HL Deb 15 December 1976 vol 378 cc986-1007

7.46 p.m.

Lord CHELWOOD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that the Bill to provide for direct elections to the European Parliament will be given sufficient priority to ensure that the Boundary Commission can complete their recommendations for Parliament's consideration in ample time before May/June 1978; and whether they will say what procedure and timetable they have in mind. The noble Lord said: My Lords. may I start by putting the Question that I am asking the Government in its context. I will not discuss the following vital questions: the method of election of Members of the European Parliament which, to be fair, must include some kind of proportional representation, if not in 1978 then at any rate in the following election; the distribution of seats in the United Kingdom; the very heavy burden of the dual mandate, particularly where Members of another place are concerned; or the necessity of close links between Members of the European Parliament and Westminster. These are all important matters but I do not want to divert attention from the Unstarred Question to which I am speaking. But I would make this comment: to allow a wrangle about such things to delay the holding of direct elections in 1978 would surely be to allow the best to he the enemy of the good. I do not think that we can hope to get it right the first time.

It was foreseen as long ago as 1951, in the treaty that brought about the Coal and Steel Community, that direct elections were essential to imbue the European Assembly with the authority and influence that can only flow from making Members answerable to their constituents. This was borne in upon me very strongly indeed when I was privileged to be a member of the Conservative delegation to the European Parliament in 1973 and 1974.

If direct elections are not held in 1978, it will be a severe setback indeed for the prospects and effectiveness of the European Community. An Assembly that is appointed cannot carry on a satisfactory dialogue with the Commission, which is very important, and still less exercise any significant influence, let alone control, over the Council of Ministers. I think that both these things are of the essence of democracy in the Community. In any case, as the Prime Minister said in another place (at col.946 of Hansard) when he was Foreign Secretary, on 10th November last year, in speaking on direct elections: That is a treaty requirement and, of course, we shall honour it.

Sir Harold Wilson, when Prime Minister, was bound to reserve the Government's position at the Paris Summit about two years ago, during the period of the so-called "renegotiation" and before the referendum had been held following on it. I do not quarrel for a moment with his Statement in another place on 4th December last year that we required a period of consultation between political Parties in this country, and time for consideration of the issues by Parliament before adopting a final position about direct elections as early as 1978. I think that is a fair paraphrase of what he then said. So much then, very briefly and, I hope, accurately and fairly, for the context of this question. I do not think there can possibly be any disagreement between the noble Lord who is to reply and myself, at any rate so far. I hope there will not be any disagreement later, although I fear it may not be possible for us to agree so completely about what I am now going to say.

Why did we have to wait for more than two months after the Prime Minister's Statement, which I have just paraphrased, before a Green Paper was published, which begged many questions and did not give much of a lead? I thought that was regrettable. On the other hand, it was very helpful for a Select Committee of this House to produce in double-quick time on 9th March what really amounted to a supplement of the Green Paper, which was a good deal more informative. The Green Paper contained the following phrase in the second paragraph: … consultation with the political Parties is already in progress.

I should like to ask the noble Lord what consultations there have been between the Parties. I have never been in the inner councils of the Conservative Party, although I was perhaps on the fringe of them for a number of years. Now. quite beyond argument, I am well "beyond the fringe", so that I do not really know what is going on. I certainly have not heard of any consultations between the Parties, despite the quotation I have just read. Therefore, may I ask the noble Lord: Who is taking part in them? Are they still going on? What conclusions have been reached? What subjects have been discussed? I should like to know the answers to those questions, and I think many other people would, too.

May I also ask: Why was the Select Committee of another place not set up until May, six weeks after the Government announced their willingness to do just that? They themselves protested about the delay, and I cannot understand why the Select Committee was not set up as early as last January. That would have given a lot more time and made a great deal of difference to the very tight programme which we now face. Perhaps I should just mention here that as a matter of courtesy I wrote to Mr. Sydney Irving, the very able chairman of the Select Committee in another place, to tell him that we were having this short debate this evening.

The Green Paper had a full two-day debate on the adjournment at the end of March in another place. We in this Chamber debated it at the same time, alongside the Report of our own Select Committee. I think that those two debates, if one reads them carefully, provided the Government with some extremely useful guidance. No doubt that was one reason why the Prime Minister said in another place on 29th March that he was, … ready to go ahead with elections when other Member States are also ready.

That is a direct quotation. Since then, however, so far as debates in Parliament are concerned, nothing at all has happened and nine months, which is a reasonable period for gestation, have passed since those debates took place.

The Select Committee did its utmost to make up for lost time, and I may say that a good deal of time had been lost. I think they should be praised for what they did. I was very pleased that Mr. Hattersley was a member of the Committee, as a senior Foreign Office Minister, and that his place was taken later by a Minister from the Home Office. All along, therefore, the Government made sure that they kept in step with the Select Committee of another place. Their first Report was produced as early as the 15th June and, in paragraph 14, reached the tentative conclusion that, It should be possible to hold direct elections in May or June 1978.

There was no debate on their first Report, which was a pity; but it was no doubt with this in mind that the Prime Minister said in Parliament on 14th July that the Government were only keeping the possibility of nominating representatives to the European Parliament in mind, … should it prove impossible to hold elections here in 1978.

I would stress the word, "impossible". That was no doubt a word which he chose carefully. On that occasion, he was pressed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Thatcher, to introduce legislation as soon as possible, but he undertook to do so only "in due course".

On the other hand, he did knock down a very big Aunt Sally which had been put up in paragraph 4 of the Green Paper when, after telling Mr. Thorpe there were no insuperable difficulties about 1978, he added in another reply, I think to Mr. Willie Hamilton, that he: … saw no reason why the devolution Bill and the Bill to provide for direct elections should not go through in the next Session if Parliament wishes them to.

I am sure that Parliament does wish them to. As we all know, there is a substantial majority in both Houses hoping for just that to happen.

Meanwhile, the Select Committee were still working overtime and a second Report issued on 3rd August reached this highly important conclusion. I think it is important that I should quote it in full, but I will read it very quickly. I quote from paragraph 23: The Committee have made this Second (Interim) Report, because they regard it as essential that, if this country is to continue to seek to hold direct elections in May or June 1978, the House should be invited to take decisions at an early date on the allocation of seats between the component Darts of the United Kingdom, the electoral system and the terms of reference and procedures to be given to the Boundary Commissions. They therefore urge that the Government should find time for a debate in the House on these issues in the autumn at the earliest possible moment."—

I would stress those words— In any event a short Bill should be introduced at the outset of the new Session.

There was no debate on the second Report of the Select Committee and that, too, was very regrettable. Then we had their third Report, which rubbed in well and truly the need for a sense of urgency on the part of the Government. I should like to read now paragraph 48—I apologise for these quotations, but they are very significant—which is as follows: The Committee can find no reason which would lead them to depart from the advice which they tendered in their second Report. This is that it is essential, if the United Kingdom is not to be the cause of delay in the holding of direct elections at present scheduled for May or June 1978, that the House should he invited to take decisions at an early date on the main questions to be resolved.

Then comes a very pregnant sentence: The timetable envisaged by the Committee—which is the only realistic one consistent with the Boundary Commissions being able to complete their work—is dependent upon the first enabling bill dealing with the most urgent matters receiving the royal assent by the end of February, 1977. Proceedings on a second bill (if such were found to be necessary) and on the motion to approve the Order in Council relating to the Community Decision and Act could be taken at a later date.

There has been no debate on their third Report, either, my Lords.

I believe that the Select Committee's recommendations, when read in conjunction with the published evidence, which is most interesting, would find over-whelming general support in both Houses of Parliament, while naturally being fiercely opposed by critics of the fact that we are members of the Community, whichever side of the House they may sit on. To this extent, the passage of the necessary legislation has been greatly eased and a lot of the preparatory work that the Government would otherwise have had to do has been done for them.

There was an exchange, which is relevant at this point of my argument, in another place on 9th December, when the Leader of the Opposition asked the Leader of the House: When will the Bill for direct elections be published, as it is important that there should be a considerable interval between its publication and debate?

Mr. Foot, the Leader of the House, replied: I can give no date for publication",

and he added: I shall bear in mind what she said."—[Official Report, Commons; col.630.]

So that did not get us very much further.

So I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate: Where is the Bill? Has it been drafted? When is it going to be introduced? Why has it not yet been introduced? What is to stop it being introduced next week or, at any rate, when another place resumes its work on 10th January? What is to stop that? What is the latest date by which the Government think that the Boundary Commission must start their work—because this is the critical question—and how long do the Boundary Commission need? Could they do some preliminary work as soon as the Bill has had its Second Reading in another place, as suggested by the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr. Sydney Irving? There has been no answer to that question that I have seen. Will the Commission use a simplified procedure, which could take only nine weeks—though I think that that would be very over-simplified—rather than the full procedure, which we understand would take 30 weeks; or do the Government have in mind something in between?

When will the Decision and Act approved in Brussels on 20th September be embodied in an Order in Council for ratification by Parliament? I do not think there is any great hurry about that, as the Select Committee suggested. I do not want to over-emphasise a somewhat strange remark in paragraph 34 of the Green Paper, which appeared to suggest that the work of the Boundary Commission might be short-circuited in some way by making what is described as "special arrangements". I should not myself he in favour of anything like that. I think that the Boundary Commission must have time, even if their procedure is some-what shortened, to do work which satisfies the public that it is in every way fair to the electorate.

Unless the questions I have asked are answered satisfactorily today—and I am sorry to say this, but I feel strongly that this is the case—the Government seem to lay themselves open to accusations of bad faith through deliberately dragging their feet. I simply cannot believe that, for some spurious administrative reasons, we are going to be told that direct elections in 1978 are "impossible", to go back to the Prime Minister's word. That would be totally out of character for Mr. Callaghan, whose qualities I know very well. He was President of the Labour Party in the constituency that I used to represent, and I perhaps know him rather better than a good many other Conservatives; and I admire his qualities, too.

Certainly, the Government cannot claim lack of Parliamentary time for a measure commanding such overwhelming support in both Houses. This is a rather controversial remark, though I have no wish to imbue this speech with any Party political character, but it is none the less true that instead priority was given during the Recess—which ruined a holiday that I had planned—to forcing through Parliament highly controversial Bills wanted only by a minority in a minority Government. It was being whispered last summer, and whispered quite loudly, that in order to avoid still further trouble with the Left Wing of the Labour Party—the Government have no need to worry about the official Opposition Parties in this respect—some reason would be found for continuing to nominate British members of the European Parliament in 1978, even if all the other eight countries were prepared, as promised, to hold direct elections. I note here that only France has continuing difficulties about the possibility of holding direct elections in 1978, and that these difficulties are being openly and squarely faced. We understand that the Danes have overcome the difficulties which they had previously described.

It is being said in Brussels—I do not know whether or not it is true, but I believe it to be true—that if any one country defaults, direct elections will not be held at all. In other words, it is all or none. I do not know whether that is true, and if the noble Lord is able to confirm this I will much appreciate it. But even if it is not true, I cannot think of being in a more unsatisfactory position than that we should nominate 81 members of the European Parliament, while the other eight countries are electing theirs. Indeed, I wonder very much how many Members of another place will be willing to accept the dual mandate, which is a very heavy strain upon them as I know from my own personal experience; it was a sufficient strain when I came to your Lordships' House.

So I conclude by saying that I frankly refuse to believe the rumours to which I have referred that we may default, though they are growing in volume, and I ask the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate, and whose European credentials are absolutely impeccable, to refute these rumours without any ifs or buts. It is only in that way that he can prove me right and the doubters, here and abroad, wrong. I feel that far too much time has been lost already. Let us lose no more.

8.7 p.m.

Lord BANKS

My Lords, we on these Benches are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for putting this important Question to the Government this evening. I should like to support the noble Lord's plea that the Government should give an assurance that all the arrangements, which have to be made, will be made in good time for direct elections to he held in this country in May/June 1978. I do not think one can overestimate the significance of these direct elections, because we shall have, for the first time, a Community institution deriving authority from the people of the Community, and not from any Government or Parliament, and it will he a chance to involve people in the Community in the European enterprise and to have a wide discussion of European issues. I feel that it would lamentable if, in all the rest of the European Economic Community, the Governments were ready to give this chance to the people, but not the Government in the United Kingdom, which prides itself on being the home of Parliamentary democracy and the home of the Mother of Parliaments.

I should like to take up the point which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and say that it is also my understanding that if our Government are not ready to proceed with direct elections in 1978, then there cannot he direct elections at all throughout the Community. Certainly, paragraph 38 of the Third Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons would seem to bear that out. I, too, shall be grateful to have some clarification of that point from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he comes to reply.

I shall listen, too, with great interest and some concern, to the details of the time-table which I hope he will give us. One reason for concern is the fact, already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, that the House of Commons Select Committee said that legislation must be through both Houses of Parliament by the end of February, and yet we have not, as the noble Lord said, seen the Bill. The second reason for concern arises from a fear that dangerous delay may be caused by the Government's apparent determination to stick to the first past the post electoral system. Of course, in the past, we have deployed from these Benches the arguments against the use of that system for elections to the European Parliament. We shall do so again in the future, I have no doubt. We deployed the arguments for a form of proportional representation in the past and we shall do the same again in the future. These arguments have commended themselves to many in your Lordships' House but only one of those arguments will I mention tonight, and that because it is directly relevant to the subject-metter of the question which we have before us.

The drawing up of 81 constituencies through the grouping of Parliamentary constituencies into large, single Member constituencies is bound to be a contentious process. The way in which the boundaries are drawn inevitably affects the political outcome. Mr. Michael Steed, who is something of an expert in these matters, has demonstrated this very clearly by taking the constituencies in the old East and North Ridings of Yorkshire and dividing the Parliamentary constituencies into European constituencies in two different ways. Under each division, nine Parliamentary constituencies go to a European constituency. Mr. Steed then took the October 1974 Election figures and showed that one division would produce five Labour Members and the second division three Conservative and two Labour Members.

In the light of that, we must ask this question: Is it not going to be a slow and protracted process to obtain agreement on 81 constituencies which are acceptable to all sides? With proportional representation no such difficulty, of course, arises. We could take as multi-Member constituencies the 13 economic planning regions. The boundaries are already drawn, and since the results will be proportionate within each constituency the exact boundaries do not, in any case, matter in the same way. So there would be no arguments and no delay. I hope that the Government will not hesitate to use proportional representation in the way I have described if that is the only way in which they can meet the deadline. In any event, whatever they decide about the electoral system, I hope that the Government will give the assurance asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and will show clearly how it is to be fulfilled.

8.13 p.m.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clielwood has put down an Unstarred Question to which we shall expect from the Government a positive and helpful answer. I must say that the procedure of Unstarred Questions is rather like the Book of Genesis: that one question begets rather a lot of other questions. I shall also, therefore, be putting further questions to the Minister. First, I endorse absolutely what my noble friend has said relating to the 48th paragraph of the Select Committee's Report on Direct Elections. That Committee made it perfectly clear that unless the necessary legislation was through both Houses by the end of February 1977 there would be very little possibility, if ally, of this country being ready to participate in direct elections by May or June of 1978.

The first question which has been put by my noble friend and which I endorse is this: Is it a fact that if the legislation is not ready by the end of February 1977 it will still be possible so far as this country is concerned to hold direct elections by May or June 1978? The Select Committee itself, an all-Party Committee—here I should like to congratulate the Committee on the excellent work that it did—terminated its work with all possible speed by 9th November so that the necessary legislative measures would be included in the Queen's Speech and introduced during this Session. Of course, that is referred to in the developments ill the European Committees of May to November 1976, paragraph 81. It states the Government's intention during the current Session of Parliament to introduce legislation to make provision for direct elections.

It must therefore be asked, since the warning note of the Select Committee had already been sounded, why the Government have not arranged to produce this Bill at the earliest possible moment. I wonder whether the possibility was ever considered of introducing this Bill in your Lordships' House while another place appears to be concerned with other constitutional matters. Would not this have been the kind of Bill which could have been introduced first in this House while the legislative period here is comparatively slack?

A series of questions arises in connection not only with the timetable itself but with the Government's underlying intentions. Do the Government accept the Select Committee's findings as to the latest date, February 1977, in order to complete the necessary procedures? This is very similar to the question which I put at the beginning of my intervention. Secondly, so as to speed up the procedures without detracting from a thorough and open process, can the Boundary Commissions be instructed to initiate their inquiries immediately following the Second Reading of the Bill in another place? I understand that this point has been mooted, and I should like either confirmation or denial from the Minister that this would or could be a possibility. And if it is possible, do the Government intend to follow this timing? It is clear that if the Boundary Commissions are to have proper time in which to do their work they should have at least six months, and the sooner they start the better.

The Government will be aware of the bitter disappointment to those countries which are actively preparing for these elections and which recognise the necessity for democratic control of the European institutions if we ourselves are not ready by the proposed date. How often were we told that the European countries in the Community, apart from ourselves, looked for guidance and inspiration to the United Kingdom as the home of democracy, with a Parliament and a Parliamentary system which is, or certainly was, the envy of the world. Have we even lost the entitlement to this claim, or are we in danger of losing it? So far as I am aware, other Member States have not expressed any doubt as to their capacity to be ready by May or June 1978.

Equally, we all start with our preparations from the same date, which was the signing of the Decision in Brussels on 20th September. Therefore one might take it that the starting post is the same for all Member States. If eight other Member States can do it, I do not see why we should not be able to do so also. Within two years both Greece and Portugal have adopted a new Constitution and have held democratic elections. Now Spain is undergoing the same process in roughly the same way, yet we in the United Kingdom may find it impossible even to introduce the necessary legislation, which was agreed at the Council meeting in December 1975, so that these elections would be held by May or June 1978—that is, 2½ years later.

It must therefore further be asked whether the Government envisage the possibility of nominating delegates while other countries elect their members by universal suffrage. Can the Government give a categoric denial either that this is their intention or that it is impossible under the Act, as drafted, signed on 20th September? I should like confirmation of the fact that the Government still maintain what Mr. Hattersley said in reply to a Question on 30th July 1976 at cols.443 and 444 of the Official Report, that if elections are not possible in Britain they will not be held anywhere in the Community. Is this still so? Do the Government believe that they could amend the existing Act, as drafted, within the Decision of 20th September, or do they plan to hold up elections, merely for the United Kingdom, by signing some form of amendment or reservation? I wonder whether or not the Government consider that this is legally possible.

The ungracious and ridiculous comments applied to your Lordships' House in recent weeks led us to believe that only elected bodies had any right to speak or to vote, so I should like to know what all these people—Mr. Foot included—are now saying about the European Parliament. One would have thought that they would be the first and the most eager to proceed to an elected body to control the bureaucratic institutions of Europe, and we shall look to them to support direct elections wholeheartedly and as quickly as possible in order to institute a democratically elected body.

The Government should be warned that the tolerance and patience of other Member States will be exhausted. They have put up with a sterile period of renegotiating and the referendum. This is not a political Party point, but both my noble friend Lord Chelwood and I were Members of the European Parliament and we can bear witness to the real patience and tolerance which our European friends showed during that very difficult period. So we really have to show that we are willing to play a full part in the European procedures, since they not only put up with us then but they are also supporting us in our failing economy. The good will generated at the time of our entry into the EEC is slowly being drained by the ambiguous and clouded intentions of the Government on this particular issue. So the Government are now asked, and have the opportunity, to give a convincing reassurance both to your Lordships and to our partners in the European Community, that they have every intention of honouring their undertaking to be ready to hold direct elections in this country by May or June 1978, on a date to be agreed within Article 9 of the Act, and to see that the necessary legislative procedures are completed in due time. If they do not, the weight that we once carried as a respected Member of the European Community will be lost; the voice of Britain, which is becoming less and less listened to outside Europe, will even be ignored among our friends, and ultimately this will be neither to the benefit of the other Member States of the Community nor, least of all, to ourselves.

So, in supporting the crucial question put to the Government by my noble friend Lord Chelwood, I hope that if the Minister is not able to answer all the points that have been raised this evening, he will give a written reply to those that he is not able to answer now.

8.23 p.m.

Lord GLADWYN

My Lords, as it is getting late I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood—I should like to refer to him as my noble friend because he and I have now co-operated for many years in the common cause in various forums, and, to some extent, in the European Parliament —began his speech by saying something to the effect that there might be, and indeed in principle there ought to be, proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament but that if it could not come now it should come in five years' time. and that in any case the elections should not be held up by what he called a "wrangle", presumably about the electoral procedure to be adopted in this country. I do not think it is a wrangle that will hold up the electoral procedure; I think it is the fact that if the elections are not held by PR they will not be held anyhow, and I shall try to explain why.

I do not think that the Boundary Commission can, in practice, start its work before the Bill has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. When will that be? At the moment it looks as though it might not be before March. Of course, the Parliamentary Committee said that it should be the end of February at the latest, but even if it were passed at the beginning of March that would only leave the Boundary Commission about six months in which to make its report. If it does not produce its report by about September or October, it will be difficult to arrange the elections because the candidates have to be chosen, there have to be great manoeuvres behind the scenes as to how the election is to be financed and who is to do what and so on. It will take a great deal of time to arrange all that, even after the Boundary Commission has reported and its report accepted.

When the Boundary Commission does meet—and even if the Government urge it to work quickly—its labours would obviously be held up by disputes, probably originating mostly on the Labour side, because, after all, there are more Labour people against the very idea of elections than there are Tories. Therefore there is reason to suppose that a great many objections will be raised on one side or another, but principally on the Labour side, to the actual boundaries proposed by the Commission. The Government might try to activate the Commission; but even if they did, have they any power to compel it to go ahead or to act more quickly? I do not know, but I should not have thought so.

Secondly, in spite of what the Government have always said about being committed, they are basically Laodicean about the whole question of direct elections.

If we may venture to interpret their thoughts, they believe it would not matter all that much if they did not take place on time; it would not be a matter of supreme urgency or importance to this country. That is the impression we gain. Some of them may even think that it would not matter all that much if they did not happen at all. That may be an erroneous impression, but it is the impression we certainly get and I see that the noble Baroness is nodding her head. It is a fact that the British Government, alone among the Nine, have said that, although of course they want to have elections in May 1978, it may not be possible for Parliamentary reasons, and they reserve their right to put them off. That in itself gives rise to suspicions that they will not push matters beyond a certain point if it becomes difficult.

Now with proportional representation, as has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Banks, it is obviously far easier for the Boundary Commission to get agreement on 15 or 16 big constituencies of five members than it would be on 81 constituencies. If you form a region, so to speak, of large constituencies of five members—15 or 16 for the whole of Great Britain—the location of the boundaries clearly becomes less important. Nor would it matter so much whether or not a little enclave came in to this huge area, for the addition of 100 votes one way or another under PR would make singularly little difference. Therefore the Boundary Commission would in these circumstances not have a great deal to do and would certainly be able to produce their report on time. So, if the Government are completely sincere in their intention to have the ground ready for elections in May or June 1978, then clearly they must favour PR and I think we can almost say that a decision against PR on the part of the Government would be a decision against direct elections as such. Some would say that that is what they want.

I do not propose to dilate upon the merits of PR as such. I would only say that there is no doubt that the first past the post system as practised here would, if there were a substantial swing in favour of one Party or another, result in a grotesquely disproportionate British representation in Strasbourg. No psephologist would disagree with that. I might therefore legitimately ask what a Labour Government would do if, as is quite likely, 63 of the 81 United Kingdom deputies were Tories? For this might well result in a Right-Wing majority in the Parliament while there was a Labour Government in this country. Surely the Labour Government—or other Socialist Governments on the Continent—would then maintain that majority decisions in such a constituted Parliament had no particular validity, the Parliament not really representing the people of Europe. So as far as this Government and other Socialist Governments in the Community are concerned, any decisions of that Parliament might then be suitably ignored. No doubt this would, mutatis mutandis, he the attitude taken by a Tory Government if a Tory Government were in office, and Labour had over 60 Members of the United Kingdom delegation.

My Lords, even if direct elections are not held owing to secret Labour apprehensions of this kind, they could, if held under our present electoral procedure, be a rather dangerous farce. I am sorry to say this, but I think it will he so. So I beg the two major Parties to consider this dreadful possibility before it is too late. I am not trying to make a Liberal case. I have not mentioned that aspect at all. I am speaking as a committed European in favour of an elected Parliament. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, this is probably the last hope of achieving progress towards some kind of democratic political European union, which is the only sane objective if we want to avoid becoming separate directed economies under the aegis of the Soviet Union. Besides if the elections are delayed it is not a question of delaying them for a year or two but probably for ever.

I would in conclusion give my support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, suggested about the possibility of introducing legislation in this House. Why not? We have all the time available. The Bill could easily be discussed for the first time here. There is no reason why it should not be. It might be discussed more dispassionately here than it would be in the other place. And if by any chance we came to reasonable decisions on the Bill here and sent it back for discussion in the other place, the other place might even be influenced by our discussions. I do not know whether they might be influenced about proportional representation, but they might at least be influenced in certain other important directions. I therefore hope that serious consideration will be given to this suggestion, which was so well put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles.

8.33 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)

My Lords, this has been something of an old boys' reunion. Three former Members of the European Parliament have addressed the House and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and I were involved in a successful election campaign only about eighteen months ago, so I do not think anyone has any reason to doubt the credentials of anyone participating in this debate this evening. Certainly, I recognise the concern expressed by all who have spoken in this debate which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood. However, I would like to make it quite clear at the outset that the Government are in no way despondent about the prospects of holding direct elections in the United Kingdom in May or June, 1978.

As the House knows, the gracious Speech contained a commitment to introduce legislation to provide for the election of United Kingdom Members of the European Assembly, and certainly this is no empty commitment, as 1 made clear when I spoke on the second day of the debate in reply to the gracious Speech. Before coming to the question raised in the report of the Select Committee of another place, I will deal with one point initially, that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, when he mentioned the question of consultation with the political Parties, and asked what sort of consultation had occurred.

My Lords, the situation was that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when he was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, invited the main political Parties to discuss direct election questions. Some Parties took up the offer; others did not. However, as the noble Lord will be aware, subsequently the political Parties gave evidence to the Select Committee, which has recently been working very hard indeed in another place. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that we are all grateful to the Committee for having addressed itself with such vigour and persistence to the issues we are discussing today.

If I may just briefly return to my own speech, in the Address in reply to the gracious Speech I pointed out that the preamble to the Decision on direct elections, signed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 20th September, included a "best endeavours" clause relating to the holding of these elections in the period May to June 1978. The preamble notes that it is the intention of all signatories to the Decision to give effect to the conclusions of the European Council in Rome last December, that the election of the Assembly should be held on a single date within the period May to June 1978.

I should emphasise at the outset that the actual date for holding of the first direct elections has not yet been settled with our EEC partners. Under Article 10.1 of the Act annexed to the Decision signed on 20th September, it is laid down that the Council, acting unanimously after consulting the Assembly, shall determine the period referred to in Article 9(1) for the first elections. Article 9(1) says that elections to the Assembly shall be held on the date fixed by each Member State; for all Member States this date shall fall within the same period starting on a Thursday morning and ending on the following Sunday. This means that the Member States acting collectively, after consultation with the Assembly, must decide the Thursday to Sunday period during which the elections must be held. But each Member State may decide individually to hold the elections on a particular day—presumably Thursday in the case of the United Kingdom —within that Thursday to Sunday period. The crucial point here—and this is where I come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—is that although all Member States are working towards a period in May or June 1978, it is unlikely that the Council would reach a decision on a period during those months unless all Member States were ready to hold elections by the dates in question.

Noble Lords have asked, very reasonably, whether we ourselves are going to meet the deadline which has been spoken about. As is well known, the Select Committee on Direct Elections recommended that early legislation should be introduced to permit constituencies to be drawn up on the basis of a fairly full Boundary Commission procedure. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, the Select Committee urged the Government to introduce a Bill in time to ensure that the Boundary Commission can complete their recommendations for consideration by Parliament in ample time before June 1978. In the view of the Select Committee—and this point has been made by a number of noble Lords who have spoken this evening—this meant the Bill would receive the Royal Assent by the end of February next year; but that, I emphasise, is the judgment of the Committee, not that of the Government.

Of course the Government have taken note of what the Select Committee have said about the timing of the legislation. We appreciate the Committee's views on the desirability of drawing up constituencies in the United Kingdom using a fairly full Boundary Commission procedure. However, the Government have not yet finally decided whether such a procedure is essential, or whether it is really practicable to go ahead with legislation on this before other decisions are taken on the many complex, controversial and far-reaching recommendations of the Select Committee on the various matters concerned with the elections.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, I do not think this is the appropriate time for a detailed analysis of the other recommendations of the Select Committee which the Government must consider, but I will refer briefly, if I may, to some of the most important ones. Of course, the fact that we are debating the necessity for a full Boundary Commission procedure flows from the decision of the Select Committee to recommend—this is the point the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, just raised—the use of our traditional first past the post system for elections to the European Assembly.

I recognise that a number of noble Lords are strongly opposed to this recommendation. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has just made his position clear; the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has done so. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, while indicating that he was sympathetic to the proposition so far as the use of proportional representation was concerned, indicated, as I understand it, that his principal concern was that the elections took place in time; that to him was the central issue. It is, of course, a major matter on which the Government will have to formulate a view, and I may say not only the Government but the Opposition as well. This is a matter which cannot just be pushed on one side as though it is a matter of no importance at all; it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, a matter of profound importance which we will have to consider.

There are other important issues which the Select Committee raise; for example, the number of seats to be allocated to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—not an easy matter. I must emphasise that the Boundary Commissions cannot begin to draw up constituencies until they have been finally told how many there are to be in each part of the United Kingdom. This brings me to one point which the noble Baroness raised on the question of whether the Boundary Commissions could start their work before the Act actually went on the Statute Book. The situation is that, in my view, the Commission could undertake in advance a considerable amount of informal preparatory work, but it would probably not be possible for the Commission to begin the formal part of their work—publication of draft recommendations and things of that sort—until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. But certainly the informal work could, in my view, be done once they had this important information, and when the Bill had been presented.

The Select Committee did not confine their recommendations to the electoral system to be used, the allocation of seats, and the procedure for drawing up constituencies. Their third report, which was published only at the end of last month, contains 26 further recommendations, many of which are controversial in ordinary electoral terms. Let me just take one example. The Committee recommended that British subjects resident abroad should be permitted to vote in direct elections in this country. I can, of course, understand the Committee's reasons for making this recommendation, as we all can. Nevertheless, this raises in a new form proposals which have been rejected, for Parliamentary Elections, by the Speaker's Conference which took place between 1965 and 1968, and for the referendum, by Parliament only last year. The Select Committee have argued strongly that direct elections are a special case, and clearly the Government must consider this matter, obviously not just the principle involved but also the practical implications of this, which I think anyone who has been concerned with the organisation of elections must recognise as a matter of considerable importance.

There are other matters, such as the rules for nomination, the level of the deposits, the limits on electoral expenses and whether there should be any reimbursement of such expenses, the appointment of returning officers and verification and counting procedures. All these are important matters.

Lord GLADWYN

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, surely these are not matters for the Boundary Commission? The Boundary Commission could get to work and these things could be discussed at the same time.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, these are central matters, with great respect, so far as the formulation of legislation is concerned. These are matters on which 26 recommendations were presented only a few weeks ago, at the end of November. We must bear in mind that we are talking about profoundly serious questions so far as this is concerned. I do not argue that endless delay is justified because of this; I simply want to put to the House the fact that there are real issues here, and we cannot pretend that they are nonexistent issues which can be swept away.

Baroness SEEAR

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord again, he cannot really expect us to believe that the Government have not been able to think about these matters until they received the Select Committee Report. Et has been known for years that there are to be direct elections. If the Government really meant business about direct elections, a great many of these matters would have been considered not just for months but for years.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I will repeat the point; I obviously did not make it sufficiently clear. The fact is that the third Report of the Select Committee came out at the end of November. It made a number of proposals which were based on the evidence which the Committee had taken from a very large number of people. Of course, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to await the decision of this Committee, and it was recognised by the Committee that the Government were anxious to receive their report so that they could begin to formulate their own reaction to it. But, until we had the precise recommendation of a group of Parliamentarians specifically set up in order to study these matters, it would seem to me an almost total absurdity for the Government to come to a decision on these matters before receiving the final Report of the Committee, which went into detail in regard to precisely the problems with which the political Parties and others in this country are going to be confronted when these elections take place.

My Lords, as I indicated when I began, the Government are determined to be ready to hold direct elections in May or June of 1978. I emphasise once more that the committment to introduce legislation is there in the gracious Speech. Nevertheless it may be—and at the moment it is not possible to be definitive on this point —that in order to be ready for May or June 1978 we shall have to forego certain procedures and certain modifications or improvements to the Westminster electoral system which we might in ideal circumstances have regarded as desirable. A full Boundary Commission procedure might turn out to be an example, as might also the suggestion for the franchise to be extended to British subjects living outside the United Kingdom. Sweeping changes to our electoral system, which have been advocated, would also, in my view, be difficult to achieve by May or June of 1978. These are all matters to which the Government are currently giving urgent consideration, and I can assure the House that the Bill will be introduced as soon as practicable.