Lords Sitting of 7 March 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
>Prayers—Read by the Lard Bishop of Oxford.

YELLOW PAGES DIRECTORIES
Lord CROOK: 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 cause an examination to be made of the great waste of resources entailed in the unsolicited distribution by the Post Office, to all telephone users, of the Yellow Pages Directories (which, in a typical case, weighs, 1 lb. 5 oz. per copy) and the further resultant waste of resources and services when copies of the previous issue are committed to the refuse bins for collection by local authorities.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as the publication of the Yellow Pages Directories is primarily a matter for the Post Office, my noble friend should write to the Post Office. The Government have considered with the Post Office alternative ways of disposing of old telephone directories, and accept the Post Office view that it is more economical to leave collection to local authorities or other collectors of waste paper.
Lord CROOK: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer which I could have written for him before I put the Question down?—because we are all so accustomed to the way in which every Post Office matter is pushed off with an instruction to write to the Post Office, from which one gets no response at all. May I draw attention to the second part of the Question, which relates to the way in which this imposes, willy-nilly, a waste of energy in the use of petrol and diesel oil in vans collecting the paper and a waste of the resources which could be recycled, if they were collected?
842
Since the local authorities are incapable of collecting in the present vans because of the method of compacting waste by crunch machinery in the vans, will the Government face up to their responsibilities?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend that I will most certainly see, if he should write to the Post Office, that he gets an answer. But, on the general question of recycling of waste paper, which is a matter for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible, Her Majesty's Government would like to see its increased use in paper manufacture and are taking steps to promote this. It has made £23 million available under the Industry Act to encourage investment in waste paper-using plant and technology and in increased storage space. In addition, the Waste Management Advisory Council have set up a Working Group on waste paper recycling in which all interests are represented.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, as the Government always give the stock answer about having very little responsibility in their relationship with the Post Office, is it not time that the Government regularised this relationship with the Post Office? As we see profits going up and services declining and becoming more expensive, is it not time that the Government, so to speak, made an honest woman of the Post Office? Otherwise they are in danger of being accused of living on the immoral earnings of the Post Office.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Post Office is a nationalised industry like any other. Its day-to-day operations are not subject to Questions in Parliament and it is for that reason that I gave a rather dusty Answer to my noble friend. However, the second half of the Question was relevant so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, and I hope that my Answer to that was reasonably satisfactory.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, can the Minister say first, whether the subscriber pays for each line and, secondly, how much money the Post Office makes per year from each edition?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the Yellow Pages, that is a commercial transaction between the Thomson Organisation and the Post Office. I cannot comment upon the terms of that agreement.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, having been interested in reclamation for some years and having moved a Motion upon it in this House, may I ask whether we are still buying waste paper from abroad instead of re-using our directories and so forth, and getting the housewife to collect paper, as she was perfectly willing to do during the war?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question; but as I said in my supplementary answer, Her Majesty's Government are concerned about the lack of usage of the waste paper that is available in this country.
Lord CROOK: My Lords, my noble friend says the Government are dissatisfied and worried, but what is the chance of this paper being gathered up by anybody? It is, in fact, going into dustbins in tens of thousands of tons.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I hope that the Waste Management Advisory Council will note what has been said here today.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, whatever may be the relationship between the Post Office and the Government, do Her Majesty's Government agree that the Yellow Pages Directories are thought to be extremely valuable by many people, including myself?
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, so far as the Post Office is concerned, it is not trespassing in any way, but is only following its usual custom ever since its inception as regards telecommunications and the drafting of the directories which are directed to every customer within the service who has a telephone? Is my noble friend aware that they all receive the Yellow Pages Directory and that what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has said is correct, namely, that it has served a quite useful purpose ever since its inception? May it long continue! Secondly, is my noble friend aware that he is correct in what he is saying in that,
844
since the Post Office Act 1969 was passed and the Post Office Board began to work under that Act, the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications has had no power whatever to interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Post Office?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in my view, the Yellow Pages publication is a very valuable service to the customer.

RAILWAY STATIONS: INFORMATION BOOTHS
2.43 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 what provisions have been made for adequate information to be given from booths at, or in the vicinity of, railway stations to young people arriving in London, in respect of accommodation or other facilities and guidance available to them.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, no such provision has been made. The voluntary organisations most closely concerned with these young people are currently considering the best way of using the additional money which has been offered by the Home Office Voluntary Services Unit for improving the advisory services available to young people, but no decisions have yet been reached.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that voluntary organisations, in particular CHAR, are deeply concerned about the lack of these booths? Is he aware that, although CHAR was advised that it could make direct approaches to the railways, it is getting no response at all? Does my noble friend not realise that, from the point of view of helping those who arrive in London without any advice, this is an extremely important matter, and furthermore that the alternatives that have been suggested do not cope with the situation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the organisation to which my noble friend refers is one of the organisations

845
which was recently represented at a meeting with the appropriate people at the Home Office—the Department for which I am answering today. The position is that British Rail maintained their refusal to allow an information bureau on the concourse of Euston Station. There then arose their offer of having East Lodge, which is some considerable distance from the concourse, and it is questionable whether a booth there would serve any useful purpose. We acknowledge that the voluntary organisations are well informed on what needs to be done in the area. They themselves are anxious that the best possible use should be made of the additional money offered by the Voluntary Services Unit, and they are looking at the best possible ways not only to use it but to provide the various services which are needed.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the International Travellers' Aid ran booths at Victoria, Liverpool Street, and other stations for many years to help au pair girls and other travellers? If the noble Lord cannot get any action taken on these stations, if the noble Lord agrees I could have a poster put up at the English Tourist Board's offices near platform 14 giving the full information as to where the hostels are and where people may apply. Perhaps this may be helpful as an interim measure.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are concerned with the attitude of British Rail at the present moment, and I have given your Lordships the attitude so far as Euston is concerned. We should have to ask ourselves whether a notice in the English Tourist Board's office would be likely to be seen by young boys and girls coming into London.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of the young people referred to in the Question come to London for the purpose of prostitution? Is it expected that the proposed booths should give guidance to these young people on that matter?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are seven or eight voluntary organisations operating in the West End of London who do a really magnificent task in collecting young boys and girls. They not only advise them and counsel them,
846
but find places where they can live. It is a question of extending that work, and that is why my right honourable friend has asked them to consider ways and means of improving the service which they are giving at present.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, following on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is not the real trouble that a number of very undesirable touts at Euston Station and at Victoria Coach Station are recruiting for prostitution young people who have come to London simply to get away from their families?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord because that is probably the prime consideration which is being considered, and has been considered, for some time; it is a question of how best to deal with that situation.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, have not British Rail some responsibility? Have they not accepted payment for the tickets bought by these young people who come to London? With regard to Euston, to which reference has been made, is it not the case that the advisory service is at Friends House in Euston Road, which is quite some distance from the station? Is it not possible to have notices at Euston Station which would provide at least guidance for these young people on how to get to Friends House?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are aware of the existence of Friends House. It is also being currently considered whether something can be done by way of posters. It may be that a site would have to be hired; I just do not know about that. This is certainly being considered at the moment. With regard to the first point raised by my noble friend about the moral responsibility of British Rail, perhaps he would send British Rail a copy of today's debate in Hansard.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not any consideration has been given to the use of the telephone as an alternative to the establishment of an information booth? Could not a situation be created whereby youngsters could ring a particular number

847
and secure all the information they require? Has any consideration been given to that idea?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can honestly say that that is also a matter which has been mentioned and is being considered. One has to be certain that, if one has this kind of telephonic system, it is not going to break down in a comparitively short period of time. There is a considerable amount of vandalism concerning telephone kiosks; and, somehow, one should make the system, so far as possible, foolproof. Dispensers containing leaflets have also been suggested, but this idea has been examined and found to be not suitable for the purpose that it is desired to serve.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, in view of all that has been asked and answered and while appreciating my noble friend's good intentions, may I ask him whether it is not essential that he should listen to the various voluntary organisaions which have been practising in this field for so many years, should adopt what is the most effective way of handling this situation and should see to it that the railways provide booths where information similar to that which is given to people coming from abroad can be made available?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if my noble friend reads Hansard tomorrow, I think he will find that I have said on two occasions today that there has been discussion between the various voluntary organisations and the Department for which I am speaking today. They have been asked and are considering how these facilities can be best provided, if at all. We recognise their wide experience in this field, and this is why we are having discussions with them.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think that perhaps noble Lords would like to get on to the next Question.

RETIRED PERSONS: EMPLOYMENT
2.52 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 local authorities are advised to help able-bodied persons who have reached retirement age to engage in gainful or voluntary occupations of service to the nation.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the provision of such help is not a statutory responsibility of local authorities. However, the Government recognise that many people over the State pension age wish to continue in employment, whether paid or voluntary, and sympathise with this wish. The Government are aware of the important contribution which some employers and voluntary organisations are making to helping older people find suitable work. In the Government's view, this is an area which is best left to local initiatives.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, while I appreciate my noble friend's Answer and the fact that local authorities have no statutory responsibility in a matter of this kind, surely his Department can circularise them and advise them to create some kind of organisation which will prevent this vast reservoir of talent being floated down the river. Surely something can be done. It requires some measure of organisation, and surely the Government have some responsibility in the matter. Cannot something more be done?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I recognise what my noble friend has said about the reservoir of talent available in this age group, but there is quite a number of voluntary organisations throughout the country and the Government would wish to encourage their work. I doubt whether setting up a separate organisation, or requiring local authorities to carry out this work, would contribute helpfully.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not asking for the creation of a separate organisation? We have far too many organisations already. I want local authorities, with some measure of common sense and appreciating the need for some action, to appoint someone who can take charge of this affair and put a bit of guts into it. Surely that could be done.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, local authorities could take informal action, but at the moment they have not any statutory powers in this respect. However, I should not like my noble friend to think that we are unsympathetic to the general proposal that he brings forward, which is that there is a need to open up avenues whereby retired people may engage in active occupations.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend—and I do so as one who is approaching early middle age—whether it would not be possible for the Ministry of Labour job centres to be asked to compile registers of old people—one of those who want paid part-time employment and another of those who are willing to do voluntary work?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, certainly job centres are able and willing to give advice to people of any age who wish to seek employment. My noble friend's suggestion about a register is an interesting one, which I will consider.

NARCOTICS: ILLEGAL IMPORTATION
2.55 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: 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 are satisfied with the existing organisation available in the United Kingdom for detection of the illegal importation of narcotics, with particular reference to the seizure of 26 lbs. of heroin (valued at £1,625,000) at the Port of Cardiff.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): Yes, my Lords. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise keep under active review the deployment of staff against smuggling as well as methods of detection. The seizure at Cardiff reflects the effectiveness of Customs' methods.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, and expressing my appreciation
850
of the work of the Customs and Excise and the police in this detection, may I ask her whether she really thinks that at the present time our services are sufficiently geared by way of manpower and facilities to deal with this threat, which is increasing; that is to say, the threat of narcotic smuggling into this country? Has the noble Baroness seen the statement or expression of opinion to the effect that, out of the total quantity of heroin being smuggled into this country at the present time, only 10 per cent, is being detected? Would she like to comment on that? Is it not a fact that there has been a great increase in addiction to heroin over the last seven years—that is to say, from 1970—and have the Government any information that any subversive activity is being employed in this trade, from which profits as great as £1,500,000 can be made on the black market through the smuggling of 26 lbs. of heroin?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last supplementary question, as to whether we have any knowledge of subversive activity, I would say that that is quite a different question. It deals with the whole of the "drug trade", whereas his original Question concerned Customs and Excise. We are satisfied that as a recent thorough-going review of Customs preventive services indicated, staff savings could be made by more effective use of resources, and this without loss to existing standards of preventive control.
As to the increase in addiction, this has been going on, as the noble Lord will be aware, over some period of time. In the case to which he referred, in Cardiff, the find was as a result of normal boarding and inspection. No special effort was mounted; and this, I think we must agree, really reflects both the keenness shown by the staff and the effectiveness of their methods. In the last couple of days, one man has been charged with the illegal importation of the heroin found at Cardiff, and he and two others have also been charged with the illegal importation of cannabis. All I can say is that the methods used and the deployment of staff are such as to try to deal as effectively as possible with this problem. I would prefer not to go into further details on deployment, because I think that could only be of great assistance to the people

851
concerned in the "trade"; but we are satisfied that, in the circumstances, as much as is possible is being done.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not the position here that drugs are very light, very small and very valuable, and that anybody can walk through Customs carrying £100,000 worth of drugs without his pockets bulging, which makes the position almost impossible from the point of view of the Customs officials; that in fact one finds drugs only when one has received a tip-off that they are being brought in by somebody, and that that tip off normally comes from a rival illegal organisation?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, that is true to some extent, but there is also a great deal more spot-checking than there has been in the past, and the detection methods have been stepped up as the "trade" has been stepped up. Again, perhaps I could leave it at that.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, while it is very gratifying that this was the product of a spot-check, it is disturbing to hear her talking about staff reductions in the context of increased drug addiction? Is she satisfied that the maximum is being done to keep this lethal and corrupting substance out of the country, in particular by means of getting information from the countries of origin? Will the noble Baroness confirm that the ship in question came from the Far East, and particularly from Bangkok via Singapore? Are our links of information there sufficient?—because I believe that in that part of the world there is a better network of information than in any other and we should like to see it used.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is again a widening of the Question. The ship was a container en route to Holland. They forgot to tell me where she came from. I have no doubt that it was from the Far East. My noble friend's point about the tip-offs is true; but again the amount of spot-checking makes a great deal of difference. It is true that there are staff cuts right across the board, but in this particular section of Customs and Excise they are really being spread very thinly across the whole staff and, we feel,
852
are being more than compensated by rationalisation of method and improvement in effectiveness. I do not think there is much more I can say about this, whatever further questions are asked.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, in spite of her last remark, may I ask the Minister whether any effort has been made by Customs and Excise to enlist the help of sailing clubs along the coast? We are, naturally, a vulnerable country in this respect with so many craft going backwards and forwards across the Channel. I think the Customs and Excise have done a wonderful job, but I should have thought that there might be an effort made to enlist the services of local clubs to help them.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is a difficult point. I do not know in what way the noble Baroness would intend to utilise such help. If she is thinking in terms of vigilantes, there are a great many problems there. It is possible that some of the tip-offs to which my noble friend referred are from the sailing clubs; but beyond that, I think it would be quite wrong to go.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill amends the Representation of the People Act 1949 so as to provide for the direct election of the United Kingdom Members of the Parliament of the European Communities. A Decision and an Act concerning the provisions for holding direct elections were both signed by the Council of Ministers on the 20th September, 1976. The Preamble to the Decision indicates that it is intended to give effect to the conclusion of the European Council in Rome on 1st and 2nd December, 1975, that the election of the Assembly should be held within the period May to June 1978. The Act will come into force after all the Member States have notified the completion of the procedures necessary in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. It would, therefore, appear that if one

853
country did not complete those precedures, the direct elections would not take place. This Bill implements in the United Kingdom the Decision and the Act.
My Lords, in normal circumstances one would expect the necessary legislation to be introduced by the Government of the day. But the circumstances are not normal. The Select Committee set up in another place on Direct Elections to the European Assembly in their first report drew attention to the delay which took place between the announcement of the proposal to set up a Select Committee and the tabling of the necessary Motions in the House. In their second report they remarked on the Government's lateness in arranging for the debate on the first report. The Select Committee recorded their view that if the Boundary Commissions were to complete their work in time, the first enabling Bill should receive the Royal Assent by the end of February. It was when no such legislation was forthcoming, and when we were exceedingly worried that British failure to complete preparations in time might prevent direct elections taking place anywhere in the Communities, that my noble friends and I decided to use our best endeavours and to produce a Bill of our own. We feel that it would be humiliating if Britain, the Mother of Parliaments, were to prove to be the only country which had not found herself able to prepare for this exercise in European democracy.
The delay which has taken place makes it seem almost certain that there is not now time to make the complicated preparations required by the "first past the post" electoral system. Eighty-one constituencies would need to be created out of the 635 existing Westminster constituencies. There are endless possible combinations and each combination is likely to favour one Party or another. It would be a time-consuming process. It is well known that the "first past the post" system tends to exaggerate swings of opinion. With constituencies so large, they are bound, in the main, to approximate much more closely than the smaller Westminster constituencies to the national division of opinion. The Party topping the opinion poll at the time of direct elections would be likely to scoop the pool.
It has been estimated that if the current climate of opinion prevailed throughout
854
the United Kingdom, the Conservative Party might get 65 seats and the Labour Party 5 out of 81—a grossly distorted result which could be reversed in five years' time, to the disadvantage then of the Conservatives. The Liberal Party could poll as many as it did in 1974, or more, and have no representation at all. In Scotland. if the Scottish Nationalist Party lost a little ground to the Conservatives compared with 1974, it could fail to win any seats; and a Nationalist vote of over 27 per cent. could find itself totally unrepresented in the European Parliament. One can imagine what the effects of that might be. But if just over one in five of those who voted Labour switched to the Scottish Nationalist Party, every one of the Scottish seats could go Nationalist.
The Select Committee recommended three seats for Northern Ireland. But under the single Member system, there is no way that the three seats could be drawn up to enable the minority to be represented. It has been suggested that proportional representation might be used for Northern Ireland only; but if proportional representation is necessary to get fair representation for the minorities in Northern Ireland, it is equally necessary to get fair representation for minorities in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have to bear in mind that a distorted result in this country would upset the political balance in the European Parliament and is therefore a matter of concern to all Members of the Parliament, and not merely to the British Members and not merely to the British political Parties.
For all these reasons, we have rejected, in drawing up this Bill, the single Member constituency. I think it will be appreciated by your Lordships that the circumstances of the European Election differ greatly from those prevailing in a Westminster Election. We have a need for speed in drawing up the bounderies; there is a greater distortion involved in having single Member constituencies of this very large size; and there is the question of the impact of this distortion on the political balance of the Parliament. It is well known to the House that we on these Benches believe there is a very strong case for proportional representation in Westminster Elections; but we freely acknowledge that these special factors that I have mentioned make the case with regard to the European Parliament a case on its own.

855
There are two other such factors. First, the single Member constituency is often defended because of the personal links established between the Member and his constituency. But with single Member constituencies of some 500,000 electors each the link cannot in any event be of the same close kind. Again, it is often argued that the distortions of the single Member system are necessary because the object is to elect a Government which, so it is argued, need an overall majority to govern, although we know they do not always get it under the single Member system.
But when we vote in the European elections, we shall not be electing Government. In addition, we are considering the election of only one-fifth of the European Parliament; the other four-fifths will be elected by proportional representation anyway. We provided in the Bill for the use of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. This system has the advantage that it is used already for elections in a part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland. It has been used to elect the Assembly and Convention, and is used now in local government there. It used to be used to elect university Members to another place. A Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform as long ago as 1916 recommended its use in Westminster Elections generally. It is also used in the Republic of Ireland, another Member State of the Community.
We have divided the United Kingdom into 12 multi-member constituencies; Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are each a multi-member constituency. We have allocated to them eight, four and three seats respectively following in this respect the recommendation of the Select Committee. The 66 seats assigned to England have been allocated between the eight standard regions strictly in accordance with the size of the electors. Six of the eight English standard regions are constituncies returning between five and nine Members each.
In order to avoid an excessively large constituency, South-East England, which would be entitled to 24 Members, has been combined with East Anglia, entitled to three Members, to create three more
856
evenly sized constituencies which, I understand, correspond to the regional boundaries used by the Conservative and Labour Parties. Your Lordships will find all this set out clearly in Schedule 1. Schedule 2, setting out the rules for counting the votes, is based on a Northern Ireland Assembly Election Order 1973, and therefore incorporates procedures which have already been applied in the United Kingdom.
The Select Committee of the House of Commons in their Third Report made 26 specific recommendations about the conduct of the elections. I do not propose now to examine them in detail. It is sufficient to say that in the majority of cases we have followed their recommendations. I would, however, draw attention briefly to one or two cases where we have not followed the Select Committee recommendations. Of necessity, our arrangements for by-elections are different, and for these we have provided for the use of the alternative vote system. We have made provision for British subjects resident in another Member State of the European Community to vote in the United Kingdom, but we have not extended the franchise, as recommended in the Select Committee report, to British subjects resident in countries outside the Community. We felt that their position was one that was linked to Elections for the Westminster Parliament and local government, as well as to the European Parliament.
Instead of a deposit by candidates, we have provided for them to have their nomination papers signed by at least 500 electors in the constituency for which they propose to stand. We have accepted the view of the Select Committee that there is no urgency to establish formal links between the European Parliament and this Parliament. This is a matter of considerable importance but, in our view, not one where a solution should be rushed. It is a matter which we feel should be part of the general overall constitutional review which is so necessary at the present time with so many constitutional reforms being either implemented or talked about.
None of the points that I have just been talking about affects the principle of the Bill, and they and many similar points will be subject to the scrutiny of the House at the Committee stage. It is our intention that the Bill offers the Government

857
a way out of their difficulties over direct elections. It solves the problem of the timetable; it offers a simple plan for 12 multi-member constituencies, the boundaries of which are already determined and well known. There is no work to do to draw up boundaries: it creates constituencies with national or regional identities. Since it employs a system of proportional representation, the way in which the boundaries of these constituencies are drawn has little impact on the overall result—quite different from the single Member system. Opportunities for gerrymandering do not exist. It uses a system of proportional representation already applied and working in our country.
My Lords, this Bill is put forward as a sincere attempt to ensure that Britain is ready to take part in direct elections to the European Parliament in 1978. I appeal to the Government to consider very seriously whether they can adopt it as their own. In the meantime, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Banks).
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Banks, on introducing his Bill and, furthermore, to congratulate the Liberal Party on having produced a Bill which, if I may say so, seems sensible and makes sense. It should be a matter of shame to the Government that an Opposition Party, which certainly has no more funds than other Opposition Parties, and may well have less, should have been able to produce a Bill whereas this vacillating Government, so far as we know, still seem to be unable to put forward any legislative proposals at all. To our shame, both as a nation and as a member of the European Economic Community, nothing is done to fulfil our own international obligations. I have said that the Bill is sensible and makes sense. I do not by that mean to be taken as agreeing necessarily with every part of it. Nevertheless, as I said, the Bill is coherent and forms a reasonable basis for discussion. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, wishes me to give way, but I cheerfully will do so.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am not at all surprised at what the noble Earl has said. He talks about the Labour Government vacillating. But he starts by vacillating himself: he likes the Bill but he wants to exclude from it the most salient part.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, let me say where I vacillate. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, must not be too presumptuous. In the course of my remarks I will come to why the Government are vacillating.
We have to face the fact that, unless the Government were to embrace this Bill, there is absolutely no chance of its getting on to the Statute Book. I see the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is shaking his head. Whether he is disagreeing with me or rejecting any form of embrace in the future, I know not, but I still hold to my contention. Unless this Bill can go through your Lordships' House and then be embraced by the Government, it will not become law. For that reason therefore I do not think that we can discuss it with all the passion that we would if there were a real chance of its becoming law. I say that for a number of reasons. Luckily in this House when we have debates such as this we do not have to go right back to first principles and debate whether we should be in the European Community. Secondly, we do not have to go back to second principles and debate whether we should have a directly-elected European Parliament.
I think most noble Lords, whatever position they occupy in the House, will agree with those points. But while I have said that unless it was embraced and indeed adopted by the Government this Bill will not become law, it also follows that, unless the Government produce a Bill which can receive a substantial amount of all-Party agreement, it seems unlikely that another Bill would become law, either. So the Government have to consider this not only from their own narrow partisan point of view but from the point of view of other Parties, particularly in the other place. When the moment comes for the Government to produce some form of legislative proposals and they come to your Lordships' House, whether before or after they have been to the other place, then your Lordships will consider them with the greatest care

859
and will make the appropriate comments. I have no doubt about that.
At the moment I do not intend to get myself bogged down in the niceties of proportional representation. May I just say this to the noble Lord, Lord Banks: the trouble about proportional representation is that, whatever private feelings any of us may have as to the fairness of the system, as soon as one puts forward one form of proportional representation the protagonists of other forms of it pop up immediately and say, "No, that is not a satisfactory way of doing it: ours is the better way". For every person who wants the single transferable vote system there are two people who want the amended list system; and for every two people who want the amended list system there are probably three people who would like to embrace the Finnish idea. So it is by no means easy, in talking about proportional representation, to discover some form of it which is going to be universally accepted.
I listened to what the noble Lord said about the failures or potential failures of the election for a single Member constituency if voting trends—I think it was probably Mr. Steed he was quoting from—came through at a European Parliamentary election. I personally do not accept all the assumptions put forward by that gentleman in his pamphlet. For instance, the mid-term swings against a Government are usually unrepresentative when it comes to a General Election. Whether it follows that a Government which is unpopular, as this Government have been during the last few months, will continue to be so when we have direct elections for a European Parliament next year, if we are to have them, is very doubtful indeed. So, although I agree with Mr. Steed in much of what he says, I do not accept many of his contentions: indeed, I think it is dangerous to do so.
One or two features of the Bill are highly commendable. It is an excellent idea to extend the vote to persons who, if they were in this country, would be entitled to vote, but who for some reason—technical up to now—are not entitled to vote if they happen to be living elsewhere in the Community. I understand why it has not been considered possible to extend that entitlement to all British citizens or persons who normally have the right to vote outside the Community.
860
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris, a number of questions, which I do not suppose he will be able to answer, bearing in mind what has happened both in your Lordships' House and another place during the last few months. I do not intend to go over all the old ground which has been most effectively covered, for example, in an Unstarred Question which was asked by my noble friend Lord Chelwood in December. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did the best he could. Then we also had a Starred Question in January, which had much the same result. We have had a Motion in this House, and I believe there has been at least one Motion in the other place. All of this has occurred in the space of a few months; and it has all rehearsed the same arguments again and again. But I think there are a number of questions which the Government ought to answer. I say that because, although I have now been out of the European Parliament for two years, it is possible to sense, if one hears the comments of one's colleagues, the acute shame and embarrassment which they feel when they go into Europe each week and are asked questions such as: "What is your country doing about it? Why are you not in a position at least to say 'Yea' or 'Nay' as to whether you intend to honour your commitments?"
We on these Benches would prefer the initial direct election to follow the recommendations of the Select Committee so far as it can. That was a Committee of Members of the elected House in Parliament and they came to a speedy and generally agreed conclusion on all matters which they think affect the proposals for direct elections. Their proposals could, I suggest, be embodied quite easily in a Bill. I appreciate there has to be time for consultation and reflection and for a number of legal experts to work out the results. Nevertheless, we feel that the proposals of the Select Committee are sensible and should be adopted, at least for the first election.
I come back to the question of the Boundary Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, says—and he may be right, but I should be extremely sad if it were indeed the case—there is no time now to make the complicated arrangements which the Boundary Commission would need to make to draw up single Member constituencies. Does the noble Lord,

861
Lord Harris, agree with that contention, or not? If it is so, it is a very serious matter indeed. Secondly, if there is still time—and from a remark of my honourable friend Mr. Dykes, when he proposed a Motion in the other place last month I would assume that there is still time—what procedures could we adopt in Parliament which would trigger off the work of the Boundary Commission? Up to now it seems to have been assumed that a Bill would almost have to receive Royal Assent before the Boundary Commission could get started. If that is so we must realise it; but I wonder whether it is so. My noble friend Lady Elles was twitted by some Members on the Government Benches when she used the words "proper procedures" on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House. What she meant was proper procedures as recommended by the Select Committee. One could perhaps call them "truncated procedures". Could they be gone through, and would they be satisfactory if they were?
Thirdly—and I realise this may possibly be more contentious—are the Government minded to hang on? Quite obviously, we cannot have a single Member constituency system because there really is not time for the Boundary Commission to do its job, in which case we should have to go over to some form of single list system, which I, for one, think would be thoroughly disagreeable. I am sure the Government have to take seriously the remarks of Mr. Steed in his pamphlet where he opines that the Labour Party would be decimated in any Election. Whether or not that is true, I suppose it is a displeasing prospect for the Government. I put it no higher than that.
Is the truth of the matter really—and one hesitates to ask the question, but the sense of urgency is now so great and the sense of national shame so burning that one has to—as the Financial Times today says:
"…the Cabinet is badly divided over the grave political damage that could be inflicted on the Labour Party by a Bill. A large number of Labour back-benchers have threatened to oppose the legislation.
"Ministers have been told that Labour faces the prospect of a massacre if elections are held on the suggested basis of huge new constituencies…and if the present 'first-past-the-post' system is used …Many Ministers now favour a regional list system with candidates chosen by their parties."
862
That is a horrible prospect of Party patronage or Government patronage or Opposition patronage being extended even further than it is at the moment. If that is the situation, it is an unfortunate one for this country, for our Parliamentary institutions and certainly for the European Community.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he answers the debate this afternoon, will be able to give a sensible timetable and not use this arcane waffle about "best endeavours". The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on a previous occasion in this House, pointed out what an unsatisfactory phrase it is. If one takes one's car to a garage for a service and asks whether it will be ready by Friday, and the garageman says that he will use his best endeavours, then one knows beyond any peradventure that it will not be ready by Friday and one makes one's arrangements accordingly. It would be very much better if the Government said: "These are proposals which we will try to put forward. Obviously, they have to be agreed by Parliament. This is the timetable which we are hoping to achieve. If we do not achieve it, it will not be through want of trying". That would be an honest way of conducting Parliamentary business, and the business of this country so far as elections to the European Parliament are concerned, and I hope that the noble Lord can reassure us at least to some extent.
3.32 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I need hardly say that all of us on these Benches hope, even if it is only a faint hope, that the hearts of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and of the members of the Government will melt and that they will agree to a Second Reading of this highly intelligent and in every way satisfactory Bill. I must say that I rather doubt it, but we must continue to hope. I myself am going to strike a slightly different line, if I may, and try to analyse the position as I see it at the moment.
The Government still say, as we all know, that they are prepared to use their best endeavours to be ready for direct elections to the European Parliament in May or June 1978. That is what they still maintain. But it is becoming increasingly clear, I am afraid, that these "best endeavours" will not amount to

863
very much for the simple reason that, if what we hear is true—and I have no doubt that it is true—the Cabinet is profoundly divided on the whole subject, some Members, no doubt a minority, being violently hostile to any idea of proceeding with direct elections at all, others, perhaps a smaller minority, being very much in favour, and the remainder being neutral and feeling that it does not matter very much, that we must somehow get out of the mess, and that if there are no elections it will not be the end of the world, certainly not the end of this country. That, I think, is the set-up in the Cabinet. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will tell me if I am wrong, though I very much doubt if he will.
Unless, therefore, the Government shortly produce some workable scheme for the electoral prodecure to be adopted for these elections, and are prepared to back it—and this, after all, will be very difficult, if not impossible, in the circumstances I have described—the whole project will certainly run into the sand, which is exactly what the opponents, those who are hostile to all forms of direct elections, want. And that would surely be all the more absurd, seeing that there is little doubt that there is a clear majority in the House of Commons as a whole, irrespective of Party, which wants direct elections to be held. Therefore, it is a paradoxical situation.
What, therefore, should be done? Speaking purely personally—I put this forward for what it is worth—I suggest that the only hope is for the Government to produce a White Paper as soon as possible, setting forth what appear to be three broad possibilities as regards electoral procedure. First is the "first past the post" system, with 81 constituencies as originally proposed in the report of the Select Committee. But seeing that, clearly—and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Banks—there is just not time for a Boundary Commission to define all the 81 constituency boundaries, they should take the bit between their teeth and publish, as an annex to the White Paper, a description of the 81 constituencies formed simply by merging together 8 or 9 constituencies, whatever the number may be. That might not be altogether fair, but at least it would be possible to vote on it.
864
Though we ourselves would think it highly undesirable, it would then be possible to vote for the "first past the post" system. We think that this system is inherently vicious and absurd in itself, but that is something which the House of Commons might, in its wisdom, decide to do. It cannot be denied that that is one possibility. But if they do put that forward, the Government should make it clear that, in their view, and in the view of any sensible person, there is not much chance, if that proposal is accepted by the House of Commons, of making arrangements in time for the direct elections next year, unless the proposal for a Boundary Commission is abolished and the constituencies are formed by, as it were, an act of will of the House of Commons itself. We should, I repeat, think that highly regrettable, but still it is a possibility.
The second broad possibility to which the Government should draw attention in their White Paper is that of porportional representation—I cannot see why they should not adopt this as a possibility—under the scheme put forward by my noble friend Lord Banks, which even the Conservative Party admit is, on the face of it, inherently reasonable, even though the Tory Party and others might dissent on certain minor features. I do not think there need be hundreds of schemes for proportional representation. If there is to be PR, why not have this one, which is most reasonable?
The third alternative should be national, or preferably regional, lists on the analogy of the system to be adopted by the French Parliament and, I believe, the Italian Parliament. No doubt it would not be very democratic, but at least it would be a reasonable way of getting directly elected representation in this country and it might, on the whole, be acceptable. It would certainly be better than having no elections at all; indeed a considerable amount could be said for it.
I suggest that the three proposals in the White Paper could then be put before the House of Commons, and a vote first taken on whether or not the House of Commons was determined to see to it that, by one means or another, 81 persons in this country were directly elected to the European Parliament in May or June next year. The first vote would therefore

865
be on the question of principle: does the House of Commons think that, in all the circumstances, there should definitely be such elections? I should hope that there would be a majority for it, but if there was not the whole thing would collapse. If, however, this preliminary vote was decided in the affirmative, then votes could be taken on the three broad alternatives which I have given, and in that order. All these points—and this is the essential feature of my suggestion—should be left to a free vote. The Parties are divided, but the House of Commons seems to have a majority in favour of direct elections, so why not leave it to a free vote of the House? Whatever happened, the Government would not then resign; they would simply undertake to carry out the wish of the majority of the House of Commons. It would not be a Party political question; it would rise above that and be a national question, decided by the House of Commons. I cannot see why anybody, more especially perhaps the Lord President, who believes that the House of Commons should be all-powerful, should object to that. He ought indeed to favour it.
As regards the likelihood of any one of these proposals being adopted, well, none may be. In that case, a completely paradoxical situation would arise. However, what is the likelihood of any one of them being acceptable? I have said that it is probable that a considerable majority in the other place would in principle be in favour of having direct elections to the European Parliament next year. Originally it seemed that there was likely to be a considerable majority in favour of holding these elections on the "first past the post" system. Quite apart from the anti-Europeans, a good many Europeans in the Labour Party, and also a large number of Tories, were in favour of the "first past the post" system which was put forward by the Select Committee. However, it is becoming increasingly clear, for the reasons already mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that such a system would result in the Labour Party, always assuming that it is in power next year, getting only a small proportion of the representation. Noble Lords may question the statistics put forward by Mr. Michael Steed, but they seem convincing to me. Anyway, the popularity of the "first past the post" system seems, if only for that
866
reason, to be waning among the ranks of Labour Members of Parliament. Indeed, to the extent that the popularity of the "first past the post" system is waning among Labour Members of the House of Commons, it plays into the hands of those Members of the Cabinet and elsewhere who do not want direct elections at all.
Proportional representation is still opposed by a considerable number of Tories, although by no means all. It is not very popular in Labour circles, either, although it is possible that if something like the scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, were put forward in the House of Commons as an alternative it might attract a majority of the votes. It is to be hoped so, because it is the best solution in the view of all reasonable people.
The third alternative—that is to say, a list or lists, preferably lists—might now be agreeable to many Labour supporters, more especially to European Labour supporters, although it is opposed by a considerable number of Tories. I do not quite know why, but if I heard correctly, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, seemed to regard the list system as fundamentally vicious. Anyhow, the noble Earl is opposed to it. As I say, I do not quite know why because it would not be a long-term proposal; it would be only for the next few years. It would set no precedent. It could not be a precedent for Elections in this country, nor would it be of advantage to the Liberal Party because no one would suggest that the list system should be adopted here. Nevertheless, it seems to be a reasonable compromise if we cannot agree on anything else.
Now if the Government really cannot make up their own mind—I understand that it is very difficult for them to make up their own mind in the circumstances, except at the cost of a governmental crisis and resignations which they do not want to occur—there seems in principle to be no reason why the collective will of the House of Commons on a free vote should not be allowed to prevail. This is a very grave national issue, a decision upon which should in no way be governed by Party political considerations. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he can give us any view about this proposal—whether he thinks that it is conceivable that the

867
Government might do something of the kind. I hesitate to imagine that they would do nothing of the kind, because it is a very reasonable and democratic proposal. All I am suggesting is that the House of Commons should decide. I hope therefore that the Government will at least take this idea into consideration.
3.44 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, maiden speakers in your Lordships' House crave the indulgence of the House and I must do so today, partly because I always seem to be speaking on European subjects and run the risk of inflicting Euro-boredom on your Lordships, but mainly because I find it impossible to be dispassionate on the subject matter of this Bill. Therefore I shall have to speak from the heart, which your Lordships may find embarrassing and possibly even extremely irritating.
We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for introducing the Bill today, because it gives us an opportunity to discuss this important subject. On 1st March the Foreign Secretary said in the other place:
"The unique quality of the Community is that it is an economic institution with a political future. It is also a solid buttress for democracy".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/77; col. 200.]
I could not agree more. That is the reason why we must have this Bill, or something like it, and why the European Economic Community needs direct elections. It was something to which the founders of the Community always looked forward right from the beginning.
When the Treaty of Rome was drafted in 1958 It was envisaged that the Assembly, as they called it then, would one day be directly elected. I understand, from refreshing my memory by looking at the Companion, that the Second Reading of a Bill is meant for discussion of the general principles of the Bill. We have already looked at most of the issues. Therefore I must say to your Lordships that what worries me about the subject is that the Government appear to have no principle at all about the Bill.
As I understand it, the Labour Party was founded to ensure greater representation in the counsels of the nation for
868
those who were not sufficiently represented. I do not want to give a lecture, but my edition of The Origins of the Labour Party by Henry Pelling, says on page 1, speaking of the end of the last century:
"The working class in this twilight period of democratic development still had no direct part in the government of the country and it was the object of the Labour Party to do something about that situation".
It is the object of direct elections to ensure that the people of this country and the people of all the countries in the European Economic Community have that kind of representation in the decision-making processes of the Community. Is it really the Government's intention that we in Britain should now return to that twilight period that Mr. Pelling was describing as the reason for the origin of the Labour Party nearly 100 years ago? What a shocking notion!
As I said, it was always envisaged by the founders of the Treaty of Rome that the European Parliament should be directly elected. No doubt it was not a subject of lively discussion at every one of the meetings which your Lordships attended during the referendum—if your Lordships did so. I did, and I must admit that it was not a regular topic for questioning. However, to those who say that the people of this country did not decide in favour of direct elections at the time of the referendum, the answer must be that those who were against membership of the Community had only to look at Articles 137 and 138 and the following articles of the Treaty of Rome to see that it was implicit in the Treaty that we, as a member of the Community, would move towards direct elections if we stayed in the Community.
I do not intend to dwell in detail on the proposals contained in this most interesting Bill which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I feel that by far the best approach to this novel and difficult introduction of a new form of election would have been if the Government had been able by now to bring forward some proposals which were in line with our traditional ways of conducting these questions. I wish—and it may be that it is still possible—that the proposals of the Select Committee of another place could be put into practice, so that we could go through the traditional processes of the Boundary Commission

869
conducting a rigorous examination into the constituencies that might be set up for this new type of election. I think the system of representation through constituency has served this country very well, and ideally for a very new type of election it would have been much better to continue with that system with which we are all familiar.
The Government have failed to get on with the job. I hope your Lordships will feel some sympathy with me when I say that because of the Government's failure we must not make Britain a failure; just because the Government cannot get on with the job of bringing in a system of democratic control the rest of us must not allow the name of Britain to be further trampled in the mud. That is what is happening at the moment. Our fellow members of the Community look to this country as the origin of Parliament, the source of the system of democratic control, but what do they see now? They see us almost proud of wearing the donkey's tail in regard to this subject.
I hope we can salvage something from the disastrous situation which the Government have brought on themselves. It may be that we should not altogether rule out a novel system of keeping to our commitments under the Treaty to introduce a system of elections. I have never been able to grasp fully the complexities and the differences between systems of proportional representation so I can hardly claim to speak from a deep understanding of those systems. But, my Lords—and I do not want to sound like a revivalist preacher—the Treaty says:
"The Assembly, which shall consist of representatives of the people".
The Treaty uses the word, "representatives". So, if because of the Government's muddles we are forced to have a novel and therefore perhaps awkward and divisive system of choosing our representatives—if we are forced to do that because of the delays which the Government have inflicted upon us—there is that word, "representatives" in the Treaty. That is the commitment we are trying to keep and therefore there are at least some grounds for thinking that we should use a fully representative system of elections. I am speaking as a member of Conservative Action for Electoral Reform.
870
To me, the question of elections to the European Parliament is separate from the general issue of electoral reform. We made a promise. The Government have done nothing serious about keeping that promise, but there is a chance that the name of Britain can be kept clean if perhaps one of these rather dangerous and novel systems is adopted, and I hope we shall not turn away from that.
I want to conclude by quoting some words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson—not the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet but Lord Thomson, of Dundee and Brussels, who, in his lecture last year, entitled, Britain in Europe—the First Four Years and the Future, said:
"One metaphoric version of old-fashioned British common sense that keeps cropping up is the proposition that blueprints are all very well, but you can never build a house starting with the roof. It is at least equally true that, if in building a house painstakingly brick by brick from the foundations you slow down almost to a standstill before the walls are completed and the roof is on, then in stormy weather the half-finished structure becomes so useless that it is likely to be abandoned. The real challenge to the Community in the period immediately ahead is to recover some of the vision of the original architects of the European Community and to generate enough of the political will to restore the momentum of the building of that house of Europe and to get its roof on as quickly as possible."
My Lords, at the moment the Government are not helping in that construction: they are stopping it. In fact they are getting near to wrecking it some of the time. We can urge them on by giving this Bill a Second Reading and we must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for introducing it in your Lordships' House. I hope that, if only as a legislative nudge towards this Government, the whole House will give the Bill a Second Reading today.
3.57 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, always speaks with obvious sincerity, although it is possible not to equate sincerity with reason. I make no complaint about his speech. One understands his point of view. From the very outset of this controversy he has accepted the EEC with all the trimmings, lock, stock and barrel. I leave it at that. However, at this stage I must offer your Lordships an apology. I did not put my name down and intimate that I intended to offer a few observations.

871
I have been preoccupied in various ways, and until today when I received a communication I had not even observed that the Bill was coming before your Lordships' House. I am on the horns of a dilemma and if I may use a familiar cliché I am likely to be impaled on either. I shall do my best to avoid it.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, offered me a cue which I accept at once. He attacked the Labour Government for vacillation and then, in dealing with this Bill, he indicated right away that he was prepared to accept what suited him; as to the rest, he rejected it. Anybody can do that kind of thing. Even I can do that and I am going to do it. I shall follow the noble Earl's example. I could not do better. So I reject everything in the Bill about direct elections and I accept the salient feature of the Bill, proportional representation. Does that satisfy the members of the Liberal Party? It ought to, because long before they thought about direct elections even to the EEC they advocated proportional representation. It is an old-timer.
I have written about it, although, unfortunately—and I do not know why—my observations in print received scant notice. Occasionally I take the opportunity to indulge in verbal advocacy, although I would much rather that what I wrote in 1973 had been taken note of. I have accepted the principle of proportional representation for many long years and I shall tell your Lordships why. It is because I am a democrat, and the "first past the post" election—the old-fashioned method of electioneering, for electing Members of Parliament or electing anybody to any kind of organisation—is anti-democratic. It is as simple as that.
I do not want to support the Liberal Party with exaggerated language. That might be going a bit too far and they might take advantage of it! In fact I do not support the Liberal Party although I support liberal principles. If only we could return to the halcyon days of Lord Haldane and even L.G.—when he was at his best and not at his worst, although he was more often at his worst than he was at his best, but I do not want to indulge in too much history—and John Morley and a few others of that ilk—the Liberal Government of all the
872
talents, and many who followed who joined the Labour Party, like Ponsonby and Trevelyan and Lees-Smith and a number of others! In fact they helped to build up the Labour Party; there was a large injection of Liberals into the Labour Party at an appropriate moment, which gave us an upsurge. It is just possible that if the late Lloyd George and the late Ramsay Macdonald—they are both late and lamented—had agreed on principle it might have changed the whole course of our political history. But they disliked each other for some unaccountable reason, probably because they were jealous of each other; that does happen in the political arena now and again.
Lord O'Hagan spoke passionately: he cannot speak dispassionately. I can understand it. He spoke from the heart. I sometimes do the same when I am in the mood, and sometimes I am factual, or try to be factual. But I cannot recall, when the EEC was first advocated, any reference to direct elections. I cannot even recall when we signed the Treaty of Accession any reference to direct elections. I appeal to the greatest authority in the country on this subject, Lord Gladwyn. There was no question of direct elections: it was implied perhaps. The implication has been used often by Lord Gladwyn and others. But there was no reference to direct elections to the European Parliament at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Accession, and certainly not at the outset. I am not saying there is anything particularly wrong. Indeed, I have gone so far on one occasion—the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, should take note of this—as to support him when he advocated, quite logically, that if you enter a community of this character on economic grounds, sooner or later you have got to accept the political implications. That is what he advocated and I think that is right and logical. The mistake is in starting at all.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord asserting that there is no reference to direct elections in the Treaty of Rome? Is that his view?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, there is in the Treaty no reference to direct elections to a European Parliament. Well, perhaps, the noble Lord might direct my attention to it. It so happens that,

873
fortuitously, I had the Treaty before me this morning. I was sorting out some periodicals and found the Treaty before me. But I admit it is an implication which is justified, and if I were a supporter of the EEC I would accept it lock, stock and barrel—I used this phrase before in connection with Lord O'Hagan—as the political ultimate.
My Lords, we could have a general debate on this Bill—and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, had it in mind—on almost every issue associated with the EEC. Lord O'Hagan did venture some way along the path when he spoke about the obligations that the Labour Government entered into when they signed the Treaty of Accession. They entered into obligations, when butter was produced ad lib in vast volume, that it should be distributed equally at a reasonable price and not handed over to our bitter enemies, the USSR. That is what we have come to. So when we talk about obligations, let us be very careful what we are talking about. So if I had to vote on this issue, I would vote against direct elections and vote for proportional representation, if it can be split up. I accept proportional representation. In my judgment, the Liberal Party might very well forget about direct elections, if they can get proportional representation. I am making that offer to them. They have a great chance in the future.
It is surprising. One would have thought that when a Bill of this character came before your Lordships' House Members of the House who were delegated to go to Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels, would be present to take part in the debate and tell us of their experiences—what they have gained; what are the advantages; was it worth while? That would have been useful. Instead of the impassioned speech of Lord O'Hagan, we might have heard from some of those who were delegated to go to these places overseas and enjoying themselves. Incidentally, some of them who were opponents of the EEC suddenly decided to be converted when there was an offer to go abroad. I do not say that is the only reason; one goes abroad for other reasons. But if they had been here today they might have told us all about it, and would have helped by noble friend, Lord Harris, in making a reply that would be
874
objective in character, even if it was not satisfactory to everybody in your Lordships' House.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, will the noble Lord not recognise that my noble friend Lord Mansfield was a member of the European Parliament; I also was a member of the European Parliament, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, so he has three with first-hand experience. Since the noble Lord has referred to me once or twice, perhaps I may say that he will find in Article 138 of the Treaty that direct elections are forecast.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Lord read it out, so that it will be on the Record?
Lord O'HAGAN: Article 138.3:
"The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
"The Council shall unanimously decide on the provisions which it shall recommend to Member States…".
I do not want to continue intervening, but I did want to ask the noble Lord this question. We gave up some sovereignty when we joined the Community. Does not the noble Lord want to give the British people a chance to get it back through the medium of direct elections, or is he happy to say good-bye to it?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the Assembly which now exists, and we know what has happened there. They said they were going to have direct elections for the Assembly, and we know what happened. They were nominated; there were no direct elections for that. There is no reference to direct elections to the European Parliament as such, this central organisation which is to control the whole area and all its transactions. There was nothing of that sort. I can recall no discussion on that subject at the time. However, about the Labour Party's attitude, they can please themselves. I do not know what is going to happen in another place. I am really indifferent; nowadays one becomes indifferent because of what is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke about direct elections taking place in 1978, at a time when probably we shall be engaged in a General Election. The result will be chaos.

875
As if we have not got enough on our plates without having two Elections at the same time, and contradictory in character.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, does the noble Lord not realise that elections are to be held in France at the same time in 1978?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, that is even worse, if France is in chaos; we shall all be in chaos. I ask Members of your Lordships' House not to interrupt me. They get the worst of it, so what is the point. I know the reply before they ask the question.
So that is the situation. What are we to do about this Bill? I offer a compromise to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who made an excellent speech and stated his case with great skill. I should have liked to support him. All I can offer him is support on the subject of proportional representation. I say this quite sincerely to Members of your Lordships' House. Whether we like it or not, one of these days we are going to have proportional representation: it is inevitable. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, referred to the controversy, the disputation, among those who are advocates of proportional representation. He said, "There they are. Some advocate the single transferable vote, some advocate this system and some advocate that system". What is wrong with that? Unlike the Conservative Party—which has no ideas, it is static and sticks in the mud—the Liberals are changing about a bit, which is very good. It is a good thing if there are some who hold controversial views about the kind of proportional representation that we have. We should have more discussion in political circles—not academic discussions—on the extremely important technical aspects. My Lords, my advice to colleagues is to reject the Bill as such and to leave it to another place to decide what should be done about direct elections. We should accept their authority when they decide. We should give the very important principle of proportional representation all the support that we can afford.
4.11 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My
876
Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for having opened this debate and introducing this Bill. It has given us the opportunity to return to a matter which has already occupied a fair amount of time in your Lordships' House in the past few months. The Bill combines two matters which have received a great deal of attention in this House. The first is the question of direct elections to the European Parliament, and the second is the issue of proportional representation. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, made clear, the Bill seeks to implement the Liberal Party's policy of holding direct elections by the form of proportional representation known as the single transferable vote.
I shall deal, first, with the Government's position on the question of direct elections. The Government have undertaken to "use their best endeavours" to be ready for direct elections by May/June 1978. I make no apology for using that term because it was the term employed by the Council of Ministers and is not the language solely of the British Government—it was a collective decision of Ministers of our EEC partners. I am quite sure that that will reassure the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. As the House will recall, in the gracious Speech, there was a commitment to introduce the necessary legislation in the current Session of Parliament.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently announced that the Government intend to publish a White Paper in response to the reports of the Select Committee in another place on the issue of direct elections. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, perfectly reasonably said that the Government should argue out some of the various alternatives. That, indeed, will be done in the White Paper. To some extent that should reassure the noble Lord. The White Paper may well contain the answers to a number of questions asked by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. He will appreciate that the White Paper is in the course of preparation, and until its preparation is complete it is difficult to say that all the noble Earl's questions will be answered. However, the ground will certainly be covered. The noble Earl asked one specific question which was dealt with in our first debate on this issue, namely, the question of the timing of the Boundary Commission

877
procedures. If the "first past the post" system is employed, the Boundary Commission would be able to undertake a certain amount of informal work before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, but inevitably its formal procedures could not begin until the Bill has received the Royal Assent.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but when shall we receive copies of the White Paper? Is it in draft or proof form yet, and will it still have green edges?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with his customary skill the noble Earl has anticipated my next point, that the White Paper will have green edges. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, indicated earlier that it will indeed have green edges. A number of problems are associated with this situation with which I should like to deal.
As I have indicated, we remain committed to "use our best endeavours"—again the language of the Council of Ministers—to meet the target date, which is May or June of next year. This is a subject which is of major constitutional importance and certainly it is right that we should endeavour to reach the right solution on what will certainly be a most important piece of legislation. The Government have therefore been giving the most careful thought to the problems which may arise in adapting our traditional electoral practices to European elections. Different options have been examined, and none has yet been rejected.
The Government have certainly been greatly assisted by the reports on this matter of the Select Committee which sat in another place. The Government's White Paper will be a response to those reports and, as I have indicated, it will have green edges. A Parliamentary debate on the White Paper will be arranged when the White Paper has been published. The Government's decision on the final form of the legislation will be taken in the light of that further consultation and debate.
The Select Committee on Direct Elections reported towards the end of August on the question of the electoral system to be used. They recommended
878
our present first past the post system and suggested that the constituencies should be drawn up by the Boundary Commissions using a curtailed version of the Westminster procedures. Their last report, which was published only at the end of November, contains a whole variety of other recommendations, some of which, of necessity, will have to be dealt with in the proposed legislation. Some of these are significant departures from our present electoral arrangements. There is for instance—and this has been mentioned—the proposal for an extension of the franchise to United Kingdom nationals resident abroad. This carries with it major implications for the manner in which the elections will be organised in this country. There is the difficult and inevitably controversial question of how many seats should be distributed to each part of the United Kingdom. It seems only natural that the Government should have preferred—and still do prefer—to introduce a Bill which deals comprehensively with all the questions which must be settled before we can hold direct elections.
The Government take the view that, in this difficult area, the ground needs to be thoroughly prepared before legislation is introduced. Helpful as the reports from the Select Committee on Direct Elections have been, it is apparent that major areas of controversy still exist. It is in an attempt to reach a wider consensus that the Government are publishing their White Paper. Although this undoubtedly involves some delay to the introduction of legislation, the Government very much hope that this preparatory work will not be wasted and that the resulting Bill will prove acceptable. I therefore recommend your Lordships to await the White Paper, to consider and debate it, and to take the subject of direct elections forward in that context rather than on the basis of the Bill introduced this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. The present Bill is not based on any form of consensus and offers a solution to the problem of the electoral system which may not prove to be ideal in the circumstances.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, spoke as ever with vigour and made a remarkably interesting speech. He began by saying that this is a sensible Bill, which I thought was an interesting statement given the ground covered by the Bill, and I waited with interest to hear that the Conservative

879
Party had committed itself to the idea that we should introduce proportional representation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, would agree that a statement of that sort would be a matter of widespread interest. Having made a firm statement in rather ringing terms, the noble Earl then began to qualify the sensible character of the Bill, saying—and I believe that I took a correct note of his remarks:
"I am not agreeing to every part of it".
That was a minor reservation. I supposed that he had some slight doubt about the question of the electoral deposit or some question of that sort. But no, it was not that about which he had the reservations; they were about the central feature of the Bill itself. The House should recognise that the qualification that the noble Earl has is central to the whole purpose of the Bill which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
We have just heard a remarkable speech from my noble friend Lord Shinwell. It was a boisterous performance. I think it is only right to say that my noble friend was interested earlier this afternoon in the problems of the retired, and wanted to know what action the Government should take to deal with the problems of people who were retired. I am bound to say that my noble friend illustrates how the retired can use their time fairly effectively. He rejected the principle of direct elections but was enthusiastic for proportional representation. He was the obverse of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield.
I think that the situation is fairly clear on the question of direct elections. It was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that Article 138 of the Treaty is fairly clear on the matter. It is only right to say that in Article 138 there appears to be a clear and specific reference to direct elections and the way in which they should be organised. I have noted some criticism of those who, like my noble friend, were not in favour of the country joining the European Economic Community. I seem to recall during the referendum campaign a substantial amount of criticism being directed at the idea that we were handing over power to a remote and anonymous bureaucracy in Brussels. It seems to me that one way of dealing with this particular problem, if people regard it as so central, is to have direct
880
elections, and the Government are committed to that proposition.
My noble friend referred to the absence of Members of the European Parliament from our proceedings today. It is only fair to say that there is a meeting of the European Parliament this week, and no doubt a number of our colleagues are there. He said that some of those who had gone to the European Parliament were opponents of entry. He seemed to regard it as surprising, indeed unusual, that they had been prepared to take on the burden of membership of the European Parliament if they had been opposed to the principle of this country joining.
There is another explanation for that; that is, that they have accepted the verdict of the British people that was given in a clear and unequivocal fashion in the summer of 1975. The British people voted quite clearly for British membership of the European Community, and great credit is due to those of our colleagues who, having opposed British membership of the Community, have now loyally accepted the decision of the British people. Many of those who were most passionately opposed to British membership were strongly in favour of the referendum, and great credit attaches to those of our colleagues who have accepted the verdict of the referendum.
As I have indicated, and I return to the Bill, we have not dismissed out of hand the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. All the options remain open. Yet it is only right for us today to recognise some of the difficulties. The system which the noble Lord advocates has never been used for large constituencies. In the Republic of Ireland where the single transferable vote is used, the Dail constituencies tend on average to be a great deal smaller than Westminster constituencies. The Liberal Party have in the past taken the line that our experience in "Northern Ireland proves conclusively how easy it would be to introduce the single transferable vote for direct elections. But our experience in Northern Ireland provides little precedent for the counting of up to 5 million votes—for that is the size of one of the constituencies that appears in Lord Banks' Bill—and the allocation of seats for votes on one of the most complex systems yet devised. It is argued by some that it would be better to

881
adopt some variants of the Party list system. In one form or another this seems likely to be used for direct elections by all our EEC partners except the Republic of Ireland. Nevertheless, we must recognise some of the difficulties with a list system. It confers great power for national or regional Party organisations. It also makes the position of independent candidates virtually impossible.
I have today set out some of the options. They will clearly be raised and argued out in the national debate on direct elections to the European Parliament which will now take place. Within a very short period the Government will produce their White Paper. Immediately afterwards there will be consultations and debates in Parliament on the White Paper, and following this the Government will produce their Bill. It seems to me that this is the right way to proceed, and in the light of that I hope that the noble Lord will agree not to press his Bill.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question: If the timetable that he has outlined—the White Paper, the discussions, the debates, and the Bill—is adhered to, is the noble Lord satisfied that we can in fact have direct elections in this country in May or June of next year?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords. I have indicated that the Government have not in any way retreated from the position set out in the gracious Speech.
4.26 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate this afternoon. I should particularly like to express appreciation of the congratulations offered to us by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who said that the Bill was sensible and makes sense. It seems to me that that is a good starting point for our Bill: "It is sensible, and makes sense". The difficulty which the noble Earl had was that he felt that where one form of proportional representation was put forward another form of proportional representation was immediately proposed by somebody else. He did not tell us what his choice is. It is certainly a question of making choices. However, we believe that that is what the
882
Houses of Parliament are here for; to make choices between the various options that are presented.
While I would maintain that any form of proportional representation is better than none, I believe that there might well be much more agreement on the single transferable vote than the noble Earl has allowed. The important decision that has to be made is not what form of proportional representation is going to be adopted, but that we are to have a form of proportional representation. That is the major decision which has to be made, and it is a matter on which the Government as yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has pointed out, have not come to any decision.
I am sure that the Government will be greatly encouraged by what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said about the distortion created by the very large single Member constituencies of some 500,000 electors apiece. I remain convinced that if you have single Member constituencies of that size, they must tend to reflect the general opinion throughout the country. This must mean that the Party at the top of the opinion poll must be in a position to scoop the pool, which means very considerable distortion. I would re-mind the House of what I said earlier about the effect of this on the political balance in the European Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, reminded us that the majority in another place wanted direct elections, which makes the delay the more paradoxical and ridiculous. The noble Lord was anxious to see the scheme incorporated in the Bill presented to the House of Commons as an option. I suggest that by passing it through your Lordships' House we would be doing just that.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said that we needed this Bill, or something like it. He said, and I agree with him, that we must not hold back, if we feel that this is a matter of vital importance, because the Government hold back. He underlined that the case for proportional representation in European elections was a special case, and that it need not necessarily follow that because one advocated that, that one advocated it for all other types of election.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was of course hostile to the concept of direct

883
elections—though perhaps he was persuaded in the long run that they were provided for in the Treaty of Rome—and we have all along known that he was opposed to British membership of the EEC. That is not now an issue. We are in and we all have to make it work, and in making it work we should apply the principle which Lord Shinwell upheld so strongly, that of proportional representation.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and I am convinced that he is a supporter of direct elections to the European Parliament. I would not go so far as to say that he supports proportional representation for those elections, but I know that he is a good European and I am sure of where his general sympathies lie in this matter. Nevertheless, he seemed to me not to take us any further forward than he has on previous occasions, and what he has said on previous occasions has not satisfied many of your Lordships; we have felt that there was unnecessary delay and that that delay might well prejudice the whole of the holding of these elections.
Lord Harris said that all the options are open. We certainly want options, but it is not options only; decisions are needed, and in this Bill we have made a decision and put forward a proposal which we believe provides a simple scheme, a tried system—a system which, incidentally, will be used for these elections by the Republic of Ireland—and a system which will obviate possible distortion and get rid of all possible delays. One cannot over-emphasise the importance of this country's taking part in these direct elections in 1978, and being ready to do so, along with the other Member States; and because I believe it is so urgent and important I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
4.33 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second
884
time. The aim of the Bill is to place the finances of the Covent Garden Market Authority on a sound basis so that New Covent Garden Market can be made viable. The market, as noble Lords will know, was moved from Covent Garden to Nine Elms in 1974. The market is the largest in the country and now provides modern wholesale horticultural marketing facilities which are second to none. The Authority, responsible for its operations, have no other sources of revenue than that derived from the market and its associated premises.
Perhaps I may briefly summarise the historical background leading to the present financial position before I go on to explain the Government's proposals in the Bill in more detail. The Covent Garden Market Act 1961 established the Authority to take over the old market from the private market company who were then operating it, and to rebuild and improve it at Covent Garden. But a new market on that site was shown later to be impracticable and the Authority obtained powers under the Covent Garden Market Act 1966 to move the market to Nine Elms on railway land then becoming redundant. Under Government economic restrictions of the day, however, major construction work was deferred in 1966, and although planning and site acquisition continued, the main building contract for the new market was not begun until 1971.
The market has been entirely financed from Government funds. About £10 million of the expected final cost of about £43 million has been provided from the grants made available by the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 for modernising wholesale horticultural markets of national importance in the United Kingdom. The remaining costs have been met by long-term loans, under normal conditions, taken from the National Loans Fund.
In order to provide the conditions for a successful move and to give traders an opportunity to settle into new and unfamiliar premises, the then Government in 1970 sanctioned the principle of initial sub-economic rents for trading and associated office space at the new market. After lengthy negotiations, the Authority and the traders agreed terms on this basis in 1973. The agreements provided for settled rents, including provision for

885
services, on a six-year lease from November 1974 (when the new market opened for trading) with a fixed 10 per cent. increase after the third year.
The construction period coincided with an unforeseen rise in inflation, having consequent effects on the costs of the building work and loan interest rates, and on the costs of running the market. This led to rapidly accumulating loan charges and the deficit in the first year of the new market, ending in October 1975, was £3.9 million, with little prospect of early improvement. At the end of 1975 the Authority concluded that they were un-likely to meet their financial duty of breaking even, one year with another. They reported the position officially to my noble friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Government considered carefully the steps that should be taken to deal with the situation. We were of course well aware of the importance of the market both to national distribution and in the role of price setting; a stabilising and beneficial influence for the consumer in determining prices for horticultural produce. To dispose of the market for other purposes would result in the disruption of fruit and vegetable distribution on a wide scale, with adverse effects on consumers and horticultural producers. Disposing of the market for continued use as such under some body other than the Authority would not serve to eliminate the Authority's debts.
Of immediate practical concern, the Authority's borrowing powers are limited by the existing Covent Garden Market Acts to £45 million, a limit which would be used up within the next year if the Authority's borrowings continued at the expected rate. Primary legislation would be needed to increase this limit and let the Authority carry on. The Government have concluded in these circumstances that it should seek the approval of Parliament to the present Bill and provide thereby for the continuation of the market.
I will now deal with the more important provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 effects the reduction of the Authority's debts to a manageable level by writing off £13 million of their liabilities and suspending a maximum of a further £25 million. This will leave the Authority with active debt
886
of some £6 to £7 million on normal National Loans Fund terms, taking into account liabilities which have still to be met for the construction and other capital costs of the project.
The write-off, we consider, is fully justified by the unique situation of the Authority. This is very different from that of the local authorities operating rather similar markets. I have mentioned already the unique position of the Authority, but there are other important factors to be considered. The proceeds from the sale of the old market were relatively small due, in some measure, to the historic nature of the buildings there, while on the other hand the release of the site for other use confers very considerable social benefit on the whole community. The Authority also suffers disadvantages in relation to taxes and rates.
My Lords, I should next explain the concept of the suspended debt. This is not written off. It will be revived as circumstances permit. So long as debts are suspended, however, no interest is chargeable on them, nor is there any requirement for repayment of capital. Once the reconstruction has taken place no further debt can be suspended, and once any of these suspended liabilities have been revived they cannot be re-suspended. This clause goes on to provide that the amount of suspended debt shall be shown suitably and prominently in the Authority's accounts. Noble Lords may know that during consideration of the Bill in another place it was amended in respect of the way the suspended debt should appear in the accounts and the provision now fully resolves the doubts that were there ex-pressed. I suggest that the remainder of Clause 1 provides the necessary flexibility for deciding the amount and timing of suspension in consultation with the Authority and with the approval of the Treasury.
My Lords, Clause 2 provides my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with a reserve power to direct the Authority to dispose of assets if in his view this will promote the proper exercise of their powers or duties. He must consult the Authority in exercising this power, and our seeking such a power does not imply a lack of confidence in the Authority's will to dispose of assets which appear to them no longer necessary

887
for the performance of their proper functions. They have a highly responsible view of their duties, and here I should like to pay a tribute to them. But what we are seeking here is a reserve power providing for the unforeseen eventuality where a direction could be used to act in support of the Authority in the public interest.
My Lords, Clause 3 amends certain provisions of the Covent Garden Market Act 1961 in consequence of the action being taken to reduce the liabilities of the Authority under Clause 1. The most significant concern the powers of direction sought over the Authority's financial affairs. Subsection (2) retains the pro-vision of Section 37 of the 1961 Act in that the Authority are required to break even, taking one year with another, but it adds a duty to achieve such further financial targets as may be considered desirable. It also adds a power to direct the Authority in the use of their powers so as to achieve the objectives. There must be prior consultation with the Authority in setting the objectives and over any direction that is given.
I have now dealt with the provisions of the Bill which represent the Exchequer's financial contribution for the improvement of the Authority's and of course the market's financial standing. Market traders and other users must also contribute to this improvement. They are, I know, running their businesses on fine margins but it is, I think, reasonable to expect them to be ready to pay the cost of running the market which provides the services they need and to contribute something—increasingly in the longer term—to the cost of the capital assets. At the same time, it is right that the costs of market operation should be reduced to the greatest extent possible consistent with reasonable standards and I am glad to be able to report to the House that market tenants, together with market workers and users' representatives, are now ready to take part in a Working Party with the Authority, directed at finding economies in the provision of market services.
My Lords, the Authority, it is universally acknowledged, have done a splendid job in carrying through the move of the market and establishing it at Nine Elms. We believe they can perform equally well
888
in running the established market. But marketing needs are not static and, in providing for changes and continued efficient operation of the market, the Authority recognise, as we do, the need to work in close co-operation with users of the services which they provide.
My Lords, the Bill is the statutory part of a package to put the country's premier wholesale horticultural market on a continuing viable basis. Repayment of certain debts will be delayed or forgone, but we consider that the realities of the situation must be faced and that the Bill represents an essential measure in the public interest. Accordingly, I commend this Bill to your Lordships and beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
4.48 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for going into considerable detail on this important Bill. It is of course a certified Money Bill and therefore your Lordships' House will be placed under the constraints of the Parliament Act 1911. The history of the situation dates back a little earlier than the noble Lord suggested because it dates from the Runciman Report of 1960, and this is really one of the fundamental problems out of which arose the financial position in which the Authority finds itself today. The Runciman Report was opposed in the days of the Labour Opposition on the grounds that it would be very much better not to treat the problem of a single authority—in those days it was the Covent Garden Company—as a separate unit but rather to set up a complete London Market Authority. The Labour Opposition suggested that Covent Garden, Billingsgate, Spitalfields and Smithfield should also be taken into account.
Of course we have learned a great deal since those days, and I believe that the Government, in bringing their Bill to your Lordships' House this afternoon, should recognise that they have also learned a considerable amount about establishing markets because, of course, all over the United Kingdom mistakes have been made. I believe that not only Governments but also the architectural profession should recognise this; after all, who, today, would set up a place such as the Bull Ring in Birmingham or the market complex

889
round the Elephant and Castle, only a few miles from this place?
I have visited the Nine Elms site, not in great detail, but I feel that anybody who visits it would say that it has justly earned the epithet, "Colditz", which has been attributed to it. We may call it Colditz or we may call it "Moonland", but architectural advisers have produced a design which we hope is proving a satisfactory set-up in which the market can operate. But it is not necessarily what the consuming public have found satisfactory to look at. This, of course, centres on the conservation argument.
I should like to pay tribute to my right honourable friend Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, who started the conservation argument as long ago as 1964 in listing certain buildings. This led to a whole movement within the Covent Garden area which eventually turned into a theme in planning the revised site at Nine Elms. I think that we are looking today at the end point, and to apply a simplistic argument is very easy; one can say: "You cannot have your cake and eat it". This is what the Government have attempted to do. In looking at this Bill we have at some point to decide upon a means whereby the site is paid for, the conservation is adequately seen to, and a satisfactory market provision is agreed. I should like to go over the ground in a little detail here because enormous sums of money are being dealt with. We are asked in the course of the Bill to nod in passing to the write-off of £13 million initially, and secondly to suspend £25 million debt, making a total of £38 million, and to provide for a set of circumstances in which the Authority and the Minister may find themselves in the future.
It was never envisaged at its inception that the market would cost more than £43 million, and we are looking at a debt today of approximately £38 million, with other commitments added in. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, rightly, has mentioned that £10 million has been drawn from sources within the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964, and he has also referred to the consequences of the initial deficit; that is, of £3·9 million in December 1975.
I should like to pay tribute to the two chairmen of the Authority. Sir Henry
890
Authority extremely well and have further enabled a very difficult move to take place. Nobody could have envisaged in the early 1970s that the money market was going to be as fluctuating as it has proved to be, nor was it expected that the borrowing powers would have to be so large as they subsequently proved to be.
One of the principle difficulties of the whole operation has been the sale of the site at Covent Garden, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned that the sale could have been more satisfactory. Indeed, from figures mentioned in another place it was quite clear that although the site could have been sold for approximately £20 million, the sum actually realised was approximately £10 million. Therefore we are paying—and we must recognise this—a high price for conserving a whole area in the centre of London. We believe that there are balances to be examined here in regard to conservation, and bearing in mind that your Lordships will shortly be debating a Motion by my noble friend Lord Sandford on inner-city areas, I should point out that here is one of the prices that we have to pay for conserving a very important inner-city area. We believe that we should recognise what a high price it is and set it down very clearly in argument. We also believe that to conserve this particular area has been a worthwhile operation, and as time proceeds we expect that the conservation policy will prove to have been very worth while.
I should like to ask the noble Lord three questions. First, can he explain a little more about the suspended debt; that is to say, the £25 million which it is proposed to set into this particular category? Secondly, I should like to draw attention to the financial targets which are set out in Clause 3(2), and would ask whether the noble Lord believes that these financial targets are realistic in the light of the current financial position. Thirdly, there is the problem of the additional figure of £500,000, which the Government mentioned on 11th January, in the debate on the Second Reading in another place. I should like to refresh the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to the effect that his honourable friend Mr. Bishop said, as reported at column 1275 of the Official Report

891
In the debate on the Second Reading a number of questions were repeatedly asked of the Government: how this figure was going to be made up; whether it was to be a levy; whether it was to be paid for by an increase in rental; or whether it was to be gathered from market traders in some other way. The Government were remarkably elusive on this point, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, might be able to give us a little further information.
It is quite clear that the Bill is the end product of a long period of delay, and one must also recognise that the policy of postponement which the Labour Government of 1966 carried out is one of the causes of the present debt. In an era in which building costs have risen so sharply—indeed, I am told that since 1973 building costs have increased by no less than 120 per cent.—I think it is remarkable that the debt has not increased to an even greater extent, and so I hope that the Government will be able to assure us that the extent of the present financial provisions included in the Bill will be sufficient to meet the whole position.
4.57 p.m.
Viscount SIDMOUTH: My Lords, this is indeed a serious position that has arisen with regard to the Covent Garden market, and I feel sure that your Lordships will agree that the provisions of the Bill are probably now the only way in which the situation can be met. To that extent I certainly would support the Bill. We have heard of some of the financial back ground which has led to this unfortunate position, and first of all the delays which led to increased building costs, at least double the original estimates, on which the feasibility studies were originally done. There is also the question of the increase in loan costs which has been encountered in recent years. We have heard, too, about the reduced sums realised by the old Covent Garden market site, which have greatly increased the indebtedness of the Authority.
I should like to take up points which have been already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in that I think that some quite fundamental mistakes have been made in policy which have also contributed to this situation. I refer back to the period round about 1964,
892
because that was the date of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act which has been referred to, and which initiated a national policy of improving horticultural markets throughout the country, of which Covent Garden was only one. The elected office that I happened to hold at that time in the National Farmers' Union put me in the position of being a spokesman in the discussions that took place. These were very much concerned with the possibility of our entry into the Common Market, and with what should be and could be done to put us in a position to be competitive if and when that event took place.
As a part of our preparations for this, we undertook very extensive studies of what was being done on the Continent, where a great deal of improvement was also being carried out at that time, and we hoped to benefit from what was being done there. Arising from these studies, I personally was called in by three authorities here—that is to say, Liverpool, Birmingham and Newcastle—to advise on the conclusions to which we had come. What we said then was that it was quite apparent that the state of the industry was such that considerable financial stringency would arise with regard to rents. I must confess we had a self-interest in this, because the rents paid by the traders, the wholesalers, come ultimately from the commission which we, as producers, pay them. We felt that, in normal circumstances, this would mean that horticultural markets were no longer a centre-of-city activity; they were basically an out-of-town activity. This had cer-certainly been accepted in several big cities in the United States, where money was then, and probably still is, less of a consideration than it has to be here. The costs of operating inside cities—and there is no need to elaborate the point—are a great deal more so far as staff and many running costs are concerned. I would cite only the question of rubbish disposal, which is a major problem in horticultural markets.
For that reason, my Lords, we and the other authorities concerned strongly advised that out-of-town markets were what were required. It is perhaps of interest, looking forward from that time, to see that at Birmingham, where we foresaw a potential white elephant in the otherwise splendid Bull Ring development taking place, that that has come to pass;

893
and that in the case of the other one where we also sat down with the local authority—namely, Newcastle—and where they took a different line, they have opened a very efficient and rather happy, including financially happy, market South of the river at Gateshead. Our fears were based on the fact that horticulture was then, and is no longer now, a protected industry, and it was therefore probable that we would be coming under pressure from EEC conditions. There was another consideration, too, and that was that, although wholesale markets were, and still are, greatly important, in the scheme of things, in the distribution of fresh produce in this country, none the less there were certain factors which were reducing the volume of produce passing through wholesale markets. One obvious example is the growth of big buyers—Sainsbury's, Tesco, Marks and Spencer—who, of course, like to deal with large sellers; and there has been a tendency to form co-operatives and other selling operations in order to cope with this. These parties deal directly with each other, and do not go through the market.
My Lords, I should like to deal with another fallacy, as I see it, which has run right through the policies of both Governments on Covent Garden as such. Indeed, it featured to some extent in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in his opening speech. That is, that great stress has always been laid on the national price-fixing role of the central market. This phrase I think started with Runciman, and has recurred repeatedly throughout. Of course, a price-fixing role is one of the primary objects of any market, and a national role is extremely important; but the French, who started on this exercise before we did, I think used superior logic, at any rate in this particular matter. They came upon the same point, and they came to the conclusion that this was a matter for market intelligence.
It is perfectly true that years ago one could go to Covent Garden market and could see produce which we had laboriously sent up there with tickets on it for Torquay, Leicester or many places throughout the country. This, of course, is an essential role, but it is equally absurd because you do not transport traffic into the centre of a city simply to send it out again. The French system was based on setting up a countrywide network of telex communications centred on the
894
markets in each provincial area, which really had the effect of creating a unified market throughout France. This price-fixing role is much more efficient and better than anything Covent Garden can do simply on its own, because it reflects the increasing importance of the provincial markets, which has also happened here, and enables the supply and demand situation, which is critical in dealing with perishables, to have full effect.
My Lords, I should like to conclude by referring to the contribution which it is intended should be made by the users of the market. It is obviously fair and above board, and only right, that there should be a contribution to the costs by the users. But I would urge—and I am delighted to hear that these are being arranged—that there should be consultations between the Authority and all concerned with the working of the market, including, of course, the staff, because I believe that there is evidence that the costs of operating this market are considerably higher than they ought to be.
One could not go into details of their accounts, nor, indeed, am I competent to do so, but before sitting down I should like to cite one example which leads me to think that this is so. My company has an operation by which we produce flowers in Kenya, practically all of which are sold at the co-operative market in Aalsmeer, near Amsterdam. As foreigners, we pay 8 per cent. in commission there, as against the 10 per cent. that we pay as natives in Covent Garden. But if we were members of the auction we would pay only 4 per cent.; and I believe—in fact, I am sure—that as this is a co operative market owned by the producers, the growers, the 4 per cent. represents the cost of operating the market. There is no profit element there. Indeed, in many years the members of the auction receive a bonus at the end of the year of what is surplus to what has been produced by their 4 per cent. commission. My Lords, I believe that the difference between that and what we have to pay in Covent Garden and, indeed, in some other markets in this country, illustrates the fact that there is room for improvement and a reduction in costs.
5.8 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this debate has been short but I have found it

895
a stimulating occasion and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lords Sandys, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, for their contributions. Before I seek to answer particular points, there are I think a few general points which I should like to develop, especially in view of some of the general remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. With regard to the Authority's revenues, there is no way in which the Authority's revenues can be increased to clear a debt of these proportions if it is allowed to mount. Traders certainly could not pay it, no other organisations would be prepared to take over the market with its debts, and the implications for producers and consumers of fruit and vegetables would be far too serious for us to let the market sink without making a serious attempt to re establish it on a viable basis. The Government have therefore faced reality in a practical way. This they are doing by recognising the unique circumstances of the Authority in providing for some write-off, by suspending the majority of the remaining debt until it can be paid and by taking reserve powers to safeguard the use of public money and thus help the Authority to make a go of this important market.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised a number of points and he asked me first whether I would explain a little more about the suspended debt provisions contained in Clause 1(4). We want to ensure that the suspended debt is included in the accounts, but we think it is necessary to do this in such a way that we are not left with a balance sheet which gives an unnecessarily pessimistic view of the Authority's financial position. The Authority's assets are worth in terms of their revenue yielding value far less than their historic cost and should be revalued on the lower basis. The suspended debt is part of the historic cost, and if it were shown as a liability against the lower-valued assets, we should have to balance the account by showing a loss from revaluation on the assets side.
Although in purely financial terms this would not be a major objection—for that loss would not need financing out of revenue—it would be paradoxical and less than encouraging to good management to leave the Authority with a balance sheet showing a large continuing deficit after re construction. What we therefore propose
896
is simply that on the liabilities side of the balance sheet the Authority will show their total borrowings (remaining after write off) including the suspended debt. The next entry will show the suspended debt itself and this will then be subtracted from the total borrowings. The remainder, which constitutes the active debt, will then be taken into the total of the liabilities column. The arithmetic of this process will be shown clearly in each year's accounts. In addition, we shall require the first set of accounts, following the financial reconstruction, to include a reconstruction statement which will show the effect of the changes arising from this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, also referred to the old Covent Garden site and, as he said, it has been suggested—and was suggested in another place at one point—that the Authority should have made considerably more profit from their old site to help with the new market. This did not materialise because in 1973 plans for the redevelopment of the Covent Garden area by the Greater London Council were changed in favour of conservation and many buildings in the area, including some of the Authority's buildings, were listed by decision of the then Secretary of State for the Environment as being of historical and architectural interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said.
Here I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. Geoffrey Rippon and his actions in this respect. I think that of all the achievements of the previous Government—and they had some achievements—this was one of the most notable, because through it we have been able to preserve a very charming and typically old quarter of London with great character. I think that otherwise it would have become a soulless concrete desert with no pleasure or profit to anybody except for the property developers. But in consequence of this action which was necessary on conservation grounds, and for which I think future generations will thank us, the value of the old market site dropped, and there was also the general decline in the commercial property market as compared with their expectations, and in contrast to the effect of rapid inflation between 1971 and 1974 on their costs in the construction and financing of the new market.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, also asked about financial targets and about

897
what was being done by the Authority to achieve such financial targets as the Minister may set. The Minister will be required to consult with the Authority about these targets and to obtain Treasury approval for them. The targets need not be limited to any particular period, for example an accounting period, although the Minister may set the period when he determines the target. A target when set will require the Authority to do better than to break even in any specific period and it will be the duty of the Authority to achieve the target. These additional targets are justified by the fact that the Authority's improved financial position has been brought about by the use of public funds under this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, also asked about the £500,000 expected from the tenants and the users. The Minister at a meeting with the market tenants and users when this Bill was presented last November suggested that the amount that should be regarded as their necessary contribution should be something over £500,000 at today's prices. Since then market tenants have agreed to join in discussions of ways of reducing the costs of the day-to-day operation of the market and the Minister has agreed that the tenants and users should share in any savings by offsetting their share against the £500,000. The tenants have agreed to undertake discussions on how the contribution is to be raised. It is for the Authority to negotiate this with the tenants and users.
The noble Lord also wondered, I think, about the question of rents. Here, of course, the previous rents at Nine Elms were low because they were kept low in order to encourage tenants to move; but the Authority are in the process of negotiating further rents with users, and part of the package of the measures necessary to put the Authority on a firm financial footing is the raising of additional revenue from market traders and users in this way. It may be true that whole sale profits are less than buoyant given this time of financial difficulty for many businesses throughout the country, but wholesale prices for horticultural products are moreover significantly above those of 1974 and the indications are that there was an increase in the volume of trade at New Covent Garden in the first full year of trading compared with the old market.
898
The Authority are also negotiating certain staff cuts with regard to general administration and a certain amount of rationalisation. The noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth, made also a most interesting contribution. Of course he will not expect me to go over the old ground because the decision was made to site the market at Nine Elms. I dare say that there were probably arguments for putting it outside London, as the market which has replaced Les Halles has been moved outside Paris, but there were also arguments against it. But Parliament made the decision to site the market at Nine Elms. With regard to rationalisation of the wholesale markets in London in general, of course the rationalisation of these markets which serve London and the South East was proposed in the last full review by the Runciman Committee, but it was not acceptable to all the market authorities concerned and, moreover, it is not certain that the wholesale markets will continue in the long run to exercise their present dominant role. They are expected to remain important to national and regional distribution, but more direct forms of distribution are being developed. My Lords, I hope that that has answered all the different points made by the two noble Lords.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

POLICE (WITHDRAWN ANONYMOUS ETC. COMPLAINTS) REGULATIONS 1977
5.20 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH rose to move, That the draft Police (Withdrawn Anonymous Etc. Complaints) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 17th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft regulations which we are considering today are intended to provide for a part of the new complaints procedure which we are introducing under the terms of the Police Act 1976. They seek to do two things. First, they dispense with the requirements of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 and of Section 2(1) of the Police Act 1976, where a person who has made a complaint states in writing that he withdraws it or that he does not want any further action taken in regard to it. Second,

899
they allow the Police Complaints Board, on the request of the chief officer concerned, to dispense with those same requirements where the complaint is anonymous, repetitious or incapable of investigation.
The requirements which we are talking about here—the requirements of Section 49 of the Police Act 1964 and of the Police Act 1976—are the requirement on a chief officer to record and have investigated any complaint by a member of the public against a member of his force, to refer it in certain circumstances to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of any criminal aspects of the case, and to refer it to the Police Complaints Board for consideration of the disciplinary aspects. I should like to deal first with the case where a complaint is withdrawn—that is covered in draft Regulation 3—and then move on to other types of complaint that are covered in draft Regulation 4, because the two kinds are dealt with in significantly different ways.
I think it will be generally agreed—and Parliament accepted this during debates on the Police Bill last year—that it is not necessary for the police to conduct a full investigation and refer the results to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Board where a complainant agrees to withdraw the complaint or decides that he does not after all wish there to be any further action. This may be because he decides that his complaint was not really justified, or that he has made his point by simply drawing attention to the matter. Provision for this was made in Sections 2(2)(b) and 6(1)(f) of the Act, and draft Regulation 3 gives effect to the agreed policy, providing however the necessary safeguard for the public by ensuring that the withdrawal must be in writing. I would stress that none of this means that where the chief officer—in practice the deputy chief constable—considers that an allegation made in a complaint justifies investigation, even though the complaint itself has been withdrawn, he is precluded from so doing. He can still arrange for the matter to be investigated, but he will do so as an internal matter, and there will be no reference to the Complaints Board.
I turn now to draft Regulation 4 which allows the Board to dispense with the
900
requirements of Section 49 and of the 1976 Act in certain other circumstances. At the moment, because there is no in dependent element in the complaints procedure, the police feel bound to investigate every complaint in what is sometimes an unnecessary amount of detail. During the discussions last year there was, I think, a general feeling that both the police and the Complaints Board should be able to concentrate on the more serious and important complaints, and that there should be some procedure which would allow complaints, which for various reasons did not justify a full investigation, to be disposed of more speedily. However, it is not easy to translate that general agreement into a statutory provision. It was suggested that we ought to think in terms of a distinction between "trivial" and "serious" complaints. But not all apparently trivial complaints prove on investigation to be trivial, while some apparently serious complaints prove to have little substance. The Government felt nevertheless that there was scope for a shortened procedure, and sought the necessary regulation-making power in what is now Section 6(1)(g) of the 1976 Act.
In the discussions on the Bill, anonymous and repetitious complaints were suggested as kinds of complaint to which a shortened procedure should apply, and we have covered both of these in the regulations. The terms are defined in the Schedule to the regulations. A complaint is defined in paragraph 2 as anonymous if it does not give the complainant's name and address or, if he is complaining about behaviour towards someone else, that person's name and address, and if it is not reasonably practicable to find out the name and address. Paragraph 3 defines a repetitious complaint as one that is substantially the same as a previous complaint which has already been dealt with under the new complaints procedure, and that does not make any significant fresh allegations. We have now added a further category—the com plaint where it is not reasonably practicable to complete the investigation. Examples might be where, although the letter containing the complaint bore a name and address, the address proved, upon inquiries being made, not to exist, or no one of the name in question was known

901
there, or the person concerned had moved and could not be traced. Or it might be possible to contact the complainant, but he refused to make a statement or to give any assistance to the officer who was investigating the complaint. We have also sought to deal with the situation where someone complains about something that has happened to a third party, and the third party either states, in writing, that he does not want to support the complaint or refuses to give any assistance in the investigation. These are all situations which have in the past caused the police a great deal of trouble, because they have been obliged to pursue the complaints further than was justified in order to prove that they have not neglected the matter.
What we propose now is that where the deputy chief constable is satisfied that a complaint falls into one of the categories I have indicated, which are specified in Regulation 4, he should be entitled, if he thinks it appropriate, to ask the Com plaints Board to agree that no further action should be taken. He may be able to do this immediately if the com plaint is anonymous. In the case of an apparently repetitious complaint, someone will have to look at the files and compare it with the previous complaint. In other cases, consideration of a request to the Board will not arise until, for example, it has proved not to be reasonably practicable to trace or get in touch with the complain ant, or other preliminary inquiries have proved abortive. The deputy chief con stable would be required to give his reasons for assigning the complaint to the category in question and, where appropriate, to provide relevant evidence—for example, a copy of the previous complaint, an account of efforts made to trace the person concerned, and so on.
When they received such a complaint the Board would consider whether they agreed with the deputy chief constable's assessment. If they did, they would tell him so and no further action would be necessary on the part of the police, except to record in the complaints register that the matter was closed. It would be for the Complaints Board to inform the complainant of the outcome where he could be contacted. The Board would not be allowed to reject the request without first consulting the deputy chief constable. If, in the end, they did reject it, the com plaint would then have to be pursued in
902
the normal way, and the reports of the investigation would normally be referred to the Board in due course under Section 2(1) of the Police Act 1976.
These regulations are an integral part of the new procedures introduced by the 1976 Act and we intend that they should come into operation on the same day as the main provisions of the Act. Noble Lords will have noted that the operative date is not specified in these draft regulations and that no commencement order to give effect to the relevant provisions of the 1976 Act has yet been made. If the regulations are approved both in this House and in another place, we hope to settle the date finally, in consultation with the Police Advisory Board and the Police Complaints Board, and we hope to make the necessary commencement order very shortly thereafter. Noble Lords should know, however, that we have in mind 1st June as the starting date. The new procedures will apply to complaints relating to conduct which occurred on or after that date; there will be no element of retrospection.
I should take this opportunity of mentioning that a number of other regulations have to be made to bring the new procedures into operation. These regulations will be made once the draft of the present regulations has been approved. They will, among other things, give effect to the assurances given while the Bill was going through Parliament concerning the supply of a copy of a complaint to an officer about whom it was made, and the right of the Police Federation to use its funds to support defamation proceedings.
As I have said, the purpose of the present draft regulations is, first, to remove the withdrawn complaint from the ambit of the complaints procedure and, secondly, to allow the police and the Complaints Board to concentrate time and effort on the potentially serious complaints by enabling them to dispose more speedily of complaints which for certain specified reasons do not justify the full treatment. It seems to us that this is something which will be of benefit not only to the police but also to the public at large. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Police (With drawn Anonymous Etc. Complaints) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 17th February, be approved—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
5.32 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure the House would wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his thorough explanation of these regulations, about which I do not suppose anybody would wish to complain. I have only one question, which is this. Your Lordships will remember that as the Police Act 1976 went through your Lordships' House and the other place there was a great deal of, I will not say dismay, but disquiet by or on behalf of the police as to the effect it would have on the manner in which they carry out their duties. In the second line of this Paper the Secretary of State in effect says that he has consulted the Police Advisory Board before drafting these regulations. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to confirm, if he would, that that process has been gone through. If it has, perhaps he would be kind enough to tell us the reaction of the Police Advisory Board to these regulations.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. As he pointed out, the regulations have indeed been put to the Police Advisory Board. I was present at the meeting, and they were accepted with no indication of any dissent on the part of anybody present.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROE DEER (CLOSE SEASONS) BILL
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless
904
any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.