this House to examine the various orders which are to be laid. It might be useful to have the views of the Leader of the House on this point, but I thank him again for what he has done.

§ Mr. Emery
I am sorry to have to bring a note of disagreement into this discussion. I condemn the Leader of the House for what he has done in compounding the nonsense of the Bill. Indeed, I tried to help him by tabling an amendment, which I believe was the only amendment that was technically correct.
I wish to make three points. We pay great lip-service to the thoroughness and accuracy of the count and of the work done by counting agents at every General Election. We all know that it is the tradition for a successful Member of Parliament to make a speech thanking all those who have been responsible for that count. I have fought the last eight General Elections and one by-election. The degree of efficiency between counts in different places depends on tradition, and of course majorities in various areas vary considerably. In one case I had a majority of 22,000 against me and on another occasion 21,000 votes in my favour. On yet another occasion I was returned by the huge majority of 10 votes. In the case where there was a majority of 22,000 against me we lost 326 votes. The returning officer, however, turned to one of his colleagues, Mr. Charles Key, and said "Charlie, you don't mind giving those to Peter, do you?" Therefore my vote went up by 7 per cent., because those votes were added to my total in the General Election. I would add that the returning officer in question is dead, and I am in no way slandering anybody. But that is not the degree of accuracy we could possibly allow in the referendum count.
The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) suggested that we should have automatic recounts. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), as a former Member of Parliament for Reading, will know that in that 1824 town there have always been close counts, and there is almost an automatic recount the first time round. But that does not stop a number of recounts after that. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth went through that unpleasant experience over a period of many hours. The efficiency of the proceedings, particularly if carried out by people who have not had to handle these occasions before, might give rise to a much greater problem than has been realised so far.
It will be almost impossible to keep these matters secret. I suppose that if there were a central count and the totals were brought into the various rooms with a few people present, one might be able to maintain a degree of secrecy, but it will be extremely difficult. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say how many counts are envisaged. Certainly if there are a number of them, the chances of keeping information secret are very small.
The House will need to consider a number of problems on that score. The Press will be out to discover what the result is in every single count, and the Press probably will have the result before the Prime Minister. No doubt there will be leaks. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that this will heighten the proceedings. It is much more likely to turn it into a farce.
When considering the factors involved in local council elections, the chances of the scrutineers being available for a recount are very small. I believe that the Lord President made a slip when he said that if the result were close there would have to be a recount. It is not the closeness of the result in individual counties or regions that matters. What matters is the total of the votes when they have been brought to the central area. Therefore, the count in every area must be as accurate and as efficient as that at the centre.

§ Mr. Edward Short
I said this. Let me take an extreme case of a county with a majority of one. I cannot imagine the returning officer allowing that result to stand without a recount. The votes would he recounted.

§ Mr. Emery
It is just as important to have a recount when the majority is 50,000, because what matters is the accuracy of each count before the votes are brought to the central area. There may be a difference of one or two votes. It is immaterial whether the majority is 500 or 5,000 votes.
The Leader of the House is falling into a party political judgment. This is not a party political matter. The accuracy of each counting area must be established completely and absolutely. Therefore, I believe that it will be much more difficult to keep the tight control and the military precision, which were referred to by the Lord President, when the counts are spread. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman should have held to his original position, because that would have ensured central control, a uniform standard and an efficient count, which will not be achieved with the system of county votes.

§ Mr. Lee
I was out of the Chamber when the Lord President made his concession regarding the vote count. I am gratified that he has chosen to do so. He has relieved many of our fears, not least those regarding the security aspect, which has tended to be overlooked.
It seems that one or two loose ends must be tied up. There are two reasons why a recount is needed in an election. It often occurs at the behest of the returning officer. It happens sometimes because of a discrepancy in the ballot count, because people have not added up properly, because ballots have been lost, or for some other mechanical or arithmetical reason. It sometimes happens during local elections and General Elections in constituencies where the result is plainly obvious and never in doubt, since the returning officer has a duty in law to ensure that the return is justifiable arithmetically as well as in the sense that all the doubtful papers have been satisfactorily evaluated.
A recount sometimes takes place where the result in an election is so close that human error may have accounted for a difference in the result. That is where the right of a candidate in an election becomes important, since a recount is normally requested at the behest of a candidate or his agent. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will recall the 1826 Reading marathon of 11 years ago when the returning officer ordered another count, even though the ballot paper count was correct, because of the narrow majority.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to consider providing the right to demand a recount where there is a close result. It seems to me that we have the makings of a solution here. Under Clause 3 of the Bill the two umbrella organisations are vested with a statutory status in relation to the campaign. Orders could be made vesting in them the right to nominate scrutineers and the right for those scrutineers to request a recount Although no candidate at an ordinary election has the right to demand a recount, it is normally granted at least once if asked for, even though the margin is substantial. Nevertheless, somebody should have the right to ask for a recount. I suggest that it would be a logical extension of the functions of Britain in Europe and the National Referendum Campaign that they should have those rights enshrined in relation to this procedure. We would be much happier if that were the situation.
I do not follow the hon. Member for Honiton when he says that every result matters in terms of the recount. There is merit in breaking down the count. The task will still be difficult, because the number of votes cast per county in the referendum will be larger than that cast per constituency. At least the proposed arrangement will be more easily accomplished than the enormous task which would otherwise have been involved in a central count.
It is important that at each place where the count takes place everybody should be satisfied that it will be done accurately and fairly. Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will speak about the right to appoint persons representing the two organisations. Perhaps he will also give guidance to the counting officers as to the procedures to be adopted where there is a close result. It might be of assistance to Parliament if my right hon Friend gave an indication, which would be in no way binding, as to what he would regard as a narrow result, and the percentage below which it would be reasonable for anyone to ask for a recount because of the closeness of the result.

§ Mr. Nigel Lawson (Blaby)
I share the views of most hon. Members in being grateful to the Leader of the House for having decided to make an honest woman of the amendment, which was agreed to by an overwhelming majority.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clarify two matters. One concerns the question of the recount. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) is right. All that matters is whether the overall national majority is more than a quarter of a million votes. If it is closer than a quarter of a million votes, there should be a recount all the way across the board. If it is bigger than one quarter of a million votes either way, there should be no need for a recount. Even if there is a majority of one in Leicestershire or 10 in Devon, that is neither here nor there.
The other point concerns the declaration. Under the original plan, the declaration, as we sec from Command 6004, "Referendum Order 1975", was to be made by the counting officer telling the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister telling the House of Commons. That is inappropriate bearing in mind the amendment that has been made.
The original idea was that, while there would be a local result, there would not be a local count. If there were no local count, the declaration would not be local. The declaration of the local result would have to go to Earls Court.
The Leader of the House said that the count should be in the locality. However, there is nothing in the amendment which provides that the declaration should be in the locality at the time. I should be grateful if the Minister could, as it were. dot the i's and cross the t's by saying that the declaration—an order will have to be laid—will not be one declaration, but that each returning officer will make the declaration in the county or region after the count has been completed.

§ Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)
I should like to ask the Lord President to comment on what will happen in a constituency such as mine, which is by no means unique. I gather that about 70 constituencies are split by counties through redistribution. My constituency is in Humberside and Lincoln. When the right hon. Gentleman drafts the amendment which is to be moved in another 1828 place, will he consider how the count will be carried out in a constituency like Louth which is divided between two counties? Where will the ballot boxes go? Where will the votes be counted? Of which county shall we be regarded as being members?

§ Mr. MacFarquhar
In view of the generous attitude shown by the Leader of the House and the concrete proposal that he has made to introduce his own better amendment in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.