Lords Sitting of 11 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

LORD McCARTHY
William Edward John McCarthy, Esquire, having been created Baron McCarthy, of Headington in the County of Oxford, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Crowther-Hunt and the Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and made the solemn Affirmation.

PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES EXPENDITURE
2.46 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will advise local authorities of the undesirability of cutting back expenditure on day centres and meals on wheels services, in their necessary drive for financial savings.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, following the recent rate support grant settlement for 1976–77 we have advised local authorities that, while the provision in the settlement for current expenditure on personal social services allows no scope for general improvement next year, priority should be given to the maintenance of the effectiveness of the field services, domiciliary services, and to services for children. It is, however, for individual local authorities to consider their own priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him whether he realises that these two services affect aged and often lonely people, that the day centres provide about five hours a day of friendship
78
and companionship over a mid-day meal, and that the meals on wheels service means that at least one visitor to speak to calls each day? Will he consider making both of these services statutory on the local authorities?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, I should have to take advice on the matter of whether this should be mandatory on local authorities. But I think I should point out to your Lordships that in the 12 months ending 31st March 1975, 23·5 million meals on wheels were served. This is an increase of about 14 per cent. over the previous three years.
In addition to meals on wheels, in the 12 months ending 31st March 1975, there were 14·4 million meals served in clubs and similar establishments, mainly to old and disabled people. With regard to the number of day centres, on 31st March 1975, there were in local authority day centres—if I may be permitted to give round figures—over 10,000 places for the elderly, over 3,000 places for the mentally ill, over 10,000 places for the physically handicapped and over 8,000 places in mixed centres. In the three years which ended 31st March 1975 the number of places in local authority day centres has increased overall by about 13 per cent. per annum. I cannot give your Lordships the number of day centres which are run by voluntary organisations, but I believe the number to be quite substantial.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both of these services involve a tremendous amount of voluntary effort, especially meals on wheels? They provide very economic services as well as very important ones. Therefore I think we all consider that these are the last services which ought to be cut.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of something of which I ought to have informed your Lordships. I think that every one of your Lordships will appreciate the fact that about 60 per cent. of the meals on wheels are served wholly or mainly by voluntary organisations, to whom I am sure we are all grateful.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the Minister agree that meals on wheels is a way of keeping in their own homes people who might otherwise have to be put into institutions, and is also a way of keeping at work people who are looking after those old people? Would he agree that this is not only a humane but an economic service, which ought not to becut on economic as well as social grounds?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I entirely agree—and I know that my Department agrees—with what the noble Baroness has said. We have given a good deal of consideration to this matter, and the noble Baroness will be interested to know that the Department is initiating research into meals provision and day centres for the elderly in an attempt to find out the real need of old people for these services and the most effective and cost-effective forms of providing them. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree that the service is not just for the elderly but also for the crippled and the blind? This is a very good service for all three categories. I have delivered meals and know that very often it is the only contact that these people have with the outside world. May I further remind him that they pay towards this. It is not a completely free service, and never in my experience have people either refused to pay or not had their money ready when we arrived. Therefore, I should like to suggest—
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness VICKERS: May I ask the noble Lord whether this is not the last service that we should consider cutting at the present time?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that we must leave it to the discretion of local authorities. We have made our position perfectly clear. We have said that we do not want to see cuts in certain services, and I do not think that we can go beyond that. I pointed out to your Lordships that there were 14·4 million meals served in clubs and similar institutions not only to the old but also to disabled people. We are aware of the needs. So far as cost is con-
80
cerned, my information is that some local authorities provide meals as a voluntary service, and others make a charge. I believe it to be discretionary.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some local authorities, in exercising their discretion, make services like these and similar social services their first target for cuts? Will he give some assurance that, where there is evidence that a local authority has drastically reduced these services against the public interest, the Government will not only give them advice but take some action?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if its attention was called to such reductions, I think tht my Department would be prepared to do something in the matter.

TELEVISION PROGRAMME CONTENT
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any limit beyond which broadcasting companies are not allowed to go in the use of obscene language in televised plays; and whether they will consider introducing a system of certificates, such as is used in the film industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, responsibility in matters of programme content rests entirely with the broadcasting authorities —the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the members of the Independent Broadcasting Authority—who are appointed as trustees for the public interest in broadcasting. The introduction of a system of certificates would be a matter for those authorities.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that rather discouraging reply. May I first ask him: is it not disturbing that this undesirable language is constantly hurled into the middle of our homes without time even to bolt the back door?

81
Secondly, does he not think it a matter of considerable concern that the ears of the growing generation are being acclimatised to this unexpected sort of language? Will he therefore please do everything in his power to urge greater responsibility not only from those who produce our television plays but also from those in authority over them?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord said that my reply was to some extent discouraging. I was simply stating what is in fact the position; namely, that matters of this sort are for the BBC and the IBA and not for the Government. If the House reflects on this matter, I think it will come to the conclusion that it is a mistake to invite Governments to become involved in the content of broadcasting.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, while accepting the noble Lord's point of view, may I ask him what self-disciplines are observed by the Corporations with respect to the use of obscene language, particularly during children's programmes?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not want to continue to repeat the two replies I have already given. I shall certainly ensure that the points which have been made in the House are drawn to the attention of the BBC and the IBA. I think that they are aware of criticisms of this sort, which have been made on a number of occasions, but it is for them to take appropriate action.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, in that case, will the noble Lord draw the attention of the BBC particularly to the recent Robin Hood series, which was broadcast during children's viewing periods, and which, in my view at least, was a public disgrace?

WESTERN SAHARA
2.57 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their Representative on the United Nations Security Council will
82
propose that the future status of Western Sahara should be decided by a plebiscite under United Nations supervision.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the United Kingdom voted in favour of Resolutions 3458A and 3458B on 10th December, both of which called for an act of self-determination by Western Sahara. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has instructed Mr. Rydbeck, his Special Representative on the Western Sahara, to enter into consultations about implementing these resolutions. Her Majesty's Government welcome this development and also the efforts of a number of Arab countries to bring about a reduction of tension in the area.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while greatly welcoming that reply may I ask this question? In view of the imminent prospect of some revolt within Western Sahara by the movement demanding independence, and the participation of Algeria which is not demanding territory but which is claiming self-determination (which Her Majesty's Government support), cannot Her Majesty's Government seek to speed the report from the Special Representative on the Western Sahara with a view to the implementation of the Security Council resolution?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we would certainly wish to speed in every way possible the investigation of Mr. Rydbeck, who, by the way, got to Madrid on 3rd February and I understand will be visiting the area itself and possibly adjacent countries. As to the imminence of disturbance in the territory, I am not informed that it is all that imminent. In the meantime, as I indicated in my first Answer, a number of Arab countries have been active in reducing tension between certain countries in Western Africa, not without some success.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the full meaning of a plebiscite and all its implications are properly understood by the natives of Western Sahara?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly imagine that it would

83
form part of the efforts of Mr. Rydbeck and of the Secretary-General that any plebiscite that is held in this territory is understood as fully as possible by those taking part in it.

SOVIET FREIGHT RATES AND TRADE PRACTICES
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the conference arranged by the Western democratic countries on the freight rates charged by the Soviet Union for cargo shipping.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Baroness may have misunderstood my remarks in answer to her Question of 28th January. No conference has been arranged, but the Western maritime countries, in two international fora, have discussed the Question of Eastern bloc shipping activity in the course of their recent meetings. The matter will continue to be considered internationally.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I inform him that there was no misunderstanding on my part? Would he agree that when my Question was answered I got a reasonably satisfactory reply? May I again ask for an assurance that, from wherever the action comes, it is up to both this Government and the Western democracies to see that British shipping is not put out of action by those behind the Iron Curtain, particularly the Soviet Union, who are making it almost impossible on a reasonably competitive basis for our shipping to remain in full-time operation? Is it not a fact that we really must take some action now?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right in that the interests of the United Kingdom are greater than those of our partners in Western Europe because we are one of the major maritime Powers. We are very much aware of this but we cannot move alone; we have to move in concert with
84
our friends in the shipping world, and that we are doing. As I said in my previous reply, the situation is not yet damaging, but there is a threat to the future which we are watching most carefully.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to explain what he meant when he said that there was not a conference but there were fora? Do fora move more quickly than conferences?
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the Russians entered the freight trade last September with the declared objective of gaining 30 per cent. of world shipping freight trade which they did not already have? Are we in fact acting in concert with other Western European nations? Are we in agreement with them and do we have a policy which is in line with theirs? May I ask the noble Lord also to say whether any consideration is being given to the requirement now being made in the United States that any foreign freight at an artificially low rate should justify its action before a federal maritime commission?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, perhaps one of the reasons why there is confusion here is that two separate issues are at stake. There are the issues of (shall we say?) bilateral trade between ourselves and the USSR, which are governed by an agreement between us, and there are the problems of what is known as the cross trade—I suppose, tramping—which is what we are really talking about today. We cannot act alone; we must act in concert with our friends in the maritime industry and that is what we are doing. Perhaps I should add that because we are, in this particular group, the major maritime Power we must give a lead, but we cannot move alone.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I always thought the Opposition believed that competition was the dynamic force which made capitalism successful? Why are noble Lords opposite complaining now?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in the terms of our agreement with the Soviet Union it is "fair competition" which is the dynamic force. There is such a thing as unfair competition.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the Eastern fleets constitute what is virtually dumping? Would he further agree that the long-term effect will be very serious for our shipyards?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: If it were allowed to get out of hand, yes, my Lords, but I do not think we shall let it get out of hand.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, while my noble friend is trying to help the British shipping industry, may I ask if he will also suggest to those concerned that they should place more of their orders with British firms instead of placing 70 per cent. of them with Japanese and German shipyards as at present?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: That is a different economic question, my Lords.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, having listened to the Minister's helpful reply, may I ask him when he will be ready for me to put down another Question to see how we are getting on over this?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to answer the noble Baroness.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
3.5 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Winter-bottom will repeat a statement on future civil aviation policy.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Sherfield be added to the Select Committee on the European Communities in the place of
86
the Lord Hill of Luton resigned.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE: My Lords, on behalf of the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. Use of facilities of the House by Peers who have not taken their seats:
The Committee have considered whether a Peer who has not taken his scat should be allowed to use the facilities of the House.
They recommend that a Peer should not be allowed to use the facilities of the House, other than the right to sit on the steps of the Throne, before he has taken his seat for the first time.
2. Parliament Office:
The Committee authorised the temporary appointment of an additional Clerk for Select Committee duties.

THE POLITICAL AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM
3.6 p.m.
Lord BYERS Lord BYERS rose to call attention to the rapidly declining efficiency of the British political system arising largely from the use of an electoral system for Parliamentary and other elections which does not represent the true wishes of those who vote; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this will not turn into a narrow debate on proportional representation. I would invite the House to go wider and deeper on this subject, which I believe is of vital importance to the future of this country. Traditionally, the argument for abandoning the present electoral system in favour of one which is proportionately representative has been the injustice suffered by minority Parties through their under-representation. Traditionally, too, the arguments in favour of retaining the present system have centred on the need for stable government. However, in the past two or

87
three years new dimensions have been added to this whole subject as more people have come to study this matter in greater depth. These studies challenge the very premises on which the opponents of electoral reform found their arguments, and many of us now believe that there is a direct causal relationship between our social and economic crises and the system by which we elect our House of Commons.
For the last 10 to 12 years we have had neither proper representation nor stable government. Between October 1964 and October 1974 there were no less than five General Elections and three changes of Government. Only two of those elections produced a substantial working majority in Parliament for a single Party. But the frequency of those elections meant that the Government of the day were concerned primarily with their electoral prospects rather than with the longer term interests of the country. The result has been disastrous as far as continuity of management of the economy is concerned and is one of the major causes of the loss of confidence on the part of the industrial and business community.
The truth is that the present "first past the post" or "winner takes all" system of voting entrenches what has rightly been called adversary politics or, as some might prefer, the politics of the two-Party confrontation. This atmosphere in which the Parties have been working in the last decade has exaggerated the differences between Government and Opposition, with each of the two Parties when out of office committing itself so often to out-right opposition to Government proposals which differed only marginally from those which they themselves had sponsored when in offce. A classic example, one in which I have an interest, is the three attempts to introduce legislation concerning occupational pensions. Over a period of more than 15 years this has been a nightmare for the pensions industry and an extensive waste of valuable commercial, Civil Service and Parliamentary time and ability.
Similarly, over too long a period there was no consensus between the Conservative and Labour Parties on which to build an enduring structure of industrial relations. We have also witnessed the
88
Socialist, Wilsonian, time-wasting farce over our membership of the EEC. The Labour Party created the opening for entry and then shuffled its feet in all directions for fear of the immediate electoral consequences. We now have the Conservative Party calling for substantial cuts in public expenditure which I do not believe they would ever consider if they were in office. We have the Labour Party incurring new expenditure of thousands of millions of pounds to fulfil what many of us consider an ill thought-out Party Manifesto. All this has contributed to a dangerous cynicism in the public mind about politics, politicians and democracy itself. The impact upon industry has been starkly set out in the recent report of the Financial Economic Development Council which said:
"The comparatively low level of investment since the mid-1960s has not been caused by shortage of funds. Instead, the prime constraining factors seem to have been a lack of confidence in the consistency of Government economic policy."
Much of what I have already said is taken from the evidence which my Party has submitted to the Hansard Committee on Electoral Reform. This evidence was produced by Mr. William Wallace and Mr. Tony Richards. The Hansard Committee on Electoral Reform is, as your Lordships will know, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Blake. He has written me a letter—which I received this morning—in which he asks me to apologise to your Lordships for not being present today. He has commitments which he cannot get out of but he would have liked to take part in the debate if only to have said something about the Commission's progress and when it hoped to report. The noble Lord has asked me to say that the Hansard Committee is an informal body which was set up by the Hansard Society in the light of the uneasiness felt, at least in some areas of every political Party, about the existing system. It is not necessarily committed to the view that the status quo needs to be changed. Clearly, its members have misgivings about the present system but they might conclude that, for all its defects, that system was better than any alternative. What the Commission hopes to do is, first, to examine how those alternatives really work in practice and to dispel part of the cloud of prejudice, folklore and mythology which still surrounds them.

89
Secondly, it hopes to see how some of them might be adapted or transplanted for British use and, thirdly, it intends to try to put forward an agreed recommendation. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, wishes the House to know that he hopes to complete that report by June of this year.
A number of people have come to similar conclusions and have expressed very real unease. For instance, Professor Finer, the Gladstone Professor of Government and Public Administration at Oxford, in his introduction to an important collection of essays on Adversary Politics and Electoral Reform, has clearly demonstrated how the present system in Britain gives far greater influence to the extremists in the two main Parties than to the moderates. Yet the percentage of extremists in the electorate and even in the Parties themselves is, as most of us know, relatively small. Under our present system, the fact is that we have had instability, the undermining of confidence and the exaggeration of the influence of extremists. That is one reason why a growing number of influential industrialists are demanding a change in our voting system.
For those who still prefer to maintain the present system, I would remind them that it has only been in operation since 1885 and that multi-member constituencies were the rule in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Moreover, from the beginning of this century European countries have moved one by one to the system of PR. In Britain, over the past two centuries, the voting system has been a frequent subject of questioning and doubt. In 1917, this House wanted to adopt proportional representation by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, but the Commons objected and threw out the idea. They wanted to introduce election by the alternative vote in single member seats. In 1931, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will probably remember, that method was very nearly passed through Parliament and fell only because of the imminence of a General Election.
There is nothing new about trying to improve our representative methods and institutions. We contend—and my colleagues will deal in some detail with different aspects of the problem—that the
90
time has come to change, in the interests of democracy and national efficiency, to an electoral system which more truly represents the wishes of the people who vote. The country has been steadily moving in that direction for some time. The Conservative Government of 1970–1974, with Liberal and Labour Party support, adopted PR for the Northern Ireland Assembly. No one will deny that the result was far more representative than that at the subsequent General Election. Comparison of the figures is interesting. In 1973, the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, using single transferable vote in the 12 constituencies, gave the following result: the anti-Faulkner United Ulster Unionists received 44 per cent. of the votes and 35 per cent. of the seats—that is, 27 out of 78. In the 1974 General Election for the Wesminster Parliament, the anti-Faulkner United Ulster Unionists, using the method we employ at the moment, got 48 per cent. of the vote—that is, 4 per cent. more than they had had before—and 11 out of the 12 seats at Westminster. There was something rather disproportionate about that. As I said, we adopted the single transferable vote in a multi-member constituency by agreement with all Parties for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Again, the Royal Commission on the Constitution recently unanimously recommended the use of STV for national and regional assemblies in both its majority and its minority reports. In 1974, an all-Party study group sponsored by the European Movement recommended a modified version of the West German system for the election of British members to the European Parliament. I believe that we should very seriously ponder what may well happen in the next Parliament if we continue with the present electoral system. We normally tend to think that the unfairness of the present system is that it under-represents minority Parties. It is equally true that it over-represents nationalist Parties at Westminster. The nationalist vote is heavily concentrated in one area while the other Parties' votes are spread evenly over the country. That makes a tremendous difference. That is clearly demonstrated by the fact that at the last election it took 76,000 votes to elect a Scottish Nationalist, 55,000 to get in a Plaid Cymru candidate and 412,000 votes to get one Liberal Member of Parliament

91
back to Westminster. That is because of the over-concentration in smaller areas so far as the Nationalists are concerned. The result next time could well be that the Scottish Nationalist Party will hold the balance of power at Westminster much as the Irish did at the beginning of the century. Nothing could make for more unstable government and it might possibly lead to the break up of the United Kingdom itself. That is why the adoption of a more equitable system is a matter of extreme urgency. I believe that it must be dealt with before the next Election and should not be handed to some long-winded Royal Commission or other method.
Before we conclude that the reform of the electoral system is a mere academic exercise in political justice, I believe that we should do well to heed what Professor Wilson, the Adam Smith Professor of Political Economy at Glasgow University, has had to say about the economic consequences of the system. Having reviewed the considerable variations over the past 12 years in such matters as taxation, fiscal policy, hire purchase changes and regional policies, he says that a rapid alternation of Parties in power is bound to introduce a strong bias in favour of change. He contends that it is in the best interests of the nation that change should be tempered by stabilisation which, again, depends on a broad measure of political consensus, which the present electoral system discourages.
His conclusion is that a review of the post-war years leaves one dissatisfied with the way the traditional political machinery has dealt with economic policy. What is needed, he says, is strong government within an appropriately restricted field of State activity; and this, I believe, is what industry wants today—stability in the narrow field in which it is to operate and make changes.
"What is needed"—
Professor Wilson says—
"is confident, courageous leadership. We need a wider understanding of the issues and a much wider consensus. We haven't got this and the prestige of Parliamentary government is declining rapidly. The explanation, in part at least"—
he concludes,
"is our present electoral system which results in our unrepresentative Commons and a widespread political cynicism."
My Lords, we recognise, of course, that a more representative electoral system will make coalitions and minority Governments more likely, but certainly not inevitable. We do not regard this as a disaster. Indeed, we have in this country done far worse over the past decade than countries like West Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, which have realistically come to grips with the situation and have made democracy really work. The success or failure of co-operation among Parties depends in the last resort on the qualities of leadership and the respect for the wishes of the electorate shown by those of all the Parties involved. It is our contention, for reasons which will be advanced by my noble friends, that proportional representation enables quality leadership to emerge much more easily at all levels and in different institutions.
I should like to refer for a moment to the events in February 1974, when Mr. Heath made his offer of coalition to Mr. Thorpe. I believe that there are several lessons to be drawn from that political episode, and we should learn them if we are serious in wanting to achieve stability, consensus and genuine democracy. The first lesson is that a coalition is more likely to succeed if the Parties in it were broadly representative of the numbers of people who voted for them. In February 1974 the system totally distorted the mathematics. There were 12 million Conservative votes which produced 297 Conservative seats. There were 300,000 fewer Labour votes (that was, 11·7 million Labour votes) which produced 301 Labour seats—against the 297 Tory seats. The Liberals, with 6 million votes, got 14 seats. It takes 318 votes to produce an overall Parliamentary majority; the Tory and Liberal seats combined numbered only 310, so that was eight fewer than the quota required.
The only way to obtain the necessary 318 that we could see at that time would have been for both Parties to rely on the Ulster Unionists, whose presence at Westminster, if I may say so, is on major occasions fairly unpredictable. Therefore, this was not a viable situation. If, however, the seats had been proportional to the votes, with a Liberal Party of over 100 Members of Parliament strong, and the other Parties roughly equally divided—as they would have been on those

93
votes—a combination of either of the major Parties with the Liberal party would have provided a strong, broad grouping, probably centre-inclined, representing 18 million voters and providing a solid basis of consensus on which to move forward without endangering stability or confidence.
The second lesson of that episode is that Parties must begin to think in terms of less legislation and be prepared to regroup from time to time behind limited aims over a longer period than we have been used to hitherto. I believe that this country needs something like 10 years of strong Government, broadly based, with a real consensus of about 18 or 20 million people behind it if it is to conquer some of the major problems we are facing today. One really would have thought that over the past 30 years most of us in these two Houses could have come to some agreement on general policies which would give us a high level of employment without inflation. It should not be impossible to get some agreement on that. One would have thought that we could have made a much better contribution to obtaining a stable balance of payments, and that we could have produced, over the period since 1945, a basic structure of industrial relations which would at least have confined strikes and industrial disputes to those which raise major matters of principle. There are many other fields in which we should have been able to produce a sensible consensus.
My Lords, I come to the conclusion that we have all failed. What has been lacking has been the long-term view and a series of steady goals at which to aim. Instead of that, we have had one instant policy after another, with one eye on the marginal seats and the other glued on the opinion polls. We believe that this is not just a failure of men and women, but that it is the result of able people being imprisoned within a totally unrepresentative democracy and that is why, in our view, it is high time for a change in the electoral system. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having given us the opportunity of this debate in which to take a broad look at our Parliamentary
94
system of Government. He has, as he always does, clearly and forcefully pointed out that our political system is under considerable strain. When he initiates a discussion he commands our full attention, speaking as he does with long experience in both Houses of Parliament and with a practical knowledge of industry. He is aware that our system should support the efforts of those who are earning the country's living in exports, and in goods and services. We share the aim that Parliament should assist in creating the most favourable conditions in which British business and industry can thrive. That is the way in which the whole country can benefit.
It was, however, no surprise to us that the noble Lord raised the question of proportional representation, which is a matter of consequence to the Liberal Party. Had he today spoken without mentioning it, it would have been like Boswell writing of his Highland tour without mention of Johnson, or as if Mr. Macabre had been speculating about the future without expressing the opinion that something would turn up: for the Liberal Party, like Mr. Macabre, is not completely disinterested. Changing the electoral system, as he proposed, would give more seats in the Commons to the Liberal Party if people continued to support that Party in about the same numbers at Election time as they have being doing, though I should point out that even that could change if a completely new system were brought in.
Your Lordships will remember that we had a debate on 23rd April last when my noble friend Lord Alport introduced a Motion on proportional representation, and my noble friend Lord Mansfield then spoke from this Bench. I will not go over all that ground again. I am well aware that some of my noble friends are in favour of proportional representation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Byers, they think that it would reflect more accurately the divisions of views in the country and, as the noble Lord said just now, some think that it would moderate extreme policies which they consider are damaging—extreme policies either of the Right or of the Left.
On this matter of proportional representation, the Conservative Party has proposed that a Speaker's Conference should

95
examine our electoral system as a whole. It is a much larger and more complex subject than many realise. There are several kinds of proportional representation, and there is considerable disagreement on which is the best. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned some of them. Their advantages are naturally extolled by the Liberal Party, but the disadvantages should not be overlooked. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, eloquently spoke of the advantages and I agree with a great deal of what he said on them, but your Lordships will understand if I do not repeat them but instead point out some of the disadvantages.
First, any of the systems would be likely to lead to a permanent state of minority Governments or Coalitions. Cabinets would be formed after post-Election pacts which had been negotiated between Party leaders, sometimes over a protracted period. This would lead to compromises on the principal policies on which the Parties had been competing for support at the Election. Many of the electorate would be justifiably confused, having supported candidates and Parties because of the policies which they advocated. They would then find that these had been modified and merged with the alternative policies of their recent political adversaries. In some countries where such systems apply there have been intervals of several weeks. which have been regarded as normal, between an Election and the subsequent formation of a Government; during that time these negotiations have been taking place. In Holland, in 1972, there was an interval of six months between the Election and the formation of a Government. That is the kind of problem which has not occurred in this country before and which we must recognise we should have to face. I suggest that Britain is a country which ought not to be left for long after a General Election bereft of Ministers without any mandate from the people.
Perhaps I may consider very briefly the different systems which have been suggested. First, there is the alternative vote. That would retain single-Member constituencies. An advantage is that it would involve the minimum of change from our present system; but it does not reliably reflect the proportions of those voting, and it can produce arbitrary results. For
96
example, the candidate apparently enjoying the most general support may not be elected. Then there is the single transferable vote in multi-Member constituencies, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Here, four-Member or five-Member constituencies are needed to secure proportions with any accuracy. This method suffers the disadvantage that, of course, one loses the direct relationship between the Member and his constituency—something with which we have now become familiar in this country, although it was not always so. And, while it could be applied to a city or to a large town, or to a highly-populated county, it would produce constituencies of enormous size geographically in sparsely-populated rural areas.
Then there is the list system; that is, a completely nominated system where the names are provided by the Parties. Or there is the hybrid system, which is operated in Germany, where half the seats are directly-elected individuals and the other half are allotted from Party lists depending upon the results. That, again, would lose the direct relationship between a Member and his constituency for half the Members; in Germany apparently it is already creating two kinds of membership, a kind of first-class and second-class membership, of the Chamber. Lastly, of course, it puts more power into the hands of those who operate the Party machines, and who nominate names to the list. I should also mention the second ballot system, which has operated in France. This causes names to be eliminated after the first ballot, and there is usually a delay of about a week between the ballots. This produces complications and also produces extra expense, with two polling days instead of one. But this system, like the others I have mentioned, might prove to be an improvement which is eventually adopted in this country as a result of a Speaker's Conference examining the possibilities.
However, if any of these, or some combinations of them, were adopted, my Lords, it would profoundly affect the whole way in which Elections are carried out in this country. We would have to face up to the question of whether Central Government should mark time, perhaps for weeks, for a period after an Election while the Party leaders tried to form Coalitions, because no Party would be

97
likely to win an overall majority in the Commons, or even be close to it, as happens under the present system. We would have to accept that policies would be stretched or bent, although they had been powerfully advocated over the recent weeks of an Election. Some may agree with this, and some may argue that this would be salutory and that it would tend to cut out some of the extreme policies of Right or Left; that if a new system were forced in this way, a Coalition might come into existence because there was no working majority—for example, a combination of the social democrats in the Labour Party in this country with most Liberals and Conservatives, who could agree on policies to govern effectively—and that this is what most of the electorate in this country would like; that is, that large majority of the electorate who are interested in seeing less bickering and more agreed action in Parliament.
I have a great respect for that view, and those of us who were campaigning in the "Britain in Europe" campaign last year found it refreshing—indeed, invigorating—to be on some platforms and engaged in some crusading expeditions, on a great issue of national importance, together with like-minded members of other Parties; I confess to some joint elation with some of them at the result afterwards. But we were like-minded on that single, dominating issue of the day. The concept of securing enough agreement over the whole area of political controversy today is easier to contemplate in the abstract than to put into practice. After all, the Liberal Party had their opportunity in March 1974, as the noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned just now, when there was a finely-balanced Election result which would have justified a non-Socialist majority in the House of Commons combining to form a Government.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt him, I think it is important for the record. I do not think he could have been listening to that part of my speech. I proved conclusively that the mathematics were totally against that, and if he reads Hansard he will find out why.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I gave way a little too soon to the noble Lord, perhaps, though I would always wish to give way to him immediately, because I was just coming on to
98
my version of those events. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord's version. As I understood it, at that time the Liberals felt unable to accept that offer—and I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about how he saw such a Coalition operating in the House of Commons. But I saw at the time, and now can still see in retrospect, a different reason why the Liberal Party was unable, within three days, to accept that offer after an Election.
I think one of the main reasons was because most of the Liberal candidates who had been in the field had been contesting Conservative-held seats with all the vigour and emphasis on the differences in policies which the activists of all Parties in constituencies naturally are expected to display during Election campaigns. I understand the Liberals' difficulty in 1974. None the less, I am sorry that in that comparatively simple situation—because it was simple when compared to the kind of situation which would arise when several Parties would have to negotiate—it was not possible. I believe that the country might subsequently have been spared a 26 per cent. annual rate of inflation, 1¼million unemployed and months of uncertainty and loss of confidence in industry as nationalisation plans were being prepared.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: In a moment, my Lords. I just want to add—because I must not forget this—that we might also have been well ahead with winning oil from the North Sea if there had not been a year or more of uncertainty and loss of confidence there also while new policies were being prepared.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has just been arguing against the single transferable vote on the grounds that, after an Election, it would compel Parties to come to agreements against the platforms which they had been putting forward during the Election campaign. Why does he think that it was so easy for this to happen in the absence of any electoral reform? And is not the kind of partnership that was then being offered by Mr. Heath rather like the partnership which was offered by the wolf to Red Riding Hood?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I do not think that in anything I have said so far I have suggested that any of these matters was easy. As the noble Lord said, I was pointing to the fact that on the one occasion when, following a finely-balanced result in a General Election, it would have been possible for non-Socialist Parties with a majority to carry out certain policies together, that was not possible to accept. I am showing that this is a difficulty which we should have to face if we adopted a system of proportional representation. This kind of situation, the Parties having to discuss how they might form a Government together, would arise after any Election with proportional representation, unless there was a dramatic change in the views of millions of the electorate, causing a massive landslide for one Party. That is itself unlikely in practice, because proportional representation in other countries has had a tendency in the reverse direction; that is to say, it has encouraged a spread of support among several Parties rather than causing a great increase in support for one.
If in an emergency, or for some other reason, the political Parties or elements of them in this country were to make moves to co-operate in governing, that should surely originate from their convictions and not simply from a change of the machinery. It should be because they wish to explore these possibilities, because the situation required it or because of their latest or developing policies being mutually acceptable. It should not be simply because a new electoral system had forced them into an unwilling marriage.
My Lords, I have been concentrating on central Government, but the Northern Ireland precedent of proportional representation introduced in recent years was without prejudice to the system at Westminster. Many of the considerations to which I have been referring do not apply to an Assembly which is not the elected chamber of central Government. For example, two weeks ago we were discussing the Government White Paper on Devolution proposals and there it was proposed for the Scottish Assembly that the Executive should be appointed. Other variations were discussed, but in that situation there would not be the diffi-
100
culties of forming a Government. I make clear that the Kilbrandon recommendation (which was for proportional representation for the Scottish Assembly) and the views of many noble Lords on that where a Scottish Convention is concerned, do not run into the difficult situations and the problems which a major change at Westminster would create.
I should like to turn for a moment to other ingredients of Government. Indeed, my concern about the declining efficiency of Government in this country is as much related to the non-elected area as to the elected. So much of our national life is now directed or influenced by nationalised corporations and similar bodies which ale only tenuously accountable to Ministers and Parliament. Chairman and members are appointed and not elected to positions controlling vast monopolies in goods and services. They command bureaucracies of their own.
Let us examine the latest crop of such public bodies, including the National Enterprise Board and the British National Oil Corporation. According to recent Press reports, the Enterprise Board already seems intent upon stilling enterprise, while the Oil Corporation contains almost no practical experience of the oil industry. What is common to both is the interesting phenomenon that the chairmen are Peers, Members of this House, as is the deputy-chairman of the Oil Corporation. Another Peer is designated to take the chair of the British Aerospace Corporation, if current legislation reaches the Statute Book. There is a strange paradox here. At a time when the Employment Secretary, Mr. Foot, has been a little critical of this House collectively when it was using its limited power of delay in a matter of wide concern, the freedom of the Press, individual Peers have found themselves being appointed to some of the most significant seats of power in the country. It is ironical that through these appointments the Barons will be holding more power in the land than at any time since Magna Charta. The new droit de seigneur is the opportunity to bestow the first attentions upon these State damsels as they appear blushing to the world.
Not only are these new forms of nationalisation likely to slow down and frustrate British industry, but they will be colliding with each other. Weeks ago

101
we were promised in this House that there would be guidelines published on how the National Enterprise Board would operate. Nothing has yet appeared. We are still awaiting them. This cannot provide a climate for effort and enterprise in British business. In our community as a whole, the individual is feeling increasingly oppressed by bureaucracy and over-government; the talents of the entrepreneur and the exporter are needed more than the multiplication of officials.
In Parliament the machinery and the Parliamentary timetable have become overburdened. That is one of the reasons for the wide support in Scotland for an Assembly with devolved powers and functions. We debated the Government proposals two weeks ago. The system which for 60 years has enabled Scottish Members of Parliament to deal with Scottish business and Scottish Bills has become completely submerged and invisible to the public in Scotland. I must emphasise that the large majority of people in Scotland do not want independence and the breaking up of Britain. While many support the SNP as a Scottish pressure group, they do not share the proclaimed objective of the SNP which is independence within the Commonwealth. We must remember that the SNP activists themselves are opposed to devolution within Britain as an improved and settled system. They are only interested in it as a stepping stone to independence. The confirmation of this can be found in the SNP Whip's reported statement at their 1974 conference:
"I do not believe in devolution; I believe in independence."
Change is needed there, my Lords, without repeating our debate of two weeks ago.
The additional burdens on Parliament, however, have included examination of Draft Directives and Regulations of the EEC, and here this House has in the last two years been carrying out a new and useful function. On several occasions our Select Committee has been able to consider a subject of importance to Britain and to report to this House which has then been able to debate it at short notice before a Council of Ministers has met to take decisions. Thus public debate, often with expert views expressed, has assisted the Government at times when there has been little opportunity
102
for such debate in the Commons because of the congestion there. Examples are consideration of the EEC Regional Fund and Britain's anti-pollution system which affected industry. This is a constructive contribution which your Lordships have been able to make in this situation. In this connection I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie and the noble Lords and Baronesses who have assisted her on that Select Committee. I will not discuss the method of direct elections to the European Parliament because there is going to be an opportunity shortly for another debate on that.
My Lords, I should like to mention another fortress of power in this country, the trade unions. The method of election of their officers can greatly affect the general public because of the influence and authority of individual leaders. Our concern is that as many members of unions as possible should have the opportunity to vote. Voting which takes place only at branch meetings has led to presidents and general secretaries being elected on polls as low as 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. Therefore, the bringing in of a postal ballot and assistance, if necessary, from the Government could greatly improve the situation. If I may, I will refer to two recent elections to a union's executive committee where normally a 12 per cent. poll has been considered high. In the Midlands and Manchester area the poll, with a postal ballot, was 38.7 per cent. and in the area of Scotland concerned it was 37.4 per cent. The moderates were, of course, those who won in preference to the extremists. It is also of concern to the general public to eliminate ballot rigging and forgery. In the East Kilbride case three years ago there was proved to have been deliberate forging of signatures and the culprits were convicted and given prison sentences. Under the rules of that union, if action had not ben taken—beeasue those whose signatures had been forged spoke up—that union secretariat could have destroyed all the papers after six months and there would have been no possibility of pursuing the matter.
The initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is timely because of the widespread disillusion with our present system. I have much sympathy with the changes and suggestions which he has proposed.

103
I believe there need to be changes of policy and direction. A two-Party system can, as he said, mean that one Party comes in and cancels out what another Party has done. My Party stands guilty of this as much as the Party opposite. But it is not just the Labour and Conservative Parties reversing policies which can cause confusion. In many cases there have been change by the Parties themselves. I refer to changes of attitude, too. In another place I and my colleagues opposed the nationalisation of steel and the Bill which brought in the British Steel Corporation. Only about five years or so later some of the Labour Members of Parliament who supported the Bill were most vocal in their attacks on the Steel Corporation, its decisions and plans, for the very reasons we had predicted.
There is a temptation to indulge in gimmicks: in 1964 the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was created. Many of your Lordships may have forgotten it. That is a prime example of what I have in mind. The only apparent reason for proposing it was to give the impression that this was an important subject to which the Party concerned gave great weight. The Ministry lasted only two years. It was abolished by the same Party which established it, not by a succeeding Government. It was a nonsense from the beginning. It impinged hopelessly on other Ministries' functions; it did not apply to Scotland because the Secretary of State's functions prevailed there where there was nearly half the land and a great many of the resources of the country.
If confidence is to be restored, political Parties and Parliamentarians should exercise restraint in exercises of that kind, which in any case are likely in the long run not to bring support. Such upheavals—Ministries created and dissolved—impede good and orderly government if frequently indulged in. The electoral system should be examined from time to time and various improvements can be made. Through a Speaker's Conference a case might be made in due course, and then perhaps accepted, for some radical change in our system on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I do not believe that is likely to happen now or in the present circumstances.
104
As I have sought to show, there is much to be improved in other parts of our system in government. I hope that as Parliamentarians we will not relax from the tasks of adapting and rationalising our system and, above all, making government less oppressive in the eyes of the public.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
3.53 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which has been made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Last July, following my review of civil aviation policy, I told the House that I had concluded it was no longer in the interests of our aviation industry or the economy generally to allow competition between British airlines on long-haul scheduled routes. Accordingly it would in future be our general policy not to allow more than one British airline to be licensed on any given long-haul route. Instead British Airways and British Caledonian Airways would have separate spheres of interest for their long-haul scheduled services.
"Since my last Statement there has been a series of detailed discussions between BA, BCAL, the Civil Aviation Authority and myself about how the airlines' existing route networks could best be adjusted so as to consolidate their respective spheres of interest. I have now decided that in Africa, where BA and BCAL at present operate competing services, East Africa and the Seychelles should in future be in BA's sphere of interest and Central Africa, including Zambia, in BCAL's. This exchange should enable both airlines to achieve considerable cost savings through deploying their resources more effectively. Outside Africa, BCAL will give up the licences to operate scheduled services to New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Toronto and Singapore via Bahrain, which they hold but are not at present exercising. It will also end the exempt charter services they operate to Singapore. However they will retain the right to serve Atlanta and Houston—a route for

105
which BA do not hold a licence—and will be the sole British airline to operate this new route when it becomes available for international services. In addition, BCAL's sphere of interest in South America will be extended and they will take over services to Venezuela, Colombia and Peru from BA.
"In making this rearrangement of routes, my objectives have been, first, to reinforce the competitive strength of British airlines in the fierce international environment in which they operate; secondly, to arrive at a result which is as fair as possible to both airlines; thirdly, to safeguard employment in the airline industry; and, finally, to produce a settlement that would last for a substantial period ahead.
"I believe the decisions I have taken do go a long way towards meeting these objectives. BA and BCAL will now be free to concentrate on meeting the challenge from their real rivals, the foreign carriers. BA will be able to plan the development of their services on major routes throughout the world free from the uncertainties of 'double designation' licensing. Similarly, BCAL will have scope in South America, West and Central Africa and on the new Atlanta/Houston route for future expansion of their long-haul services. As regards the third objective, I am satisfied that no redundacies will result from the rearrangement of routes, and indeed that the employment prospects for both airlines in the longer-term should be improved. Finally, the new policy will, I hope, give that stability in regulating the airline industry which is essential for effective long-term planning.
"I have given further consideration to the proposed Laker Skytrain service but I remain convinced that in the conditions likely to prevail in the North Atlantic market for the foreseeable future Skytrain would generate relatively little new traffic. It would however add excess capacity and would do substantial damage to BAs' existing services. Moreover, having regard to the existing facilities that are available for cheap travel it would confer no really worthwhile benefits to the con-
106
sumer. The CAA, while sharing my view that conditions are still not suitable for Skytrain, would prefer the licence and designation to be kept in being, and more generally that wider discretion should be left to the licensing system in the control of long-haul scheduled services. However, I see considerable disadvantage in prolonging the present uncertainty and have accordingly told Laker Airways that their designation will be withdrawn. I am confident that the airline will continue to build up their already extensive charter business, particularly with North America, and my Department will continue to support them in this.
"The position of the other independent airlines will on balance be unchanged by the policy changes I am making. I believe they will continue to make an important contribution to our civil aviation effort.
"The decisions I have announced today, and my proposals for new Policy Guidance for the Civil Aviation Authority, are set out in more detail in a White Paper, copies of which are now available in the Vote Office. I hope that we shall shortly be able to debate the proposed new Guidance, which will require the approval of Parliament before it comes into effect."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.59 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making this Statement, which is a major departure from the policy of civil aviation expansion which was outlined by the Edwards Committee in 1969. I have sought to make it clear on a previous occasion that I appreciate the reasons which have impelled the Secretary of State to look again at civil aviation Policy, although it can be argued that it is questionable and that this Statement is now rather late in the day when, as we hope, the recession in civil aviation may possibly be over. However, I welcome the fact that this Statement has been made. The Secretary of State's intention to give British Airways and British Caledonian separate spheres of influence will obviously have only a marginal effect on British Airways, but a considerable effect on British Caledonian. British Caledonian have faithfully carried out all the aims and objectives which were set by the Edwards

107
Committee for the second force airline, and it is clear that the Secretary of State's decision could have considerable consequences. I welcome the Statement for that reason.
In doing so, may I ask the noble Lord to give us some information on several points. British Caledonian have been a value foreign currency earner. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the potential profitability of the new routes to be transferred to British Caledonian is going to compensate, at any rate approximately, for the prospective loss of the scheduled services for which they were duly licensed and which are now to be given up? May I say at this point how glad I am to hear the decision of the Secretary of State regarding the Atlanta and Houston routes. Secondly, may I ask whether, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the transferred routes will allow British Caledonian to develop, especially as regards the introduction of wide-bodied jets into their fleet? Thirdly, in view of what was said towards the end of the Statement, will what is projected there and in the White Paper require any legislation?
Lastly, I must say that I am more than sorry that the Government cannot support the Laker Skytrain. I would particularly deprecate the difference of opinion which apparently has arisen between the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority as to whether the Laker licence and designation ought or ought not be withdrawn. The fact is that Mr. Laker believe she can provide a unique service across the North Atlantic, and it is tragic that the Government are not prepared to contemplate this even in the longer term, despite the view of the Civil Aviation Authority. The White Paper will allow us to debate the matter further, but I should like to express the hope that no hint will be contained in the White Paper that any impediment will be put in the way of any of our national flag carriers developing their services when the hoped-for increase in civil aviation throughout the world comes about.
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches would also very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for reading the Statement. I should like to congratulate
108
Her Majesty's Government on the promise to produce a White Paper shortly, in other words, "before the swallow dares", as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said the other day. However, so far there is no mention of the passenger or the consumer, and therefore if, as a result of altering the various routes of both companies, many complaints are received from passengers, I hope that perhaps the routes might be reconsidered.
I am also very happy to see that British Caledonian—and I am sure that others of your Lordships will join me in this—are to remain as one of the flag carriers. Could the Government tell us how long it will be before the negotiations are finalised regarding the Atlanta and Georgia route? Also, could the Government assure your Lordships that the negotiations are proceeding with great rapidity on the Australian routes for the British Airways Concorde, and that they are pressing on with these? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could tell us something more about that. May I say that I hope the forecast of redundancies through the rearrangement of routes will prove to be correct.
With regard to the Laker Skytrain, the Statement begins by saying that the Skytrain would generate little new traffic on the already overcrowded North Atlantic route, but that it would therefore affect British Airways. The Statement goes on to say later that the Secretary of State hopes that Laker Airways will continue to build up their already extensive charter business on that route. This seems to be somewhat puzzling. I should, finally, like to endorse the hope that now the White Paper has been published the airlines will get on with the job of challenging their real rivals, that is foreign competitors, instead of each other.
4.6 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords who have spoken for their very positive reaction to the Statement which has been made. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked whether it was not a little late in the day. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was very anxious to reach an agreement between the two main flag carriers which, we must frankly admit, may not be totally satisfactory to

109
either, but which nevertheless is reasonably fair. The agreement which has been indicated would last for a considerable period; the area of disagreement was narrow and the area of agreement wide, so I think we can say that this has been achieved. He did not state the reasons for supporting what we are doing, but we must never forget the impact of the use of the oil weapon by the OPEC countries, which led to the sudden fall in traffic on world airlines and which led to a contraction of the number of seats available over the Atlantic and elsewhere.
Referring to the foreign currency earnings of British Caledonian and compensation for their lost routes, I think it is true to say that they are trading in two of the fastest growing areas of the world. Venezuela is an oil-rich country and is fast expanding, and in fact the whole of the South American continent, which is in economic effervescence, is now open to British Caledonian. They should be able not only to build up the successful services they have already created but expand them and presumably, if they find it necessary, to bring on to their routes the wide-bodied jets which would carry the increased trade that may be generated.
I do not think that legislation will be necessary. I say that subject to correction, but what has been announced today is a question not of legislation but of Parliamentary approval. For this reason we shall be having another opportunity to discuss the matter in detail in due course. This will provide the opportunity for further discussions of the disagreement which has arisen between the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority. The exact balance between an advisory body such as the Civil Aviation Authority, with its licensing powers, and so on, and the Government is a matter of substantial importance and one that is worthy of a wider discussion than we can give it today.
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, mentioned the very important point of the time-scale during which British Caledonian could expect to operate the Atlanta/Houston route. I cannot answer that, because this matter involves the decision of the American authorities as well as our own. However, I will write to the noble Earl and, if necessary,
110
inform the House of the expected time-scale involved. That area, again, is an oil-rich area with a very large passenger potential for British Caledonian. As to the Concorde routes, I speak without precise knowledge, but obviously British Airways are furthering this great aircraft. The State of Victoria has agreed that it should be given an experimental period of operation of some 18 months, and one assumes that British Airways will grab this opportunity with both hands.
Finally, I should like to refer to the question of generation of new traffic by the Laker Skytrain concept, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. Unfortunately, this is an area which is full of suppositions which are not easy either to confirm or deny.
I understand Mr. Laker believes that he would have a two-years' monopoly on the North Atlantic route if he introduced the Skytrain. But I believe—and I speak from the point of view of the British Government—that no American Government would enable this project to come into being unless American airlines were permitted to have the same rights to operate a shuttle service across the Atlantic. So that assumption is not necessarily valid.
There are various estimates of the amount of new traffic to be generated. There are Mr. Laker's own estimates, there are the Civil Aviation Authority's estimates and there are the British Government's estimates. All these estimates of new traffic differ and to get a correct one is not possible. There is a vast area of supposition. All one can say is that British Airways provide very similar cheap facilities across the Atlantic, with their Apex and ABC charters, and if peole are willing to take advantage of being able to book on the sespecialised scheduled flights they will not be paying substantially more than if they use the Skytrain concept. Certainly, they would not undergo the possible uncertainty of having to await the filling of the aircraft before it set off across the North Atlantic. I have tried to answer the two noble Lords as best I can. It is a complex subject and perhaps it is worth a debate.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the Statement of the Government is very welcome, in particular that part of it which states it is hoped that the solution will last for some period, because these

111
reversals are very damaging to air transport. But I should like to ask my noble friend a question concerning the possible effect of the draft proposals which have come from the EEC with regard to air transport. These proposals, if I understand them correctly, would involve every national of any of the countries in the European Community coming over to this country and competing in setting up a service from this country. So if in a few years' time Mr. Laker were again to come forward with a Skytrain proposal and, at the same time, someone from France, Germany, Holland or Italy were to come forward with a similar proposal, then our licensing authority would be bound to consider them on exactly equal terms. That could mean that the licence would go to some other country rather than to an airline in this country. What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this point?
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister three questions—
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I should like to reply to that complex and rather difficult question while it is fresh in my mind. I cannot answer my noble friend's question. It is obviously of major importance, and it really impinges on the relationship between the powers of the Community and those of our own Civil Aviation Authority. Perhaps this is a subject which my noble friend may care to raise when we debate this subject at a later stage, which we shall have to do.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, this is a very important question. Does the Minister agree that it is not an unfair description of the policy to say that it is a closed shop carve-up of the world by our main scheduled airlines? Maybe it is the right policy for this country, because, as he knows, competition can show up not only from foreign airlines but between two British airlines going to different destinations; for example, in the way of performance, manpower, maintenance, et cetera. Does the noble Lord agree that this policy can succeed only if three parties have confidence in it—the two main parties being British Caledonian and British Airways, and the
112
third the party which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, but which has not been mentioned by the Minister; that is, the consumer? Provided the public are satisfied that it is a fair "do" for them, and the two partners build up a relationship which is good and sound, then I think the policy will succeed. I trust the noble Lord will agree with that hypothesis.
My second question is this. Is the Minister's mind still flexible as regards some modifications of the general outline in this White Paper? Desirable modifications, both technical and non-technical, may be exposed by public comment and one would like to have an assurance that the Minister has not closed his mind. My third question is a very simple one. The Minister stated that there would be a debate in another place. Will he and the noble Lord the Leader of the House fully support the idea that we should also have a debate in this House?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, working backwards, I would first say that the question of a debate will be settled through the usual channels. Secondly, on the question of the importance of the consumer, we had a valuable short debate in this House about a month ago and people said some very kind things about British Caledonian, which I am certain we should like to endorse. The noble Lord himself really answered his first question, and I would agree with him that competition is of the greatest importance in keeping any organisation efficient and watchful as regards the interests of the people to whom it is selling its services. British Airways and British Caledonian, acting independently in their various areas of responsibility will be kept tuned by the competition which they have to face from American and other international airlines. I am satisfied that there will be no lack of competition to keep them up to the mark. Would the noble Lord be so kind as to repeat the second question?
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I asked whether the Minister's mind is still flexible as regards modification?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, what my right honourable friend said was that he hoped that the proposals

113
included in this Statement today were a sufficiently good compromise to last for a substantial period. I think my right honourable friend said 10 years. But that is not for ever and, obviously, if what we have now decided proves to be insufficient or not the best way of solving the various competitive problems which the two British flag-carriers will have to meet, then of course they will have to be reviewed. Because trouble and care have been taken in producing this new policy we hope that it will last, but it is not a diktat.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a few questions? First, he said that the whole of the South American continent will now be open to British Caledonian. That means I take it, that British Airways will not be operating at all in South America. Secondly, can the noble Lord say what evidence there is to support the idea that on a high-density route, at a time when traffic is expanding, one airline is likely to get a higher proportion of traffic for this country than two British airlines or even to retain as much traffic for this country? This is an absolutely key point. I should have thought the evidence was all the other way: that two airlines would get more total traffic than one could attain, especially from British people who wanted a choice of British airlines. Thirdly, on the question of the withdrawal of the licence from Skytrain, is compensation payable on the withdrawal of a licence as it is, for example, on the cancellation of planning permission in this country, and, if not, why not?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, whereas two British airlines competing out of non-British territories might attract more passengers to travel on them, it is equally conceivable that one airline would be played off against the other. Whereas, at the moment, we are proposing that one profitable airline should work from various regions of the world, as a result of the noble Lord's proposals we might have two unprofitable airlines working from them. The whole basis of the concept is that the competition is provided by the foreign flag carriers and that British flag carriers are free to compete against their foreign competitors without competing against their own countrymen.
As regards compensation, there is the precedent of 1971. The Conservative
114
Government withdrew certain rights from British Airways without, as I understand it, paying compensation. In fact, this decision is paralleled by the one that we reached then. The Government of the day decided to take certain action in the interests of the industry as a whole. For that reason, as I understand it, no compensation was paid.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, of course we are in the hands of the House, but we have been debating this Statement for nearly half an hour. My noble friend has indicated that the usual channels will be discussing the possibility of having a debate. I think, therefore, that probably most noble Lords would prefer that we should now resume the debate on Lord Byers's Motion.

THE POLITICAL AND ELECTORAL SYSTEM
4.21 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it is a privilege peculiar to your Lordships' House that membership of a particular political Party does not prevent unfettered objectivity when addressing this Assembly. The term "objectivity" is capable of erroneous interpretation. So far as my observations this afternoon are concerned, this does not mean that objectivity is associated with compromise or flexibility. It represents, in my judgment, the capacity to see both sides of the question, or even three sides of it. It is in that mood that I propose to offer a few observations on the excellent speech we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
Of course, your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord always makes a good speech. But perhaps that observation could be subjected to a mild measure of qualification. None could complain about his enunciation, his delivery, his articulation. It is all impeccable. But the content of the noble Lord's speech, however excellent in delivery, contained some misunderstandings which were surprising to me because of the noble Lord's experience of Parliamentary institutions both in another place and in your Lordships' House. For example, he began by saying that we ought not to narrow the scope of this debate by concentrating upon proportional representation and then

115
he proceeded to put the case for proportional representation.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, probably finding insufficient in the brief provided for him, repeated what was said by many Members of your Lordships' House in a recent debate on devolution and, of course, brought Scotland into the arena. We can forgive the noble Lord for that. I am sometimes too inclined to indulge in asides, in incidentals, in the association of ideas, let it go at that. Instead of indulging in moderate severity—pinpricking at the present Government and at their idiosyncracies with which many of us are familiar—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, might have focused attention on what is the basic element in this matter of political representation; that is, the existence of Parliamentary assemblies and the like.
As the noble Lord failed to undertake that task, I venture to fill the gap. It can be filled only by defining what is meant by democracy, a term which is often on our lips. We speak of our democratic Parliamentary institutions, our democratic way of life and all that is associated with that term. The simple definition of democracy—without understanding and accepting it with all its implications it is idle to proceed at all with any discussion of political matters, Parliamentary representation and assemblies of this character or any other—is that it represents the collective will of the people of any country—naturally, in our case, the United Kingdom. It represents the provision of privileges that are to be made available to every person in the country, without exception. That is my definition of democracy. The term is often misused, misunderstood and used in several contexts which have nothing to do with the definition.
However, accepting the definition I have ventured to represent to your Lordships, I say at once without any hesitation qualification, or reservation, or anything which savours of an impediment that I agree wholly and exclusively with the fundamental demand that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, made in the course of his speech; namely, that minorities should be represented. It is as simple as that. When I refer to minorities, I mean minorities without exception, otherwise
116
your democracy is a false democracy, a facade, a charade.
How are democracies in that sense to be represented? Not, I suggest, by the prevailing method of Parliamentary Elections. Perhaps one error into which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, entered—indeed, it seemed to intrude into his speech—was that the decline in our political system is due to a faulty electoral system. That was an error of judgment on his part. Certainly it could not derive from his Parliamentary experience. Take, for example, the Liberal Party itself. What was the cause of the decline in the Liberal Party? Was it the anomalies in our electoral system? Not at all.
The decline in the Liberal Party began when Mr. Lloyd George, who had been Prime Minister in a Coalition Government, who had been engaged in heated disputes with Mr. Asquith and eventually replaced that gentleman, decided to form what was called a National Government—a Coalition with the Conservatives. That was the beginning of the decay in the Liberal Party. One cannot challenge that: that is what happened, and although Mr. Lloyd George subsequently made efforts to return, and indeed was requested to return, to active political life, he faltered on the way. He was never the man in later years that he was before the First World War, during the war itself, and for some time in that National Coalition Government until the Conservatives threw him out, as they did with Ramsay MacDonald some years later. By that illustration I do not mean that the Conservatives are in the habit of throwing people out simply because they dislike their views. Not at all, they belong to the gentlemanly Party and would never dream of doing a thing like that. But it happened.
I go further than that. The decline in our political system—there has been a decline, practically and complete disillusionment on all sides among the people of the country; in Scotland, there is the SNP and the variety of the ingredients in this half-baked pudding, as it has become—is due to the fact that ever since the beginning of this century, with certain exceptions, our Governments have been shambles. That is what it amounts to.
Of course it really began with the Boer War, which we should never have entered

117
upon. That was recognised subsequently. We all recognise our mistakes subsequently, but never at the time. Then we had the Salisbury Government and then the Balfour Government. Arthur Balfour, the great intellectual, who never discovered the existence of the working classes until they were brought to his attention. Then we had the Liberal Governments of all the talents, who introduced social welfare.
Lloyd George was inspired by Winston Churchill; we must remember that it was Winston Churchill who advised Lloyd George to go to Germany, where they had initiated social welfare. Lloyd George did as he was told and as a result we got pensions at five shillings a week, subject to a means test, and unemployment benefit. I know all about that, and not by reading what the professors say. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, quoted quite a number of professors. I do not need to bother about professors; I have had the experience. I had four months out of work before there was unemployment benefit, and heaven knows what that was like! Sometimes I shudder through the night, thinking of it.
Then we had the war. Of course, if you can avoid two great wars with eventual bankruptcy at the end, with the loss of manpower, and particularly the young manpower with all the potential talent, and if you can hold your resources overseas and internally, that has its impact on the political situation. But, unfortunately, we had two great wars and the bankruptcies and the loss of talent, and we have had almost nothing but shambles since, with few exceptions.
We have had some good Prime Ministers, some bad and some indifferent. I have observed their activities. I have listened to their speeches, read their speeches and have observed that they frequently refer to their concern about the national interest. In their minds that really represents what will happen to them at the next General Election. Not every one of them, of course. There have been good ones. There have been well-meaning ones who were subject to great vicissitudes not of their own making. For example, with great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for whom I have always had a great admiration, and indeed affection, might have become a great Prime Minister—one of the
118
greatest—but for certain events for which he was not in any way responsible. They could have happened to any Prime Minister; internal events, external events, international complications and the like.
I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Byers: these are the factors, the ingredients, which have caused a decline in our political system and the disillusionment that prevails on all sides. How is it to be corrected? There are other anomalies. I hope it will not affect anybody in your Lordships' House if I say that this assembly is an anomaly, but it is a very pleasant one. It is a benevolent one—embarrassingly benevolent and friendly sometimes. One ends it difficult not to conform. It is only with the greatest effort on my part that I manage to remain on this side of the House.
Of course, mistakes have been made: mistakes which are attributable to personal outlooks, misunderstandings and the like. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the creation of functional appointments. He called them, "non-elected appointments"; I call them, "functional". Suddenly it is announced in the Press or as a result of a Question in another place that some person about whom we have never heard before has been mixed up with finance—I use the term "mixed up" meaning no offence at all—and suddenly he becomes the great tycoon who is to run a great industry, and not only run a great industry but run the nation—
A Noble Lord: And run it down!
Lord SHINWELL:—regardless of what may be said by my erstwhile colleagues in another place who somehow or other (and it is very amusing to me) consider that they have influence. They have nothing but their salaries. Of course I agree that they do a bit of social welfare.
What are we to do about all this? How are we to raise the prestige of our Parliamentary institutions so that we may create, if not euphoria, at any rate a measure of admiration? I would not put it higher than that. How are we to do it? I could speak for a long time on this aspect of the subject. I could almost write a book—indeed, I have tried to write a book on this subject, but hardly anybody reads it, so what can I do about it? Certainly, we shall not solve

119
our problems in the foreseeable future as a result of the existence of single-Party Government. That is my view. I ventured to offer that opinion in another form in our debate on devolution.
My Lords, it has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that if we decide to change our electoral system—I do not want to enter into the details or the mechanics of such a change it could be the alternative vote, or the single transferable vote, or, as in some countries, it could be to a long list out of which the electors could pick and choose, and a Government are elected. We could have all that. It has been suggested that that will be the prelude to a Coalition, and some people do not like Coalitions. That is understandable, if you belong to a Party and happen to be prominent, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or the noble Lord, Lord A berdare, and even the Liberals, in a potential kind of fashion. If people have aspirations of a political character, they think, "Perhaps my time will come some day; lots of strange people have gone to 10 Downing Street, so why not me?" I have never had that view myself, but others may have, and naturally they will say, "We don't want coalition. What!— join up with those other fellows. We will never be able to get our policies through." How amusing that is: "We shall never get our policies through if we have to depend on others "! They hardly ever do get their policies through, and for the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
One Government come to power; they are in power for a few years, and they are on top of the world. I have been in Governments myself. We are able to carry out our programme, and how we brag about it! Every item in the Manifesto has been implemented. What an achievement! And one day we find we are out. Why? The only reason is that for one reason or another we did not get enough votes, and as a result another Government come in and turn the whole thing upside down. They turn the clock back. Indeed, the fundamental element in all this is that Governments are always turning the clock back unless they are prevented by the creation of some other
120
element in the community. It could be the Press; it could be the trade unions. It could be the collaboration of a vast number of people who say, "We are sick and tired of this nonsense. It is about time we entered the fray. Since the people who exploited us in the past had their own way, why shouldn't we have our own way?" They go on strike, they ask for too much, they want more money. But where did they learn all these tricks?—from the other fellows in days gone by. Do not blame them too much. It is natural; it is inevitable, and is understandable.
My Lords, let us come down to brass tacks. What are we going to do about it? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that you cannot introduce proportional representation before the next Election. Naturally you cannot introduce it unless the Government in another place agree to it, and unless it is agreed in your Lordships' House. I do not suppose they have time for an expedient of that kind, but it could happen. I have some ideas about this, but have no time to develop them.
At least I can say this. Let us imagine an Election in 18 months' time. Mrs. Thatcher would like an Election this year. I can understand that, she is a little impatient. Women are often a little too impatient. Sometimes they want too much, and when they get it they do not like what they get. Now that we have the Sex Discrimination Act, I can say what I like about women because we have equality with them. We need not bother about our behaviour now. What are we going to do? We might have an Election in 18 months' time, and the electors of the country might say, "We are a little tired of Mr. Wilson, Mr. Healey, Tony Benn, and even Michael Foot. We are a little tired of them. They have certainly done their best in the circumstances, circumstances over which perhaps they have not a great deal of control, but we had better have a change." So we could get someone else—perhaps Mrs. Thatcher, Mr. Maudling—oh no! I think he is too lazy for a job of that kind. It could be Willy Whitelaw, a very benign person, whom I have always liked. Or it might be decided to ask one of the old school. There are some in this assembly, on the other side of the House, of course; not on this side.

121
So the Conservative Government come in, but have not a clear majority. What happens? If they make their representations to the Liberal Party, I would venture a guess. The Liberal Party did not like it last time for some reason, but perhaps we had better not go into the intricacies or details of that. The next time the Liberal Party are asked to come in, they will go in. And why blame them? They must have their chance to sit on a Government Bench at some time. They have very capable people, so why should they not?
On the other hand, it might be that a Conservative Government come in and have a majority, and even join with another Party if they have not got a complete majority, in order to form a limited Coalition of a certain kind. What happens? They will have more than enough trouble with the trade unions, and all your trade union Bills, all your trade union Amendment Bills and all the rest of the legislation, pernicious or otherwise, or even benevolently intended, will have little effect. That is no way to correct the situation. We must give a measure of confidence to the people of the country that those in Government are not concerned about their political views alone, but will focus their intention first of all, on putting their country back on its feet, even if it means the exclusion of some ideas and even the idealism which pervaded our Party in the past. It may be necessary to put much of it in cold storage for a while. I would be prepared to do that. Perhaps I ought not to say that because what time have I got? But let us leave it at that. It would be far better to put some of it in the freezer for a while in order to focus our attention on the things that really matter.
We have been trying to reduce inflation for quite a long time. It is not enough to use the alibi that there is inflation in other places; never mind about other places. It is said that there is vast unemployment which will increase—and why? Not merely because of a Government who fails to understand how to deal with it, but because of automation, rationalisation and mechanisation, so that fewer men than in the past are required for our productive purposes. These factors must be contended with. It requires not only skill, but organisation and understanding, and we must create the
122
confidence necessary among the general public. In my judgment, the confidence we had in the past will not be revived and restored as a result of the Election, or the appointment arising from an Election, of one single Party. It requires a combination and collaboration of Parties in order to create that confidence.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that I support wholeheartedly the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that some form of electoral system which represents true democracy is essential. If, as a result of that, a Coalition should ensue, we will have to make the best of it. It may not happen, but if we believe in democracy, let us seek to implement it.
4.50 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, judging from the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, seems to accept the basic theses advanced by my noble friend Lord Byers, I confess I cannot imagine why he goes on sitting where he does. Indeed, I should have thought his place was over here, rather than over there. Anyhow, I would not have thought that what he said was very acceptable to all his noble friends on that side.
To revert, however, to the Liberal Motion, may I say that I should have welcomed the opportunity of dealing with the highly unimpressive arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in support of the present electoral law, one of which, however, was adequately countered by my noble friend Lord Byers. Unfortunately I have not the time to do that now, and no doubt some of my noble friends will deal with them later on. So I propose, not unexpectedly, to cope with a matter which is both relevant to this Liberal Motion and of great importance at the present time, and that is the issues involved in direct elections to the European Parliament. Although we are going to debate it in about a month's time, I think it is not out of order to put forward some views in regard to it now, if only because it is conceivable that what is said in this Chamber is sometimes taken into consideration by the Government when they are preparing a White Paper. I should hope so, anyway.
My Lords, a directly elected European Parliament is now—and I say this

123
categorically—the best, if not the only, instrument for gradually transforming the present Common Market, as most people in this country go on calling it, into a real, democratic political Community. Not everybody may welcome this, especially noble Lords on the other side of this House, but I think that the majority of people who have any understanding of the great issues now facing this country, do so without reserve. In saying this I am not, as some remaining anti-Marketeers may claim, giving vent to, as it were, the last desperate hope of a European whose vision of a genuinely democratic entity in Western Europe has been consistently frustrated by the comparative failure of the organs of the EEC to function as originally intended, and notably, of course, the frequent inability of the Council on great occasions to speak with one voice.
On the contrary I have been agreeably surprised during the last few years at the extent to which quite often nationalistic urges have been overcome in the interests of an agreed common policy in the Council of Ministers. As we know, it is true that this happy outcome has, under the present system usually, been the result of furious bargaining behind the scenes in the Committee of Permanent Representatives, with some assistance by the Commission. But even as it is, the role of the present nominated Parliament has not been negligible, as is witnessed by the constant presence of important Ministers and Commissioners at its debates—they are always there month after month in the plenary sessions—and the attention paid by Ministers to at least some of its resolutions, and not least to the scheme for direct elections itself associated with the name of that admirable young Socialist Schelto Patijn. Neither should we minimise the success of the Conference of Foreign Ministers in increasingly achieving a common foreign policy within the framework of what is called the "Davignon procedure".
When, however, the Parliament is directly elected its members will be able, by the requisite majority, to bring considerably greater political pressure to bear on the Ministers to accept some solution which may for long have been held up in the Council by a minority of
124
national representatives. Why so? Well, it is perfectly true that a directly elected assembly is less likely to be the rather jolly and fraternal body that it is now. It will, of course, have greater powers. What will be the point of directly electing it unless it does have greater powers? And the political differences will then become greater and the debates consequently fiercer, if only because the result of them will be more significant.
So it is to be hoped that, making a virtue, as I think, of ultimate necessity, the Ministers will agree to the grant to the Parliament, no doubt to coincide with its direct election in 1978, of all or some of the powers of what is called "co-decision" proposed in the Vedel Report of several years ago. By this means, apart from anything else, more important political figures will be induced to stand for election, though, if we may judge from Willy Brandt's example, many important figures arc likely to present themselves anyhow. Willy Brandt, I may perhaps remind noble Lords, has just announced in a congress in Brussels that he himself proposes to stand for election.
Be that as it may, there is no doubt that a politician elected to the European Parliament, after a, no doubt, hotly contested fight on a Party political ticket, will be able, in his European constituency, to make much more fuss than a member of a national Parliament nominated by his political Party, as now, who must presumably be on his best behaviour if he wants to hold down his job and even get preferment to Ministerial office. True, the European member concerned will also have been elected on a Party political ticket, and he may, therefore, himself be in danger when his five years' mandate expires if he departs from his Party line. But if by any chance he should do so, and perhaps persuade his constituents that he was right—because, after all, he will be making propaganda for himself in his European constituency—his action could well have some effect on the fortunes of his national party colleagues at the next national General Election.
There is certainly little doubt that when they meet together in the European Parliament all members, directly elected members, regardless of their groups, will tend, by the nature of things, by the very

125
atmosphere of the place, to regard political issues affecting the whole of Europe much more from a European than from a purely national point of view, and this point of view will be explained by the directly elected member to his constituents in his European constituency in this country. It is for this very reason that great importance (and I am building up the argument towards direct elections) attaches to what is called the organic link between the European Parliament and the national Parliaments. The best way of achieving this, at any rate as we Liberals think, would be for the 67, as at present proposed, directly elected United Kingdom representatives to be given, on the analogy of the Berlin Members of the Bundestag, the privilege of speaking but not voting in the House of Commons, and, of course, attending all relevant committees.
Some assert—this theory has considerable support—that all that would be necessary would be for the 67 to be entitled to take part in the work of some joint European Standing Committee. But even if this body should hold its debates in public, which is doubtful I suppose, it would surely not produce the necessary sense of unity nor eliminate all sense of rivalry. So if actual membership of the House of Commons is impossible, and we are assured that it is, then it will still be essential for the 67 to become also Members of the Parliament at Westminister—and they are so enabled to do so under the Patijn Report—by being nominated temporary Peers of Parliament for the duration of their European mandate. Here I might perhaps observe, in parenthesis, that if any existing Peer happens to be elected—and some, after all, may stand—nothing could prevent him, despite the fact that he is a member of the European Parliament, from giving an account of his European activities in this House. And if he, why not others?
They could, thus, if they were ex officio Members of this House also give an occasional public account in Parliament of what they had been accomplishing in debates, which they might themselves initiate—as happens under the present nominated system. In any case, the 67, having become temporary Peers of Parliament, should attend any joint committee constituted to handle
126
European legislation. Naturally, they would eventually take over all the work of scrutiny now so admirably performed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and her able assistants.
They would be very well qualified to do just this since they would, in the various committees of the European Parliament, have had to work from the start on such projects with representatives of the Commission. They would further be sufficiently numerous to devote most of their time to this important work, and thus be in every way capable of drawing the attention of their Party colleagues in their national Parliaments to anything which, in their view, might be dangerous from the point of view of their Party, or indeed from the point of view of the nation. It must finally be made plain that by such a procedure they could be made to appear to be—this is the real point—"our men in Strasbourg", as it were (or wherever the Parliament may then be), rather than remote characters or, worse still and worst of all, dangerous rivals to Westminster MPs whose work must inevitably be suspect and kept under constant review.
Other countries may have other means of achieving this vital organic link, but in our own case it is difficult to see how it can be suitably formed except more or less in the way suggested. After all, our Constitution is unwritten and wholly flexible. It might not, perhaps, be necessary for the 67 to be called "Lords" or even wear robes on State occasions. If necessary, there might be a special writ, couched in modern English, enabling them to sit for a given period "among the Barons". Why not? I dare say quite a number of them might like to call themselves "Lords", though it might be rather awkward if some called themselves Lords and others did not. Still, all these things are trifles, and the sensible thing, of course, would be to consider the nomination of "European Peers" as a step to-towards reforming this ancient House, perhaps on much the same lines as those so unfortunately rejected some years ago in another place.
So far I have confined my remarks to a consideration of what may happen if and when—I think I can now with some confidence say, "when"—the European Parliament, including a British contingent, is directly elected in 1978. For, after all,

127
if we should by any chance opt for nomination, as we can, we should apparently, under the recent European Council decision, be obliged to nominate 67 Members of the House of Commons, few of whom would have either the time or the inclination to serve. Therefore if that were so, it would virtually deprive this country of all representation in the European Parliament until 1983, which would surely be intolerable. But the question still remains as to how the British Members will be elected.
As I understand it, the present intention, of both the major Parties is that it should be elected in accordance with our archaic electoral law—usually referred to as a "winner takes all" system—which is supposed to result in "strong" government, as I think has been mentioned today, even if it means, in practice, the enactment of legislation abhorrent to two-thirds of the electorate and the virtual suppression of any minority point of view. The only real reason it continues to exist, of course, is because the major Parties think that they would lose some seats if it were replaced by some other system. That is a fact. In other words, it is not the national interest which enters into their calculations at all; it is purely Party interest.
However that may be—and one may accept it or not—not even the greatest advocate of this system could maintain that, if adopted for the election of British Members of a European Parliament, it would result in the emergence of a "strong" European Government. How could that possibly be, unless it is proposed that such a Government should be drawn from the ranks of the European Parliament, of which there is no question until such time—it may be never as the British Parliament agrees that some such federal system should be adopted. The argument that it would result in a "strong" European Government in other words, is totall bogus.
I cannot believe that this electoral absurdity will last for much longer without rather dreadful consequences. For instance, at the moment it seems to be also the firm intention of the Government, at any rate to apply it to the election of a Scottish assembly. Yet almost all those best qualified to judge—and I
128
believe that goes for some Scottish Labour supporters, too—admit that the application of this system to the election of a "devolved" Scottish assembly would mean, in practice, handing over Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists on a plate. I repeat what I said the other day when we debated devolution; namely, that either the Government plump for a toothless Scottish assembly (in which case the results of the elections may not matter very much) thereby however running the risk of producing a revolutionary situation, or they agree to grant the assembly significant powers and still arrange for the elections to be held on a "winner takes all" basis in which case there would be every reason to suppose that the Nationalists, with only, perhaps, 30 or 40 per cent. of the votes, would gain a considerable majority of the seats, and thus be well on the way to replacing the Union Jack by the St. Andrew's Cross over Edinburgh Castle.
It looks, however, as if the Government had more or less abandoned the original idea of constituting a toothless assembly, the Secretary of State for Scotland being in a position to veto any measure which he deems to be ultra vires, thus avoiding what I might call danger A. But if so, unless they agree in the national interest to arrange for some kind of proportional representation, they will unquestionably run up against danger B. There is no doubt about that.
The official Opposition seem to be becoming aware of this real danger—particularly those Tories who have anything to do with Scotland—and we must hope therefore that eventually the whole Conservative Party will vote for proportional representation when the Bill comes before the House of Commons. So, of course, will the Liberals and, I believe, for tactical reasons, even the SNP, to say nothing of such Ulster Members as may turn up. It looks, therefore, as if it would need only about 10 Labour MPs to be converted to what may be considered by most to be a reasonable proposal, even from the narrow point of view of Party interest, for proportional representation to be adopted for Scotland, as indeed it has already been adopted with success for Northern Ireland. And though noble Lords may not believe it, I ask them at least to consider that, though Liberals may well think that the adoption

129
of this system in Scotland may lead on eventually to its adoption in England, it is something, none the less, which transcends any particular Party interest.
But if common sense as well as national interest can legitimately be invoked on behalf of PR for Scotland, there is an even more convincing case to be made out for PR in the context of direct elections to the European Parliament. This Parliament is supposed—I am sure that the Government will not deny this—to represent all the major political currents of opinion in the Community. Only if it does so will the Ministers be able to profit from the popular support—if they can get it—of the great mass of the peoples involved. Only so can they promote enthusiasm for the great reforms that must be undertaken if Europe is to survive. Only so will they, contrariwise, be able to avoid adopting measures which are clearly seen to run counter to popular instincts and desires.
But what will happen if one applies the "winner takes all" system to European elections in the United Kingdom. The psephologists tell us that the larger the constituency the larger the swing. If, therefore, we were to have some 67 British constituencies roughly ten, times as large as existing constituencies combined with a "winner takes all" electoral system, we should in all probability have a grotesque swing resulting quite possibly in the return of a very large number of Members of the official Opposition, if by chance the Party in power had become unpopular; few representatives of the Party in power itself; a high proportion of Nationalists; and no Liberals at all, even though they might poll over 6 million votes. Nobody knows what the political climate will be in 1978 but surely the two larger Parties, if only in their own interests, should think twice before saddling our unfortunate country with this kind of system—a fearful demonstration of our political immaturity displayed to an astonished Continent.
In saying all this, of course, we Liberals, as realists, can understand that, however reasonable the suggestion may be, there is perhaps small chance of the two major Parties' agreeing to proportional representation before the next national Election, which may not come before 1979—although of course they could, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell,
130
said. We shall maintain our demand for it and try to rally as much public support as we can, but all we now demand in the general interests of the nation is that a reasonable electoral procedure should be applied to the two other elections that seem most likely to take place before the middle of 1978. To hint that we do so for purely Party political reasons, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, hinted the other day, is unworthy —or, rather, it represents an attempt to place the Liberal Party in the same category as those who, flying in the face of all reasoned argument, insist for admittedly Party political motives, on applying our appalling system of voting —a system not adopted in any other country of the Community—to new situations designed to initiate a new and hopeful chapter in our relations with all our neighbours. Frankly, we think that this attitude is shameful and we appeal to all those who continue to share it to abandon what in the long run must be a losing cause, and indeed to abandon it soon. As I have said, it needs, for a start, the conversion of only a few men with a national conscience to prevent the Government from pushing through their ill-conceived devolution plan for Scotland on a basis which will only too obviously wreck it from the start.
My Lords, I have perhaps said enough to convince at any rate some of your Lordships that the whole case for electoral reform is no longer a stale joke or a Liberal lost cause appealing only to cranks and experts and professors. It is, on the contrary, a burning issue which must be tackled sensibly if we are not to become more and more an inward-looking society and, indeed, a rather provincial laughing-stock, incapable of pulling ourselves together or of embarking on those great reforms which appal the timid but attract the brave.
5.13 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, some noble Lords will remember that on 22nd May 1974 I was fortunate enough to be able to initiate a full Wednesday debate on the need to consider what changes could usefully be made to our Party and Parliamentary system to bring it into line with present-day needs and improve the functioning of our democracy. Nothing since has occurred to affect the point of view I then expressed,

131
but there is one factor which I did not emphasise strongly but which now seems to me to be of paramount importance. I said that almost any system of Government, however perfect at its initiation, would sooner or later be abused and have to be changed. I cited as an example the method of electing the American President.
Today we can see our democratic system being exploited by extremists for their own ends. Changes must be made if we are to meet this threat and to preserve all that is good and admired from the past. Two arguments against doing so were made in the last debate by some influential Members of this House. The first was that our system had always developed to meet the needs of the day and it would do so now. Perhaps this is true, but only because of the efforts of those who saw that change was necessary. The failing of this nation has always been too little and too late. It takes necessary action only at the eleventh hour. One day it may be too late—it nearly was before the last war. The second argument against change in our unwritten Constitution is rather more plausible and considerably more dangerous. It is based on the assumption that nothing has really altered in politics during the last 30 years or so and that everything today can be paralleled with past experience. This may well be true, but the point that escapes those experienced people is that the external conditions in which the old politics operated are today completely different, and their view is really a condemnation of the lack of change in our political system.
In what way is the situation so different today? First, the old order of society, based largely on an élite selected by birth and inheritance, has passed away. With it so has the inherently stable society which it required for its survival. It was perhaps historically an extension of the feudal system and our system of government, so-called democracy, was to some extent at least tailored to its needs. Secondly, religion used to provide a reasonably clear guide as to what was right or wrong, desirable or undesirable. I would still call myself religious, but one has to admit that today religion does not have any important effect on contemporary thought or ideals. Thirdly,
132
although there has always been a vocal element against the existing order of society, it has only recently developed the efficient subversive techniques of today's extremists. Fourthly, although Governments and politicians have always been unpopular at times, they are so today to a far greater and more fundamental degree than they have ever been in the past. Fifthly, the present-day thinking is towards a greater representation of everyone's point of view. Governments may rightly have to introduce unpopular measures, but to pass through Parliament doctrinal measures supported by probably not more than 15 per cent. of the electorate is a mockery of democracy in any popular meaning of the word.
In the debate two years ago I was careful only to indicate possible areas where change might be considered. Today I think I might usefully be a little more specific. In my view, some form of proportional representation is absolutely essential. With modifications, it would still be possible to give the Party polling the greatest number of votes a majority in Parliament. Personally, I think the system would work perfectly adequately without this. I know that the self-interest of Parties makes this change difficult. However, I would maintain that it is in the interest of both major Parties although the Conservatives may win the next Election I do not believe that they will ever do so again unless the electoral system is broadened. The Socialists would, I think, remain at the mercy of their extremists and fail to achieve sensible Socialism. Inevitably, in my view, the outcome could be Communism. Among the many things that ought to be considered, I will mention only a few. The time has surely come when at least a partially written Constitution is desirable and would give greater stability.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, devolution will mean some changes in our Parliamentary system and it would provide a good opportunity for introducing this new element. A further opportunity would occur if the House of Lords could be reformed or if proportional representation were introduced. I know that much has been said against the use of a referendum, but we now have a precedent and a referendum avoids an unnecessary election with the

133
country having to make a choice between two Parties on a single issue. I believe that the answer would be to control the use of referenda, and this could only effectively be done by writing the principle into the Constitution.
In considering the functioning of Government, we cannot ignore the trade unions. They are now so powerful that, to a great extent, the country can be governed only with their consent. It is therefore vital that they should be truly representative, and their methods of election and much else need rethinking in terms of the wider and more important role which they now perform. There is no place today for unthinking adherence to outworn shibboleths. Collective bargaining has always been to a great extent equated with the law of the jungle in which the weakest always loses. I do not believe it to be healthy for the Labour Party to have to rely to the extent it does on funds and members funded by the unions, and I also deplore the dependence of the Conservative Party on City and business interests. There would, therefore, seem to be a strong case for providing the Parties with some funds from a central source.
I do not believe in explosive and uncontrolled change. If we want to hold on to what was good in the past, we must plan our changes in time. What I believe to be needed more than anything else today is a positive way of life as an alternative to Communism and dictatorship. In my view, neither present-day Socialism nor Conservatism is dynamic enough to inspire the moderate element in our society and it is on that element that we really should rely in the future.
5.33 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I believe that there is nobody in this House who will not have appreciated the opportunity provided for us by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in initiating this debate. Certainly, I have never heard a clearer or more inspiring speech than that which was made by him on this subject today. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is not here at the moment; his speech was historic and I very much enjoyed it.
Everybody has agreed that there is a great need to re-establish the prestige
134
and standing of this country's Parliamentary institutions. I should like to deal with two aspects of this problem. The first concerns the duties and the rights of a citizen to vote, and the second is to advocate without reservation the use of proportional representation for devolved Governments. I feel that there are tremendous difficulties in considering the introduction of PR into our Parliamentary system at Westminster. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has mentioned some of those difficulties, but they do not apply when it comes to a devolved Government. For instance, the question of the formation of a Government taking time where is is necessary to form a Coalition and of its being undesirable to leave the country without a rudder would not apply. We shall soon have before us legislation to set up devolved institutions for Scotland, and it seems to me to be a tragedy that the Government will not make the decision now to establish proportional representation for those new institutions, if only to see how it works at a lower level before we start tampering with the central system.
My own experience has been as a Member of Parliament twice elected by the ordinary method and as a Member of the Assembly and the Convention twice elected by proportional representation. In a short space of years, I had considerable experience of both systems. I was a Minister in a devolved Government for some time and it is that which emboldens me to speak about that subject as well as the other.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy brought into the debate the question of the unions. I should have liked to broaden the discussion to include also the CBI, the National Farmers' Union and all the other organisations to which we, in Parliament, have given a right to speak with authority, but especially those organisations for whose protection Parliament has passed rules, laws, and regulations. I believe that, having passed those laws, to protect and regulate the bodies in question, we have not insisted on sufficient regulation of the election of their leaders. Persons can come to the Government or before the television and can claim to speak for thousands—and, indeed, in some cases for millions—though some of them may only have been elected by tens. I

135
therefore come to the question whether we should not involve the members of such bodies in some obligation to vote. In Northern Ireland during the past two years we have had more elections than I can count and these were followed by a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, will know, too, that the prospect of doing without elections or referenda in Northern Ireland is not very bright. Personally, I shudder at the prospect of more elections and, just as union members have appeared to be disillusioned with voting, so there is a great tendency now in Northern Ireland not to vote.
We should recognise that fact. It is sometimes due to laziness, sometimes to disillusionment, sometimes to inconvenience and sometimes, in the case of Northern Ireland, to intimidation. I believe that in some unions the fact that one has to go to a branch meeting and hold up one's hand also constitutes intimidation of a kind. I believe that in all these bodies and in Parliamentary elections for devolved Governments, there should be a greater obligation upon the individual to vote. That is, we should make it easier and more convenient to vote than to abstain. We should extend the postal voting system throughout this area and, like Australia, we should, at the same time, include a nominal fine—I believe that it is ten dollars in Australia—for people who exercise the right not to vote. I do not believe that anybody in this House would suggest that Australia's institutions are not democratic and I suggest that that is the first proposition we should consider.
The second is the question of the use of proportional representation in devolved Governments which are about to be set up. My devotion to the unity of the United Kingdom is fundamental to my total political philosophy. As many other noble Lords have said, I believe that there is a danger to that unity in the present plans for devolution. I fear that there is a danger of the unity of the United Kingdom being split.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, mentioned the 1973 election for the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was carried out under PR and which produced a totally different result from the 1974 General Election. I should like to suggest a little caution on
136
that matter. There were eight months between the two elections and I do not believe that they furnish a satisfactory comparison or a good classical example of the problems of the "first past the post" method. The example which I feel to be the best is the 1948 South African election. In that election, the South African Parliament consisted of 150 seats and the two contestants were Dr. Malan and General Smuts. There were 12 seats which were uncontested, 11 of which went unopposed to General Smuts. One must assume that, in those seats, he had a very big majority and the resulting majority should therefore be added to his figures. Of the 138 seats that were contested, Malan won 78, with a total electorate of 442,338, while Smuts won only 60 seats, with an electorate of 547,437, to which should be added the 11 scats which went to Smuts uncontested. It is then found that under 40 per cent. of the electorate in South Africa changed the whole course of history. I believe that this is a perfect example of where PR would have changed the course of history and been an accurate and true reflection of what the voting people of South Africa really meant—
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but it will be for only a moment. He will remember that under the initial constitution, under the Union Act, there was a very strong bias given towards the country seats in South Africa, and therefore the actual distribution of seats was also one of the reasons for the disproportion in the voting.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention; that is absolutely true. I am not quite sure whether this might not equally apply to Scotland, where the rural seats are very thinly populated and where there are some fairly massive urban seats. That seems to me to be almost a replica to what happened in South Africa. So I believe that there is a danger.
Had we a proportional representation Assembly, at the next Election, we could then have—as noble Lords have said, and if their fears are right —a vast majority of the 71 seats for Scotland in the House of Commons being of the Nationalist Party. It would, or should, then be modified by a much truer reflection in

137
the lower Parliament, the devolved Parliament, elected by proportional representation. In my view this would be a modification of the voice of Scotland, or a more accurate interpretation of the voice of Scotland. But over and above this, there are aspects of the actual working of a devolved Parliament, or a devolved institution, in its relations with central Government. A devolved Government, such as we had at Stormont, arrived at a most excellent machinery and a most excellent relationship with the central Government. This was a result of many things over a long time and was a great credit to all the Governments at Westminster and at Stormont. But at all times the Northern Ireland Government accepted the limitations by which it could modify, change, accept and reject the national policies, or rather the Party policies, of the national Government in power at Westminster. We were never involved, for instance, with the tremendous change that occurred, when one Socialist Government followed a Conservative Government, regarding the Town and Country Planning Acts. We were not involved in that. We established a balance by which that type of legislation was modified by the devolved Government.
It seems to me that it would be much easier for a new Assembly to establish those proper relations—because they would take time to establish—if the devolved Government was elected on a proportional representation basis. I am not going into the question of which variety of PR is appropriate because that is not very relevant at this point. But there is no doubt that a PR Election for an Assembly will reduce swings, because the other method exaggerates swings and produces an exaggerated majority; and I think that that has been accepted by everybody. It also produces, or is likely to produce, the need for coalition. I feel that this would be very important in the establishment and in the efficient working of devolved Parliaments in the rest of the United Kingdom.
When I was in Government in Northern Ireland I felt that the operation of a devolved Government was rather like going down a fairly wide tunnel. One could go a little to the right or to the left of the tunnel, but down that tunnel
138
one jolly well had to go! The general economic and financial limitations which are set by central Government in no way reduce the benefits from devolution, but what I believe they require is that Her Majesty's Government should look again at once, at proportional representation for devolution, and get it into the next Bill.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I speak as a member of Lord Blake's Committee set up under the Hansard Society, to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred earlier in the debate today. For that reason, if for no other, I do not intend to deal with the details of electoral reform which we on that Committee are discussing at very great length, and on which, as has been reported, we hope to produce a report by the middle of June. Instead, I wish briefly to examine some of the other factors which affect the position and standing of Parliament at the present time, and therefore the efficiency of the political system in this country.
When the decline in the standing of Parliament is discussed, it is very often said that it is common in many spheres of life today for people to reject authority, and that this rejection of authority is a new thing from which Parliament suffers along with many other institutions. But on the contrary, I believe that the practice of criticising, and of being hostile to authority, is as old as Cain and Abel. Indeed, I do not believe that Parliament suffers more seriously from criticism than in previous centuries. Private Eye has very little on the lampoonists and the cartoonists of 200 years ago. Indeed, the Press has never been short of its honourable watchdogs nor, alas! of its quota of money-grabbing scavengers. Nor do I believe that it is true that the public as a whole resists authority. On the contrary, I believe that a great many people are seeking an authority that they can respect.
But what is true is that Parliament, like other institutions today, cannot command —it has to earn respect; the respect that people are seeking to give to the bodies that govern. The Parliament that can acquire and retain respect must today have three characteristics. It must be, and must be seen to be, democratic. It must, in fact, be sovereign and able to exercise the power it claims to hold;

139
and it must be non-totalitarian, by which I mean that it must respect and recognise, in its purposes, the fundamental pluralism of our society, which is a basic characteristic of the kind of democracy that we support.
How then does our present Parliamentary system measure up to the tests of being democratic, of being sovereign, and of being non-totalitarian? Other speakers have pointed out to this House how unrepresentative of the voters, and therefore how basically undemocratic, our present Parliament is. I will not again recite the figures showing how large a number of voters it requires to return a Member of one Party as against another, but I point to other undemocratic elements in the nature of our present Parliament. Let us look at the way in which candidates are chosen. This is a vital element in true democracy, and in regaining the support of the electorate. So long as it is possible for candidates to be elected and maintained in power by a small caucus of people whose power has been acquired often in devious ways, then indeed one cannot be surprised that people are scornful of the Parliament that results as a consequence.
I do not challenge—on the contrary—the right of a constituency Party to review and, if necessary, to reject, between Parliaments, their existing Member. After all, if you believe, as I believe, that a representative in Parliament must speak his own mind and act according to his conscience, then the corollary of that is that the constituency, between Elections, must have the right to say, "You no longer speak for us". But, my Lords, it must be the constituents, and not a small group of the constituents. It must be the Party members themselves; and if we are seeking ways in which to restore the standards of Parliament, we could do worse than look at the way in which candidates are chosen to be presented to the electorate for election.
What sort of democratic control have the elected Members of the people over the Government? With the present system of Whips, which has dominated the other place for so long, what real representation of the people who sent them to Westminster is there? We know perfectly well that, again and again, individual, elected Members do not believe in the policies which they support but are
140
dragooned into the Lobbies at the behest of the Whips. Can you wonder that Parliament as a democratic institution is losing the respect of the people that it seeks to govern?
Again, there is the question of the ultimate sovereignty, the control of Parliament over Government. How much real control do the elected representatives have over the activities of Ministers? The Back-Benchers are largely the fodder, there to feed the Ministers; and I for my part welcome the move which is going on at the present time in another place to see that Ministers can be more effectively called to account by the elected representatives of the people, that there should be a Select Committee system, working more thoroughly, under which Ministers may be required to go and could give evidence, as does not happen in most cases at the present time. When you see Parliament again exercising this kind of control, then you have some hope that people will say: "Here we see the genuinely democratically-elected representatives exercising the kind of democratic control in which we believe". So much for the House of Commons, let alone the House of Lords, being in fact a democratic Parliamentary system today.
Then, how about the sovereignty of Parliament, the power of Parliament? How many people today really believe that power resides in Westminster any more? Yes, there are some matters in which, of course, this remains true; but we know full well that to a very large extent power has moved away from the Palace of Westminster. Indeed, in many ways Parliament is not even a paper tiger: rather a Cheshire cat, fading away in its power and authority as decade succeeds decade. Where has the sovereignty gone to? Where is the power today? If we cannot reform and recover for Parliament the true sovereignty, how can we expect the electorate to take it seriously? It is, in part, in the Civil Service. It is perfectly true—nobody denies it—that a great deal of policy is decided, not by the elected Members but by the Government Departments; and many of the Government Departments no doubt accept that this is inevitable, even if, it may be, they do not wish it to be so. That needs to be looked at if Parliament is to claim to be sovereign.
But it is not only in the Civil Service that real sovereignty now resides. What

141
are the great powers outside Parliament? We all know the great power of industry and the great power of the trade unions. It is no use going on bemoaning the fact that power is where in reality it is. When it is found that there has been a shift of power and in this way an undermining of sovereignty, the need is to look at the institutions and find ways to legitimise their power. How can this be done? It may be that a move is taking place to get more and more authority to Neddy, so that the power of the CBI and the power of the trade unions may be harnessed to an institution which bears at any rate some relationship to the activities of Parliament.
For my part, however, I think we should probably go further. Previous speakers have made reference to the possible reform of your Lordships' House. We have in this House a Bench of Bishops. Is it really not practical, my Lords, to have a Bench, or two Benches, of industry, so that the social partners, as we have to learn to call them, may have a place inside the law-making institutions of this country? Somehow a way of institutionalising the fact of employer power and the fact of trade union power has to be found if Parliament's sovereignty, and therefore the public's respect for Parliament, is to be restored.
But, my Lords, just because both industry and the trade unions have so much power I would very much endorse what has been said by previous speakers and say that there, too, we are justified in requiring that true democracy should be found. Institutions with the ability to sway the fortunes of the country, as have the great industrialists and the trade unions, are not private, voluntary organisations which can be left to order their own affairs regardless of the effect on the rest of us. How representative is the CBI of the great mass of employers in this country? What are their systems for seeing that when they come to make representations to Governments, when they use their power in developing the economic affairs of this country, they really democratically speak for the great mass of employers up and down this country and for the great mass of professional managers who in fact provide the ideas and the skills which make the carrying on of industry possible?
142
Then, again as previous speakers have said, although it may be said that the trade unions have in some respects set an example in some cases in having their own elections conducted on a basis of proportional representation, the fact remains that the choice of the people who are going to exercise great power in this country is often left to a mere handful, fewer than 10 per cent., of the posible voting members. Surely we can do something to see that the voting power of the trade unions is used, and properly used; and may I add to what other speakers have said in urging that we should make a move towards postal ballots inside the trade unions, and that public money should be made available to see that this is done. We have only to look at what has happened in such trade unions as the ETU, where a postal ballot has enabled a large number of people to contribute to the choice of their executive—a far more representative executive than would have been had if no postal ballot had been used. Reforms of this kind are absolutely vital, and the need to institutionalise this power is paramount.
Then, my Lords, I said that, to be respected, Parliament must also be non-totalitarian and respectful of the pluralism of our society. One of the things which has brought Parliament into great disrespect in this country is the tendency—it is more than a tendency—for Government to take on activities which do not belong properly to Government; the extension of governmental activity into a wide range of fields of life which are far better left to voluntary effort of one kind or another. We suffer from far too much government far too badly done. Your Lordships' House knows all too well how hurried and slovenly is much of the legislation which comes up to us from another place, and how difficult it is to carry through the legislation which is passed.
How can Parliament be respected? How can people take seriously the idea that the Government are in control of the economic situation when we are told that they do not even know where their own money has gone to and when estimates of what they are to spend are of an inaccuracy which would bankrupt any firm if it indulged in such wild

143
Practices? Better government, seen to be competent, would command respect— a Government which recognized that there are many fields of life which are beyond, and should be beyond, the clutch of the politician's hand. This would do a great deal to restore the confidence that Parliament so badly needs—and it is not just that Parliament needs to have its confidence in itself restored. Representative Parliamentary government remains by far the best system of government which the world has yet devised.
The governing of men was always a difficult task. The governing of men in a democratic society, the self-government of men through Parliamentary institutions, is an even harder task. But this country is said to have a tradition of great political wisdom and great political experience. We knew how to adapt our institutions in the 15th century, in the 16th century, in the 17th century, in the 18th century and in the 19th century. Has our political creative wisdom failed us only now?
5.51 p.m.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, I think I have addressed your Lordships about three times in the last two years on this subject and all I want to do now, I hope very briefly, is to make a short contrast between the case for reform of the imperial Parliament—which is a very important question but, I am afraid, not an immediate one—and the case for having in any Bill that may be brought forward for devolution in Scotland an Assembly which shall be based not on the old bad principles but on new and better ones and preferably on proportional representation. On the question of the imperial Parliament, I think that I agreed with everything which was said by the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Byers, who introduced the Motion and, if I may say so, I was particularly interested to hear the very short and cogent speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, opposite. I think that the noble Lord the mover of the Motion is very right to argue that over the last century the present system of election has gradually eroded the real power of Parliament and particularly the real power of the House of Commons. It has resulted in a vast increase of bureaucracy, in a great diminution of the real influence which a Parliamentary representative can
144
exercise in the government of the country on behalf of the people who have elected him and also in encouraging in some ways, and particularly in economics, bad government by whatever Government is in power.
If we are frank with ourselves I am sure that we can all remember such periods in the life of every post-war Government. I see that my noble friend Lord Amory is here. I always say that he is the only good Chancellor that we have had since the war. He was the only one who was in Office at the Exchequer for three years without a single month of inflation; the purchasing power of our money remained the same through all his period of office and unemployment at the end was very low. No one since the war has done that.
On the other side of the picture, how easy it is under our electoral system for a Government who know that there is going to be an Election in perhaps 12 months or eight months, to manage the affairs, half consciously or perhaps deliberately, in such a way that some inflation takes place and that some, perhaps fictitious, appearance of prosperity may have the effect of giving people the impression when the Election comes that things are going a bit better. And how few votes you have to turn under our present system to win an Election! You may make a difference of 20 per cent, of the seats with perhaps only 2 per cent. of the votes. I think that that is a very bad feature of our present electoral laws. Now we hope that these things will be reformed; and I am always glad to try to encourage anyone in either House of Parliament who tries to raise the subject. I wish that there were a possibility of something being done, but I am afraid that I cannot say that there is a great prospect of anybody in another place doing much at the present moment. The Liberal Party have only 14 seats and the Socialists are not likely to do anything about it because they know that since the war they have won no fewer than six out of ten Elections, sometimes with as great a majority as 180 seats; but never once with a majority of the votes, always with a substantial minority of votes. As for the Conservatives, I am afraid that a very large number of the Conservative Party have not got enough brains to see how

145
much harm the present system is doing. So long as these conditions are subsisting together I doubt whether anything very exciting is likely to be done.
Now, my Lords, to the more immediate question. It is perhaps not so important in the minds of many of us but it is immediate. During the lifetime of this Parliament we may have a Bill to create devolution for Scotland and it is very important that we should get the right kind of Assembly. I think that it is very wrong and unfair that English Members here, in another place or anywhere else, should try to prevent the Government or this House or anybody who has any influence in the matter from introducing proportional representation in a Scottish Assembly because some of them say, "We are afraid that if you have an Assembly of this kind in Scotland it will mean that more people will want it in England." I think that that is a rotten argument and that there is nothing in it at all. We did not object —nobody in England or Scotland objected—to Ulster having proportional representation when Ulster had a local Assembly—or the Irish Free State. Since then, and before the troubles began, this electoral system has worked very well and with much better results than a straight single-Member constituency system would have produced.
My Lords, I sat in the House throughout the two days and listened, not perhaps to all 68 of them, but to very nearly all the speeches during our debate on Scottish devolution. Your Lordships will correct me if I am wrong but I think that very few who spoke in that debate were against proportional representation for the proposed Scottish Assembly and I also think that most of your Lordships who mentioned the subject were in favour of it. Of course, the best arguments that you can find for it are in the Royal Commission Reports on which the Government legislation was based—the Kilbrandon Report and the Minority Crowther-Hunt Report which strongly recommended proportional representation on all the grounds which were brought forward by the noble Lord who moved the Motion in speaking of the Parliament at Westminster. All the same grounds apply in a slightly different way to a local Assembly. Your Lordships
146
will find that the people who wrote these reports on which Scottish devolution is supposed to be based show clearly the bad results which might accrue if we have a system where a small number of votes could make a difference to a very large number of seats and, in particular, a system under which one area might return members to the Assembly consisting of nearly all the same Party, while another returned members consisting of nearly all another Party.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, is not in his place. We all sympathised with him when he had to wind up the debate and had to disclaim proportional representation at the end of his speech, having given the most brilliant argument in favour of it only 18 months before in his Report. He made the excuse that when he wrote the Report he was then living in an ivory tower. That raised my sympathy and pity very much; I hated to think of him being removed from this lovely ivory tower and being enslaved by a Government who I think one might reply are forcing him to wear an iron mask which prevents him from seeing anything he is not supposed to see or saying anything he is not supposed to say. However, I should like to be kind to the noble Lord, both in his presence and in his absence. because we all understand the position of a man who has to suppress his own views on account of his being a member of a Government.
One thing which happened as a result of that debate is that a few days later there was a letter in The Times written by two Members of your Lordships' House. One is my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who is one of the most trusted and admired men in all Scotland. I was going to say a lot more nice things about him but now he is in his place I will not do so because it might embarrass him. The other Member was the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who is chairman of the Scottish Peers' Association in your Lordships' House. These are two very weighty signatures to this letter. I hope the letter will be acted on and that, as they suggest, a conference will be arranged. If the Government will not agree to take part in it, let us have one composed of people of authority in Scotland, perhaps from local authorities and elsewhere, who might wish to take part in it. It will be

147
far better if we can have people from both Houses of Parliament and if the Government will agree to look sensibly upon this.
It may be that we shall not have a devolution Bill as soon as is intended, partly because the White Paper seems to reveal such a muddle in the Government's approach to this subject that no one would be surprised if they failed to draw up a Bill which they thought could get through Parliament; but if they do we will have to decide this question in both Houses. I have not discussed this with anybody, but for myself I believe a local Assembly in Scotland which is elected on the present out-of-date system will do very much harm to my country. I feel this genuinely, and I ought to tell your Lordships that if that is done I will vote against such a Bill in all its stages even if I have to go into the Lobby alone.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he answer one question? What real advantage does he think will accrue from the transfer of the Scottish Grand Committee in the House of Commons—the most boring committee in the world, as my noble friend and I both know from personal and long experience—from London to Edinburgh?
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, I am not sure but I think my noble friend is a little out of date. This was proposed some five or ten years ago, but I do not think it comes into the present scheme at all.
6.6 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I feel sure that the majority of your Lordships will welcome this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Byers. It has always seemed strange to me that your Lordships' Chamber, which is basically undemocratically populated, is often a place where the principles, rights and freedom of democracy are much more strongly upheld than sometimes in another place, in the unions and in many other so-called democratic institutions and, in particular, the selection by political Parties of their prospective Parliamentary candidates.
My Lords, let us consider briefly the purposes and intents of democracy. These I feel could be basically divided into three parts. Democracy should minimise the
148
practice whereby minority factions gain control of organisations as a result of a low turn-out of the eligible voters. Democracy should by every means eligible encourage voters to vote. Democracy should expose fully to the public those organisations which are unrepresentative of their electors. How can this be achieved? I do not profess to know all the answers, but I should like to try and make a few suggestions. Perhaps it could be that only elections in which a majority of voters from the electorate vote by secret ballot—postal or otherwise—should be deemed as being representative. Secondly, as my noble friend Lady Seear said, postal votes should be mandatory if the voter cannot be present in person. Thirdly, elections by a minority ballot should be deemed to be unrepresentative and therefore have no standing in that particular sphere. Lastly, any organisation that does not abide by, for want of a better word, these rules should, through its own default, cease to be known as a representative organisation.
Broadly speaking, these principles should apply across the board to all organisations, political, unions and social, particularly those with a membership of more than, say, 100 people, or where aggregates of subdivisions total more than 100. It may well be that my figure of 100 is totally wrong, but perhaps the optimum figure could be arrived at after further thought and debate. I should like specifically to mention the selection of prospective Parliamentary candidates.
Through the present method of selection by the two major Parties, trouble can arise from the most unexpected quarter—and I do not need to go into the troubles which have befallen the right honourable gentleman the Member for Newham North-East. I should like your Lordships earnestly to consider the Liberal Party's practice and code for the selection of Parliamentary candidates, which are not greatly dissimilar from the system of primaries. I beg your Lordships' indulgence while I quote one or two relevant paragraphs. The procedure may seem complicated at first hearing, but if any of your Lordships should feel puzzled by it I am sure it will appear much clearer when printed in Hansard tomorrow.
"The Candidates' Committee, consisting of the Chief Whip of the House of Commons as ex-officio chairman, a deputy chairman

149
appointed by him, two members elected annually by the National Executive Committee and three members elected annually by a postal ballot of all candidates shall be responsible for the preparation of lists of approved potential candidates for aiding a constituency association in the selection of candidates and the training of candidates. Constituency associations shall use the following procedure when selecting candidates. The constituency association shall first inform the Secretary of the Candidates' Committee of its intention to select a candidate. The association Executive committee, or a selection committee set up by it, shall consider all names submitted to it by the Candidates' Committee or by any member of the association. This committee shall submit three or more names of suitable candidates to a general meeting but may submit fewer than three names if, in its opinion, there are not as many as three suitable candidates among the names submitted to it. The association Executive Committee may, by a two-thirds majority, decide to propose to a general meeting the re-adoption of a previous candidate. At least two weeks' notice should be given to all members of the association and to the Secretary of the Candidates' Committee of the place and date of the general meeting and of the names to be submitted. The general meeting, after hearing and questioning each of the proposed candidates, shall select one as their adoptive prospective Parliamentary candidate in secret ballot and by the alternative vote. The Candidates' Committee may in exceptional circumstances authorise the constituency association to vary the procedure. A representative of the Candidates' Committee and of the regional Party shall be entitled to attend and speak at any selection committee, executive or general meeting."
Your Lordships will, I hope, note that what I have said constitutes a closed primary in two ways—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me if I intervened to ask him what is the difference between the procedure he has just outlined to us as "special" and that which is adopted in the Conservative Party?—because to my certain knowledge they have been following such a procedure for more than a quarter of a century, and from what I know of the Party opposite, they follow a procedure which is not dissimilar. I am not criticising the noble Lord's description of their procedure, but it seems to me exactly what is in operation in other Parties and it is not "special".
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should also like to intervene briefly, if I may, because it seems to me that this is exactly the procedure which has been followed in the Labour Party. However, what seems very important to me is the
150
matter of how people get on to the candidate's list, and that is something which the noble Earl did not explain.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, if I may take first the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I may well be under a misapprehension. I did not think that was the way in which it was done, but if I am wrong I must apologise. As regards the question which was put by the noble Baroness, I understand she was asking how one got on to the candidates list. The candidates are voted centrally in London. Does that help the noble Baroness?
Baroness PHILLIPS: Not particularly, my Lords. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I thought he was making the point that he had a different system. I should like to endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, From what was said, it does not appear to be a system which is very different, if at all different, from procedures followed at the moment by the Labour Party and, from what I know of the Conservative Party, from that Party, either.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, as I said, it is very possible that I may have been under a misapprehension. I thought there was a difference and I said what I said in good faith. However, I should like to continue by saying that the voters are limited to the members of the association, and this is obviously a provision which everybody in this Chamber will strongly support. Secondly, the nominations can come only through the association executive. Therefore, each Liberal, and possibly each Tory and Labour member, has a genuine say in the election of a candidate. I was under the impression that this does not always happen but certainly, so far as I know, in the Liberal Party this practice seems to have worked out very well in the past inasmuch as certain constituency executives who have produced a Liberal candidate whom they thought would be acceptable to their members have sometimes been proved wrong. This has thereby produced a strong element of genuine democracy in what is sometimes one of the more shady and camouflaged areas of our so-called "democratic" political system.
6.16 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, I was fascinated by the first three speakers, and must apologise for having failed to hear the two noble Viscounts, since I had to go out. I should like to begin by saying that, with one exception, I totally agree with the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. It seems to me wrong—I do not know whether it is wrong in conscience and perhaps I do not know quite enough about conscience, although I examine my own fairly frequently—that a Party resting on one-third of the votes of the people in a country should be able to pursue legislation which is hotly distasteful to the other two-thirds. But that is what is happening, and I think it is fundamentally wrong.
I am hopeful that proportional representation would cure that, so that there would be an end to this rule by a minority over a very hostile Opposition, taking the country as a whole—not on all matters of legislation but on some very important matters. Therefore, that is what I would hope for. If I were asked to vote for a method of doing this, I would do my utmost to get a single Member for a constituency, because I feel that the "fathering" of a constituency by one Member is very valuable in social and other relationships. If multi-Member constituencies proliferated, it would add one more impersonal factor to a situation which is already bedevilled by impersonal relationships in so many large institutions. I was going to add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who was the first person I heard endorsing the necessity for a very thorough process of selecting candidates. 1 now transfer my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, because I am really bothered by the question of how they get on the list at all. I have the feeling that once they get on to the short list the business is probably well and fairly done. How do they get on to the short list? I think I am probably bothered by the same idea as the noble Baroness: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Byers, can enlighten us about that. However, in the matter of the trades unions and the way they vote, that surely is equally important.
If, for example, in national Parliamentary Elections the poll was regularly under 50 per cent., I think I should very
152
strongly support a compulsory vote as there is in some countries, so that people would be obliged to vote. I have heard today—it may have been from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—that, by means of the postal vote, the voting for union officials has moved in some cases from 6 per cent. to 37 per cent. I was familiar with the figure of 6 per cent. and I have always thought it a horrifying concentration of power in the hands of a few activists. But 37per cent. is rather poor, and I should have thought we had in some way to move towards something more representative. One mentions that now because of the power exercised by the trade unions.
I think one must now face the fact that if there is proportional representation there will be a permanent Coalition, by which I mean that if there is minority government the Coalition is unseen; it is a crypto-Coalition. It may be a shifting Coalition from one Bill to another, and not a formal one. But I think that, in one way or another, Coalition will be the Government of the future and I accept it. I have been worrying about it for many years, and I think that that will come.
I am not certain that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has the same ideas about the Coalition which he advocates. Incidentally, I was once more fascinated from the beginning to the end of his 30-minute speech, which kept a smile on my face the whole time. How he does it at 90, I do not know. But I gathered from his speech the other day that he was advocating, for the cure of our inflationary problem—which is a great crisis, indeed—a Coalition which would he of a different kind. Although it was reported in the Press that he had talked of a Coalition for seven years, I think he meant for only several, perhaps having in mind three years or thereabouts.
But the Coalition that we are arguing about today is different. I have a feeling that it is too late and the opportunity has gone for that kind of Coalition in this Parliament. On the other hand, I think that proportional representation, if and when implemented, will change our system of government into a permanent Coalition, and I do not mind. I do not like the spectacle of the Conservatives being influenced unduly by their extreme

153
Right, as I have seen happen, or the Labour Party by their extreme Left. Moderate men in both Parties find that distasteful, but they have to placate their extremists who are people with nothing to lose; therefore, we all suffer.
Another thing which I would readily accept is a waiting period after General Elections, during which no legislation at all takes place. I would regard that as a breathing space and would look upon it as an interval of extreme relief, because we legislate too much. If there were a crisis pending, deliberations would soon he brought to a conclusion and people would decide. It is only when things were going reasonably well that deliberations would last for weeks.
I come now to the point at which I would respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Even if we have proportional representation and it gets rid of the minority control over our affairs, I do not think that we shall effect an enormous measure of cure of our present ills. The ills from which we suffer have been indicated in unexpected quarters—one in a speech to which I referred earlier, that of Mr. Harold Wilson addressing the miners on 7th July last year, and the other in a little article by Bryan Magee in The Times of, I think, the day before yesterday—which show that we have reached a kind of cul-de-sac in the process of the redistribution of resources. We have been moving from the bourgeois, the well-to-do, to the workers, and we have reached a point where a very large proportion of the workers have moved to bourgeois standards and are enjoying a standard of living superior to that of the lower middle classes. They are getting more money to spend.
Mr. Wilson's remarks to the miners indicated that further transfer of wealth by what is conventionally known as "soaking the rich"—an expression which he did not himself use, although he used an expression which meant that—had come to an end. There were no further possibilities in that line. Any further subsidies of this and that would mean additional taxation, additional inflation, and the taxation in that case would not be taxation of the well-to-do, but taxation of everybody—of everybody's beer and
154
of the commodities that we all use. Therefore, we have reached the end of the road.
I am one of those who feel that the disturbance from which we suffer is that we have created, among the workers of our country, persons of a bourgeois standard of life who have not acquired the bourgeois responsibilities of the past. They do not have the stability of ownership. I am talking not of the ownership of Dukes, Marquesses, Earls and people of the class of life from which I have emerged, but of everybody. I have often wondered why we made no progress when, 20 years or so ago, the Conservative Party was talking about a property-owning democracy—in other words, everybody with at least a house and a garden as a foundation of stability—and whether that target could be revived. There are so many people who own things which are of a decaying nature, even the motor car for which people save for years. Its life is only eight to 10 years at the very outside. It is a dreadful delusion to think that you are stable and well-to-do in saving up for a motor car, and then find that it decays in your hands and you have to save again.
It seems to me that the hugely expensive process, whereby the Treasury takes money from taxpayers and then redistributes benefits largely to the same taxpayers at enormous expense both in taking away and in redistributing, should be slowly transformed into self-insurance groups and many other systems, whereby the growing number of well-to-do people may opt out of what is a kind of servile state and once more become independent. In other words, what I have always looked for is that the working classes, as they used to be called, should become small bourgeois people and not the other way around. I am only too aware of the immense scorn which Marx poured on that kind of person. Nevertheless, he is the person whom I should wish to see come about. I want to see a multiplication of small people of minor substance owning houses, a small plot of land and a good many other things such as nice furniture, with a great choice of things which do not decay in their hands and which give them stability, and I would take the risk that in that process they might become Conservatives.
6.30 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is one of the most attractive Members of this House, whose fluency and style I, for one, greatly admire, but this afternoon he appeared to me to have something less than a wholehearted conviction for the arguments that he advanced. Having enumerated the weaknesses of proportional representation, he went on to show that those weaknesses were even more pronounced in the present system. Having dismissed proportional representation for Westminster, he appeared to welcome it for Edinburgh, or at least for Belfast. Having drawn attention to all the disadvantages of coalition, he went on to criticise the Liberal Party for failing to take advantage of Mr. Heath's coalition offer of 1974. He admitted that a vast majority of moderate, patriotic, middle-of-the-road folk would like to see some kind of coalition between some Conservatives, some Social Democrats and some Liberals, and then said that this was impossible because the Party activists would not allow it. That suggestion brought me to a consideration of the definition by the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, of democracy and how far it could be reconciled with that definition. My noble friend ended his speech by giving a really formidable catalogue of the defects and failures of our present system, which would make almost any alternative seem preferable. He is a brand, I am sure, which in due course will be saved from the burning, and if this debate contributes to that in any way our thanks are due to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for having initiated this debate.
My noble friend referred to a debate on electoral reform which I was able to initiate in your Lordships' House last year. I think it was the first—of recent years, at any rate which originated from the Conservative Benches in Parliament. I said then that in future the Liberal Party could look for reinforcements in its long and tenacious campaign. I was astonished as a result of that debate to discover the great weight of support which now exists and is mobilised behind this issue. There is now an effective group in the Conservative Party, headed by Mr. Anthony Wigram. There are a
156
number of influential Conservative Members of the other place who support electoral reform. For the first time in history, so far as I know, there has been a full dress debate on the subject at a Conservative Party Conference. There are, I know, a number of experienced Conservatives in this House who are as convinced as I am of its importance and its inevitability. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out earlier this afternoon, those who take a realistic view of the future of the European Community, and those who are interested in and concerned with the devolution issues in Scotland and Wales, all seem to have come to the conclusion that electoral reform or proportional representation is an essential ingredient in the creation of effective representational systems for those various Assemblies.
We know very well that outside Parliament there is strong support among leading figures in banking, industry and the law, and also among political journalists of standing and repute, for this issue of electoral reform. It was always to be expected that the establishments of the Parties would be somewhat behind the front runners in this field. In so far as this is due to a fear that electoral reform might increase the influence of the minority Parties, and the Liberal Party in particular, I frankly have little patience with them. Speaking personally, I can say that I won my first election in 1950, only because I had Liberal support although there was, in fact, a Liberal candidate in the field. The Liberal Unionists of the Chamberlain era and the Liberal Nationals of the 1930s and their successors, like my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, of the post-war period, have always formed part of a continuing coalition over a long period of time with what some people like to call the "true blue" Tory Party. That my noble friend Lord Thorne croft and Mr. Angus Maude should concert their considerable influence and powers of eloquence in a determined effort to stamp out the electoral reform movement in the Conservative Party at last year's Black pool Conference seems to me to have been unwise. I can only assume that they were so recently appointed to office that they were inadequately briefed on contemporary trends in the Party and on political opinion in the country.

157
Let me confine myself in the rest of my remarks to the two objections to proportional representation which are at present fashionable: first, that the introduction of proportional representation will lead to weak government. I personally am not enamoured of strong Party government, either of the 1970 to 1974 or of the 1974 to 1976 kind, which has forced through policies against the wishes and judgment of the sober, sensible majority of folk in Britain who occupy the centre, or the middle, or the common ground, if that is the description your Lordships would prefer. I feel that that is no objection at all. The consequence of what has been known as strong Party government is that great issues, which should be solved only by the consensus of a united nation, or at any rate by the realistic-minded moderate majority, have been decided on the terms dictated by the power of sectional and nationalistic minorities.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk said in a recent debate that his doubts about proportional representation derived from his recollections as a student of the Germany of the Weimar Republic. This is always the skeleton that is pulled out to frighten public opinion in Britain, but Britain of the 1970s is not Germany of the 1920s. We have centuries of experience of Parliamentary democracy behind us. Germany then had less than a decade of Parliamentary democracy. We have the advantage of the historic continuity of our political institutions and of our national life, which Germany had had for only about 50 years. They were defeated in war and we were the victors. I believe that the danger which we face is more likely to arise from our failure to make good use of the underlying strength of our political inheritance to make the changes which are necessary than from any uncertainty which change must inevitably involve.
Secondly, those who oppose proportional representation in the form, perhaps, of a single transferable vote say that it will destroy the identification of Members of Parliament with the territory—the constituency, that is—which they are elected to represent and the people who live there. I think we should realise that the territorial constituency is a hangover from the feudal period and from the rotten boroughs. My predecessor but one in Colchester appointed and paid his agent
158
just as he paid the factor on his estate and the stipend of a parson whose benefice was in his gift. I myself always enjoyed identification with my territorial constituency.
I remember very well when, at the Dog and Pheasant farm I drove across the boundary from my noble friend Lord Butler's constituency at Saffron Walden and saw the splendid herd of Friesians in the fields by the roadside, I used to say to myself, "Ah, my cows", and that when I saw the lights of Colchester I said, "Ah, my town". I know what it is to have a love affair with somewhere in the Provinces of England and to feel a sense of fulfilment which has nothing to do with either ambition for office or the pursuit of power. But all this is quite unnecessary as an ingredient in a truly representative form of government or in ensuring the prudent exercise of judgment in national affairs. The territorial principle, the closeness of the representative to his constituents is, and truly should be, applied to local government, but not in my view necessarily to the government of the nation at Westminster.
If I may take my own example to illustrate my argument from personal experience and in a simple manner: if, for instance, I had been elected as one of the four Members for North-East Essex in a multiple Member constituency with my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, Mr. Ridsdale (now the honourable Member for Harwich) and Mr. Harrison, who was then the honourable Member for Maldon, under a system of proportional representation I believe we would have been just as good Tories, just as good Essex Members; we would have been just as close to the problems of that part of the world which we represented and, what is to me so important, my Lords, we would almost certainly have been less vulnerable to local, personal and political pressures. These pressures have forced so many experienced Parliamentarians to cut short their careers and deprive the country of their services in what is, after all, the most important and most difficult of all professions, which the late S. F. Oliver called "the endless adventure of governing man". And if one of us—myself for example—had been forced, through the

159
system of proportional representation, to give place in the House of Commons to a Labour or a Liberal Member for North-East Essex, to that extent the representation of our part of East Anglia would have been so much closer to the expressed wishes of the electors at a General Election.
In replying to the debate last year the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Green-which, indicated that the Prime Minister would agree, if the other Party Leaders were willing, to refer the matter to a Speaker's Conference. Since then nothing has happened, and in any case, on perhaps more mature thought on my part, I believe that a Speaker's Conference would be too dilatory and its membership unlikely to be sufficiently detached from the basic issue to produce a fair and objective Report. A Royal Commission would take even longer and would perhaps fail to give proper attention to the realities, as opposed to the theories, of Parliamentary government.
I would therefore suggest to your Lordships that electoral reform should be examined by a Joint Select Committee. In this House we have an abundance of experience of the workings of modern Parliamentary government from the grass roots up to the highest office which anybody can achieve under the Crown. Let the House of Commons send to such a Joint Select Committee as vigorous and able a cross-section of its Members as it can produce. Let the Committee take evidence. If, as a result, they come to the conclusion that the present system of territorial constituencies, derived as I have said from its feudal and rotten borough past, is best; that the present system of faction in our Parliamentary life (or confrontation, which is the modern word) based upon an auction for votes which allows real power to pass to extra-Parliamentary forces is inevitable; that it is right that a Government elected by less than one-third of the voters should be able to force through legislation against the wishes of the vast majority; that in the latter part of the 20th century Britain must continue to be governed by an unrepresentative assembly which has lost the confidence of the nation; that the disruption to industry and commercial life caused by constant reversals of policy and repeal of legisla-
160
tion are all essential to the government, and the best government we can find for this country, then, my Lords, I would accept their verdict and give up any efforts that I have made to make a change.
I realise, and other noble Lords have said, that the real malaise at the root of our problems here at the present moment cannot be completely solved by any form of electoral change or any form of constitutional innovation; but I strongly believe that the start of the improvement of the morale of the country depends upon the people of this country getting the sense that the institutions which govern, with which they are associated—our Parliament, for instance—are something which provides what to them seems to be a fair deal for all those who are part of our nation, who are the electors at a General Election and whose future for themselves and their children depends so much upon the good government and stability of this country.
6.46 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating my noble Leader Lord Byers on his admirable opening speech and for approaching this subject from a wide perspective. I have only one specific point to make as we near the conclusion of this debate and it seems to me that this is a convenient opportunity for doing so. It has a bearing on the need for avoiding undue delay—a point which has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. On the26th March 1974, I opened a debate on this subject and in the course of my remarks I asked the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether it was intended that there should be a Speaker's Conference. I think a fair summary of his reply would be that the matter was under consideration. I was only asking for information. I had at that time a fairly open mind as to whether a Speaker's Conference would serve a useful purpose or whether progress might be made in some other way.
On the 23rd April of last year, as we know, the noble Lord. Lord Alport, opened the debate to which he has just referred. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to me at col. 940 of the Official Report of that debate and I think he may have assumed that in the previous debate I had been advocating another Speaker's Conference to

161
consider whether or not electoral reform should be introduced. I have no complaint if that is the assumption he made, but I should like to make my present position clear. I have given a good deal of thought to this. Much has happened since 1974, and I believe there is much greater urgency. Several noble Lords have also expressed that view, and there has been a marked change in public opinion.
With great respect to the Speaker of the House of Commons, whose impartiality is not of course in any way in question, I doubt whether a Speaker's Conference on whether or not we should have electoral reform would be the best course to adopt. It could so easily involve a waste of time if it meant going over all the old ground again, followed by a vote on Party lines. What is required is a decision of principle and then some method could be followed of deciding what is the best way to put that principle into effect. I believe it is reasonably clear that the majority of electors in all Parties are now in favour of proportional representation, and the numbers in support are growing.
Therefore, what is required so far as Parliamentary Elections are concerned—and I think this is true with even greater force with regard to devolutionary powers—is a decision on the best and most expeditious way of bringing about this reform. That this movement of opinion has taken place really does not require proving, but I will just give one very recent quotation in support. Mr. Ian Appleyard, President of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, reported in the Yorkshire Post of 31st January this year, in proposing the toast of Her Majesty's Ministers at the chamber's annual dinner at the Queen's Hotel, said:
"I suggest that industry and commerce should use their not inconsiderable influence to persuade one or other of the principal political parties to include in its next manifesto the irrevocable pledge that it will introduce proportional representation."
A few years ago I would not have expected that at a chamber of commerce dinner.
Of course there will be some opposition from those who do not like change, but I believe the reform will come sooner or later. I believe the criticisms we hear are reminiscent of the opposition to the great
162
Reform Bill of 1832. It is very interesting to read some of those old debates. The opposition was based on fear of representative democracy. Today, the only practical question is how best to bring about a necessary reform, for how long will obstacles be put in its way, and how much will the country suffer in the meantime. I hope not for long. My own belief is that the sooner the advice given by the President of the Leeds Chamber of Commerce is adopted, the better it will be for industry and the country.
6.53 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I intimated to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that I would be only two minutes. My name is not on the list of speakers, and I apologise for that. But one has heard arguments that did not altogether fit in with one's experience and at a time like this I think the alternatives ought to be on the Record. The last Election was my 11th Parliamentary Election, and if one takes local government elections into account, it was my 18th election, so one is bound to have formed a view as to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a system which has been in operation for all of that time.
It is clear that the bandwagon of some alteration, whether it be proportional representation or something else, is on the move, but personally I would give this warning. Whatever change may come about, it will be a bad thing for good government if one gives the Government of the day, whoever they are and however elected, an alibi to get out of any mistakes they may have made. The one advantage of the system which has been criticised so much today is that no Government have been able to have an alibi. They have had the power and have used it for good, or on occasions have used it for ill, but it has been recognised that they had the power when that thing happened. If we move to any system which gives any Government an excuse for the things that have gone wrong, then in the long run I believe that the effective government of the country will suffer.
If it is that things have gone right, they are entitled to claim credit for them, and are entitled to be re-elected, but let us not do anything which will give them any excuse, or what I would call an alibi, to overcome any problems that may arise from their wrong or mistaken approach.

163
The one good that has come from the old system is just that. I do not want to chastise the Liberal Party because that Party is not really the subject for discussion this afternoon. But I am sorry that they did not join a Coalition when they had a chance after the February 1974Election. I said so to their Leader and to their Chief Whip when they turned it down. I believe they were driven away from that because of an avalanche of letters organised by the Young Liberals of the day—and we all know how effective that sort of lobby can be when it is pushed at you at a critical and emotional time after an Election.
On the other hand, for the good of the 6 million people who voted for them, and for the good of the country, I believe they should have shown that, under the old system, it was possible for an anti-Socialist group to represent what were the views of the country; because one thing the country made clear from their votes was that, at that time, they did not want the Socialism which was presented in the Manifesto. The Liberals, because they did not join in, thwarted that.
My Lords, I was disturbed at what might possibly arise from any new procedure relating to the conclusion of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who said that if it took the form suggested by various people today we should have a permanent Coalition. I do not believe a permanent Coalition would be good for this country, with its industrial need for virility, and so on. I believe a coalition is a valuable part of the existing governmental system. The value of a Coalition is that it comes into being only when there is a state of crisis, when there is something terribly important, when the message has to be given to the nation and the world that the groups are coming together to deal with a specific problem. We had such a thing in 1931, and it worked; we had such a thing in 1939, and it helped us to have the strength to win the war. I should like to keep this valuable impetus that can come from a coalition, and to have the special value of it only being used when necessary to distinguish it from the normal run-of-the-mill Government. If as a result of proportional representation we have permanent Coalition, it cannot be good. I say to the noble Lord. Lord Alport, that the morale of the nation needs something today, otherwise
164
we shall sink into the abyss from which we shall not be able to recover in half a century. But a Coalition that would be permanent would not do that.
My Lords, I believe a Coalition is good when it can be produced to meet a specific demand or problem, but I believe it is not good if it will be a permanent feature of government itself. I am trying very hard to keep to my two minutes, but the noble Lord emphasised the importance of the subject. He raised the point which people react to. It is right that those who operate the system should have their views on record. If we could get the leaders of the three Parties to find some way of approaching the overwhelming problems of the nation today by now having a Coalition, from that Coalition not only could some of the answers to the other problems arise but we could get a reform of government procedure which may well be proportional representation, or something else. We could get a realignment of Parliament. I would urge noble Lords who are placing their views on record today not to recommend anything which would give any Government, however elected, an alibi for their mistakes. In the long run, that would not be good government.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls sits down, may I ask him whether I am correct in assuming that he attaches enormous importance to being able to criticise a Government later for their mistakes? Does the noble Lord really think that, with the problems we have today, this is a very profitable exercise? Does he believe that the nation as a whole cares very much about this final analysis of mistakes made some time ago, when it is faced with immediate problems?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, did not quite get my point. That is my fault. I am not talking about the theory of government. It is good government for a distinctive group of men who have views to have the power to put those views into active operation. If the active views of those who form a Government are successful, they ought to have another term of office. If those views and the power to implement them prove to be unsuccessful, the electorate will remove

165
those men and replace them with another group of men who again have been thinking to put their views into operation. If you have a permanent soporific of a coalition, a consensus that comes out of it, you will never get the new thinking that the nation needs from time to time.
I never criticise what was called "stop-go". In any business, in any country, you have periods where you go, and then come up against problems and stop, and then move on again. There is no steady graph in business or in Government which is level, steady and easily recognisable. It is that sort of movement, of "Stop-go," which really gets us in the long run, to do something positive, instead of merely talking and being soporific in our outlook.
7 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I am sure there will be general agreement in the House today that the subject chosen for discussion by my noble friend Lord Byers is one of great topicality. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, referred to the growing interest in the subject, and indeed the growing support for electoral reform. Reference has been made during the course of our debate this afternoon to the recommendation of the Kilbrandon Commission, for example, that elections to regional assemblies, to assemblies in Scotland and Wales, or, if we have them later, assemblies in regions of England, should be by the system of proportional representation, by the single transferable vote. We have seen the reintroduction in recent years of that system into Northern Ireland for the Assembly, the Convention, and local Government. There has been discussion about the relation of electoral reform to direct elections to the European Parliament, and various important points in connection with that were put forward earlier by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn.
I think there is a growing feeling, as my noble friend Lord Byers said when he opened the debate today, that the electoral system is a root cause of confrontation politics, and it is not only informed opinion but also popular opinion which is coming to support electoral reform. During the same week in October last year the London Evening Standard and the Sun both carried opinion polls which showed that about two-thirds
166
of those questioned wanted to see a voting system which would mean that political Parties, shades of opinion, were represented in the House of Commons according to their strength in the country. It is no wonder that this should be the case; it is not surprising, as we can easily see if we look at some of the results of the last General Election in October 1974. We find that fewer than half of the 29 million who voted in October 1974 elected all the 635 Members. A majority of the electors, 15 million people, were not able, after the Election was over, to say that their vote had helped to elect anyone; and in point of fact if those 15 million people had remained at home and not gone to the polls the result of the Election would have been exactly the same. A Party with 39 per cent. of the votes gained an absolute majority of the seats, and reference to that has been made several times this afternoon. In England, a Party with 20 per cent. of the votes got only 8 out of 516 seats, and in Scotland a Party with 36 per cent. of the votes got 41 out of 71 seats.
During the course of the debate, there has been a great deal of support, which we have greatly welcomed, from all quarters of the House for electoral reform and for proportional representation in particular. Until the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, spoke, I was going to say that the only hostile speech was perhaps that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He said that there were advantages in the system of proportional representation, but he felt that we had put them so well that he should concentrate on what he considered to be the disadvantages. He said that proportional representation was a matter of consequence to the Liberal Party, as if it were not of consequence to anyone else. We believe it is of consequence to those 15 million people who voted at the last Election and secured no direct representation for the opinion which they registered at the Election. It is a matter of consequence to electors.
In listing the disadvantages, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that it was likely to lead to a permanent state of Coalitions, and that point was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord

167
Harmar-Nicholls, in his remarks just now. Of course, there need not be any Coalition if one political Party can secure 51 per cent. or more of the votes cast. There might be in those circumstances, but there certainly need not be. If one political Party does not secure 51 per cent. or more of the votes, then surely it is not right that one political Party should be given a monopoly of power, a monopoly of government in the country. If public opinion is so divided that there is not sufficient confidence in one political Party for the electorate to give it more than 51 per cent. support, then surely no political Party should receive a complete authority to carry through its policies in the way that the present Government, elected with 39 per cent. of the votes cast but fewer than a third of the total electorate, is able to do at the present time.
It has been said many times that all political Parties are in fact coalitions, and this is often said by people who are opposing electoral reform. They say: "Well, we have coalitions already, because all political Parties are coalitions". But they are coalitions at the moment which do not secure a majority of the votes in their support in the country. A reference was made to Germany, where coalition does exist, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred to industrial virility and felt that our industrial virility would somehow be undermined if we had Coalition Government in this country, although West Germany seems to have managed better so far as industrial virility is concerned with Coalition Government almost continuously.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was rather critical of the pacts and compromises which he felt would be necessary if we had Coalition Government. He spoke of this with some distaste; yet it seems to me slightly inconsistent with a regret which he expressed later in his speech that a coalition had not been arranged in March 1974 between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I am most grateful; I would not wish him to misunderstand. I was pointing out that this is a new situation for this country, to have
168
proportional representation and then have to negotiate on policy. What I was saying was that even when there was the more straightforward case it had been difficult for the Liberal Party and had placed them in a difficult position.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to take up the point the noble Lord has made. I think it is important to realise that the present electoral system makes coalition very difficult indeed, because under the present electoral system if a Coalition Government are going to proceed to a subsequent Election, or even in the course of by-elections, they find it necessary under the present system to have an electoral pact; that is to say, the candidates of the two Parties in coalition cannot oppose each other. This tends to lead to the destruction of the smaller partner. This is one of the reasons—and there are many others—why the Liberal Party has resisted suggestions of coalition in the past under our present electoral system. Under a system of proportional representation, it is quite possible for candidates of the two Parties in the coalition to stand in the same constituency without splitting votes at all, because the system is not one in which that can take place. The electorate is able to choose between the Parties in the coalition without undermining the coalition or the structure of the Parties, and without undermining their independence, as tends to happen under our present electoral system.
Reference was made to the alternative vote, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said—and I agree with him—that the alternative vote is not proportional representation, and indeed we do not advocate it. It would be better than the present system, because it would do away with split votes and would prevent people being elected on a minority of votes; but because it retains single Member constituencies it retains all the distortions to which the single Member constituency gives rise. It gives rise to distortion because in every constituency you are giving 100 per cent. of the membership, 100 per cent. of the representation, to a Party which certainly has not had 100 per cent. of the votes—it may in fact have had only 34 per cent. or 35 per cent. of the votes, or even less, according to the number of candidates who may have been standing.

169
Reference was made, too, to the fact that it would be bad to have Parties come together because the new electoral system had forced them unwillingly together, and that that would be a bad state of affairs. But all the new electoral system would do would be to make the result of the Election a reflection of opinion. It might be that that reflection of opinion made coalition necessary, but that is a different matter. If that reflection of opinion made coalition necessary, then the electoral system, for reasons which I have just explained a moment ago, would make coalition possible in a way in which it is not possible today. We are not saying from these Benches that coalition is always and inevitably the best way in which the country should be governed in any particular situation, but we are saying that it is an option which should be available, and which should certainly be available where no Party commands majority support in the country, and that the system which we suggest would in fact make it possible.
We welcome the entertaining speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in which he said that some form of electoral system which represents true democracy is required, and that if that meant coalition, he would accept it. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said that some form of PR is absolutely essential. The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke borough, speaking from considerable experience in relation to this matter, advocated without reservation, he said, proportional representation for devolved assemblies. He drew our attention to the way in which in the South African election in 1948, even though there were only two Parties, it was still possible for distortion with the single Member constituency—taking into account the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alport—and that the Party which got the minority of the votes got the majority of the seats.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, did not want to see the old bad principles applied to devolved assemblies. We on these Benches join with him in that. We should like to see the old bad principles eliminated as soon as possible from the system of election for Westminster. We believe that if we had it, then, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, desired, we should bring to
170
an end rule by the minority over the majority.
I would sum up in this way. If we were to have a proportional system, and if, in particular, we were to have the system of proportional representation with the single transferable vote (the system which we prefer), then no longer would it be possible for a Party to have a minority of votes in the country with a majority of seats in the House of Commons. No longer would more than half the voters be in a position where they could not point to any particular Member who represented them. This is relevant to the point raised about the link between the Member and his territorial constituency, because although you would have a larger constituency it would be possible for an individual to say, "At least there is somebody here whom I have helped to represent me", and probably something like 80 per cent. of the electors would get their first preference elected under the system of proportional representation with the single transferable vote, and that must surely strengthen the link between the individual and Parliament.
It would always be possible, if Parliament wanted so to arrange things, to say that in, say, a five-Member constituency after the Election was over it would be possible to divide the constituency into five areas, and perhaps according to the order in which the Members were elected, or in some other way, to allocate the five Members to an individual part of that five-Member constituency, so that there could still be a territorial link between one Member and a territorial area, if that was felt to be of such importance. It is by no means ruled out. Then there would be no longer the exaggeration of small swings of opinion which give enormous power to a small number of voters. There would be no longer the under-representation of substantial minorities, and no longer would the electoral system encourage and bolster confrontation politics.
May I say in conclusion what I have said in your Lordships' House before; that is, that the present electoral system has become a barrier to unity, a barrier to co-operation, and a barrier to the supremacy of majority opinion. Its reform has, therefore, become an urgent necessity.
7.17 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think we have all listened with great interest to the speeches made in this debate this afternoon. I am sure that the whole House has welcomed the opportunity of coming back to this subject. I have a particular affection for this issue on the grounds that I took my seat in this House on the day that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, produced the first of what has in fact been a run of three debates on this subject, in March 1974.On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke about the virtues of proportional representation, as he has today. In April last year we had the speech and the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who, as always, has spoken with great force and vigour this afternoon. It is right that there should be regular debates on this issue, because the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is right in saying that there is a substantial degree of interest in this subject both within Parliament and outside. However, I fear that even at the end of what is, as I have indicated, becoming a regular series of discussions I am by no means clear that we are any nearer to an agreed solution.
This year, as last year, the number of noble Lords who are prepared to speak in defence of the existing system has been fairly limited. For one appalling moment I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I—and we had a certain amount to do with one another during the European campaign last year—would once again be standing fighting together against every other Member of your Lordships' House. Fortunately, at the last moment we were saved by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who spoke rather convincingly about one or two aspects of our present arrangements, which have been dismissed a little too lightly in my view in the debate this afternoon.
There were two other elements in the debate which made the debate this year interesting, particularly to those of us on this side of the House. First of all, we had that extraordinarily interesting interlude where we had a discussion between the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Byers and Lord Avebury, later joined by the noble Lords, Lord
172
Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Banks, as to what exactly happened when the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party were having a leisurely discussion together in March 1974 as to whether or not they were going to have a Coalition. I am bound to say, on the basis that there seemed to be a slight disagreement as to what people's motives were on that occasion and as to what each side was saying, that if they found it difficult to agree about events that transpired only two years ago, it might have been a rather disputative Coalition if they had in fact succeeded in forming a Government.
The second question which I thought was of some considerable interest today was the position of the Party opposite, at least so far as its Front Bench was concerned. Last year noble Lords opposite were led by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and he began his speech in these terms:
"…I have to admit that over this matter I regard myself as an agnostic".—(Official Report, 23/4/75; col. 911.)
He admittedly added the qualification that he was ready to be convinced, that he was bound to say that he had not so far heard any truly cogent evidence, but nevertheless he was on the side of agnosticism. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I think that if he studies the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, he will find that the noble Lord is a believer and not an agnostic the noble Lord. Lord Campbell, in my view gave a very clear indication of what was, in fact, the position of the Opposition in this matter. And, of course, the reason for the change in attitude is to some extent an indication of the success of the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and his friends outside the House. What was decided at the last Conservative Party Conference by the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and Mr. Maude was that they had to bang this particular idea very hard on the head, otherwise it was going to get out of hand. That is why, in fact, there has been a very substantial change in the position of the Opposition since the debate we had about a year ago.
At the beginning of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred properly to the text of the Motion he has put

173
before us and, in particular, to the reference he makes in it to the
"rapidly declining efficiency of the British political system".
I know, and I would accept at once, that there are significant shortcomings in our political system, but without wishing to be in any way complacent I think that formidable criticisms can also be directed at the political systems of many other advanced industrial countries, some of which have electoral arrangements on a basis very different from our own. The noble Lord gave some indication in his speech of what he regarded as the shortcomings in our present arrangements in this country, but I am bound to say that at the end of his speech I was left wondering how one can objectively judge the efficiency of a political system. No doubt, any system in which the Liberal Party gains 5 million votes in a General Election, as they did in October 1974, but succeeds in getting only 13 Members elected to the other place could certainly be judged inefficient by the Liberal Party and, no doubt, by some people outside the ranks of the Liberal Party. Equally, I suppose, the Labour Party might have judged the system inefficient in October 1951 when it secured 230,684 more votes than did the Conservatives but found itself in Opposition.
I doubt, however, whether that means that the system can rightly be judged inefficient as a whole. In particular, it seems to me doubtful whether a change in the electoral system would necessarily lead to an improvement in the efficiency of the political system, even judged by Lord Byers's own criteria. I judge his argument, if I may summarise it rather simply—he will, no doubt, say rather too simply—to be that because a particular Party received X per cent. of the votes at a General Election, they should be allocated roughly—very roughly—X per cent. of the seats. That is an argument which I understand and, indeed, there are some electoral systems which provide for an answer of that kind, though not, I may say, necessarily the one which the noble Lord advocated this afternoon. But this argument of the noble Lord's assumes that the electorate is not itself influenced by a system of election and I think that this proposition is far from certain. We do not know
174
how many seats individual Parties would have won under a different electoral system.
I accept at once that public opinion in this country is a great deal more disenchanted about our political system than it has been for many years past; yet I am far from convinced that this mood of dissatisfaction is primarily caused by our system of Parliamentary Elections. It is due far more, in my judgment, to the intractable character of the economic difficulties which have faced Governments of different political persuasions. Until we surmount these difficulties, I do not believe that any change in our system of election will lead to a significant change in the public mood. Certainly there will always be those at either end of the political spectrum who wish to sweep away our existing institutions—there are even some who would like to include this House in that objective—but they do not show, in my view, signs of growing significantly in number, though they certainly do sometimes in terms of shrillness.
Of course, I accept that our political system is capable of improvement. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave some indication of the improvements she favoured making in the system and she was joined by many other noble Lords, and let me join her by giving some obvious examples of my own. I would certainly admit that there is still a great deal too much power centralised in London, and the Government are at the moment endeavouring to take some action to deal with this. I certainly think—the noble Baroness touched on this and she was joined by many others—that there are significant shortcomings within Parliament itself and I believe that all Members on both sides of both Houses have a responsibility for tackling this problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, believes that the central problem is not this, but is the need to reform our electoral system. One thing that I find certain about electoral reform is the profusion of alternative systems and the fact that no one group of people can agree on which one of these is best suited as a replacement for what we have at the moment. There is obviously a substantial volume of literature on the subject; there would

175
clearly have to be, given the fact that we had a Royal Commission on this subject in 1910, the Speaker's Conference of 1917, the Conference of 1930 presided over by Lord Ullswater, and the Speaker's Conferences of 1944 and 1965 to 1968. This abundance of material exists despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that the variables in any electoral system are fairly limited. They are principally the size of the constituency, the different methods of voting and counting and the principle on which seats are finally allocated. One can have a system of separate constituencies, as we do now, or one can have just one countrywide constituency, as in Israel and in Holland; one can have different methods of voting, such as a single choice, or an order of preference, but most interest is inevitably concentrated on the different methods of counting the votes under different systems.
At the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred to public opinion polls which had appeared in, I think, two newspapers, indicating that there was broad public support for a change in the electoral system to some form of proportional representation; but what form of proportional representation? The forms are very diverse indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Alport, clearly favour the single transferable vote, but there is no unanimity of view on this issue. There are, by my calculations, at least six separate systems, including our present system of election—the first past the post. We have, in Australia, the alternative vote which is used for elections to the House of Representatives. Under this system, voters are required to give an order of preference to all candidates in the constituency, and if no candidate achieves an absolute majority on the basis of first preference then the second preferences of the bottom candidate are allocated to the others.
This process continues until one candidate emerges with an absolute majority. I suspect that system is rather more favoured in this country than it is in Australia because one can get some very strange results with a system of that sort. Nevertheless, there are perfectly legitimate
176
differences of opinion as to whether this is a system of election which we should have in this country. It can certainly be argued that it would be more fair, but I believe that there are other significant problems associated with it, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to in his speech.
Then we have a variant of the alternative vote system, that is the second ballot system, as used in France. There, electors vote only for one candidate in the first ballot but, if no candidate has secured an absolute majority over all his opponents, a second ballot is held. In the second ballot, only candidates who have achieved 10 per cent. of the possible votes in the first ballot go forward and then a "first past the post" system obtains.
Fourthly, there is the single transferable vote system. It is this which has engaged the attention of many Members of your Lordships' House. Under the STV system, which can only operate in a multi-Member constituency—and we must recognise that there is no question of retaining our current system of single-Member constituencies if we go for a single transferable vote system—account is taken not only of a voter's first choice of candidate but also of his second and subsequent preferences. The voter marks on his ballot paper an order of preference for each candidate. By doing so, he indicates where his support should go either if the candidate of his first choice has already secured more than enough votes for his election or if his first choice has secured too few votes to stand any chance of election. The surplus votes of the candidate who has already been elected and of the candidate who is eliminated are redistributed to the other candidates in accordance with voters' expressed preferences, and the process of elimination and redistribution is continued until all the vacancies are filled.
If I may, I shall come back in a moment to the particular point of the relationship between a Member of another place and his constituents, but I should like at this stage to deal with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I can see his problem: how is a Member to do his job if he is one of four or five operating over what is in fact a substantial part of the country? The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested

177
that one way of dealing with this would be to divide up the constituency on a somewhat arbitrary basis—because all the people in that area will have elected each Member for the constituency—and for the four or five Members to meet and decide who is to have relations with which local authority and where they are to conduct their surgeries and matters of that sort. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I do not believe that there is the remotest prospect of a system of that sort operating. Apart from anything else, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, quite rightly said, the Members may well belong to different political Parties. One of the virtues of the system mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is that, for instance, the Labour constituents of what is in fact a Conservative-inclined area would feel that, for the first time, they had a representative in Parliament. I can see the force of that argument. Nevertheless, that Member, if he is one out of four or five, will have formidable problems in simply maintaining contact with his constituents in what will be an extremely substantial area of country.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, if I may just develop that point, which is a very important one, the surgery and welfare services of the Member have developed over the past 20 years. They are done not because it is the Member's job but because, very often, he is taking over work which should properly be done by the local councillor and the local representative. It is extremely important that he should not be burdened with all that work and that it should go to the local man—the local representative of the council—who very often has the answer and has to act in the case.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that there is great force in what the noble Lord has just said. I believe that it is undoubtedly true and I know that it is so from cases which I deal with as Minister. This situation arises from time to time, particularly in the area of housing in the major conurbations. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be a formidable responsibility which a Member, particularly from a minority Party, would have to fulfil in what would be a very large constituency. I believe that one must recognise that
178
that is one of the problems associated with this system.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I believe that this is a very important point. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Alport have discussed the question of the four-or five-Member constituencies which would have to exist under this system and the fact that not all those Members would belong to the same Party. Even though, being fairly fresh from the other place, I sympathise with my noble friend's suggestion that more of the work which is now being done by Members of Parliament ought to be transferred to local authorities and local bodies, none the less those Members will be competing with each other because their constituents will be expecting them to do the work in question whether or not it is right that they should.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is undoubtedly true. The fact is—and I am saying something which I shall no doubt regret at leisure—MPs are often a great deal more assiduous in carrying out their responsibilities than are some members of local authorities. For instance, many more Members of Parliament regularly—and I emphasise that—have surgeries than do many councillors. Therefore, almost inevitably, they get shovelled in their direction a great deal of work which is properly that of councillors. Once it has been so shovelled, it is very difficult to get rid of it.
I now move to the fifth example of alternative systems. This is the Party list system which exists in Israel. There, each Party draws up a list of candidates in a specific order and the ballot paper contains the names of the Parties alone. The elector may vote only for one Party, and the seats are then allocated to each Party broadly in line with their proportion of the vote. To some, that may sound a fair system, but I believe that it has so many formidable objections so far as its application in this country is concerned, that I am extremely doubtful whether it would meet with any substantial support. For instance, it would make it impossible to have any relationship between an elected Member and his constituency because the Member's essential responsibility would be to his Party and not to a part of the United Kingdom.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the history of the Labour Party? Has he never heard of double-barrelled constituencies with both a Liberal and a Labour representative? They lasted for a considerable time, and even Keir Hardie was involved in such a constituency. It is surprising to me to hear all this because this is how we started. Is my noble friend further aware that, in 1900, the Labour Representation Committee started as a coalition and that there were actually Liberals in that coalition? Richard Bell, who was the Secretary of the railwaymen at the time, was a Liberal Member of Parliament. We had Liberals, though, as far as I know, we had no Conservatives. We had Lib/Labs and all kinds of people in the coalition and there were double-barrelled constituencies. That is how the Labour Party made progress.
Lord HARRIS: My Lords, with great respect to my noble friend, I was discussing the system in Israel, where there are no constituencies of any kind and where people vote for a Party and not for Members of Parliament standing for individual constituencies.
Sixthly, I come to the West German example. This example was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. It is, to some extent, a combination of the British single-Member constituency system, the relative majority system and the Israeli pure Party list system. Under the German system, half the deputies in the Bundestag are elected in single-Member constituencies on the basis of votes cast by the electorate in each constituency in what we in this country regard as the normal way. Each voter is, however, also entitled to vote for a Party shown on the ballot paper, and these votes are totalled nationally and used to distribute the other half of the Bundestag seats on a Party basis.
I should like to say one thing on this point because it has not been dealt with in the debate, and I believe it is important. We must ask ourselves a question, and it is related to a number of these alternative systems—some of them, but not all of them. Once there is a Party list it confers the most tremendous power on the headquarters of the national Party organisation. There is no doubt—and I concede it immediately—that politicians
180
as a class are not the most popular group of people in this country. I am not totally convinced that the Party machines are regarded by the people in this country in a wholly different way, and that there would be widespread public support for giving them tremendous authority in terms of deciding who should be Members of Parliament. I think that it is a major issue and one which is involved in some of these systems, though not all—
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he is surely aware that the German system is on a regional, not a Federal basis, and therefore it is not completely under the control of the Party system.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a point as far as the German example is concerned. I was simply pointing out that a number of these systems—I did not specify the German system—in fact confer very substantial authority on a national or, it may be in this particular case, a regional Party organisation. We have to ask the question whether we are prepared to consider very carefully schemes of this kind which would confer substantial authority on the national Party organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, dealt with a point relating to elections to the European Parliament, and I hope he will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not deal with this at any length, all the more so because I have already spoken for 24 minutes. As he recognised in his speech, we are to have a debate on a Government White Paper which will be published in the near future. It is on that occasion that the important issues which the noble Lord identified in his speech should be dealt with, and I am sure they will be.
My Lords, I come to the conclusion of my speech. I end to some extent as I began, with a note of caution. There is a tendency at the moment for rather too many commentators in this country to seek a solution to our present national economic difficulties in some swingeing all-embracing reform of the system, whether it be the political system or the economic system. It might be rather agreeable for many of us if it were as simple as that, but I just do not believe that it is. In my judgment we will restore

181
the confidence of our people in our democratic system in this country only if we succeed in our present struggle against inflation, and its directly related companion, unemployment. It is this, not juggling with our electoral process, that is the central issue in British politics today, and it is towards this problem that the Government are determined to direct their efforts.
7.43 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I begin by thanking all those who have taken part in this debate, and particularly those who have given us support. I also with to thank particularly the noble Lords, Lord Alport and Lord Wade, who have been carrying on this series of debates with great effect over the past two years. The attitudes of the official spokesmen from the Front Benches were, I am afraid, predictable, although I got the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was less inflexible than perhaps the Conservative Party had been some time ago. As for the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I am not going to refute all his points because it would take far too long to do that, and I do not want to reopen the debate. But he ought to be a bit more forthcoming on this issue. I detected far too much complacency. As the spokesman of the Front Bench of a Government who have just been defeated in another place by five votes, this is something which he ought to take in very carefully indeed. After all, they may not be there tomorrow. I would willingly give way if the noble Lord wants to make a farewell speech, or to add to what he has already said.
I feel that this is a matter of some urgency. I am extremely worried that we are going to have a deadlock situation in the next Parliament through the disproportionate preponderance of nationalist Members who are there on an unfair vote because they are over-represented in relation to Westminster. I give warning of this. This could easily happen, and it will not be an easy siutation from which to escape. I do not know how one would get out. That is why I believe that Speaker's Conferences and Royal Commissions are too dilatory, and they will not give us an answer to this problem quickly enough. Therefore I feel that the Parties should be brought
182
together and we should find a machinery by which to determine this question.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I am so grateful that we have had this wonderful opportunity of hearing the delightfully incorrigible noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—and may he be incorrigible for many years to come. As soon as he is on the transfer list, the Liberal Party will be in business. My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 2 a, and referred to the Examiners.
METHODIST CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
HOVE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.