HL Deb 12 December 1978 vol 397 cc420-34

3.8 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich) rose to move, That the draft European Assembly Constituencies (England) Order 1978, laid before the House on 28th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, in speaking to the Motion, I speak also to the two remaining Motions standing in my name. Our debate can then range over the three draft orders now before the House.

The European Assembly Elections Act 1978 provided that the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales should each submit a report containing recommendations for European Assembly constituencies. The number of seats for each part of the United Kingdom was specified: 66 for England, eight for Scotland and four for Wales. The draft orders implement the Commission's proposals without modifications. The Commissions were required to submit their reports as soon as might be. To that end, the procedure was truncated to one round of representations upon their published provisional recommendations. The full procedure which must be observed by the Commissions on any future occasions following a review of Parliamentary constituencies includes provision for local inquiries and the publication of any revised recommendations on which representations may again be made.

The Commissions completed their task with, I think, commendable diligence and speed. They were required to recommend constituencies composed of two or more whole Parliamentary constituencies, each having an electorate as near the electoral quota as possible save where special geographical considerations were appropriate. The electoral quotas were 516,436 for England, 473,256 for Scotland and 513,793 for Wales.

There were, as I mentioned in your Lordships' House on 27th June, opportunities for people who were dissatisfied with what the Commissions proposed to make representations. It appears from the Commissions' reports that many did so. The English Commission received over 800 representations. Understandably, the Commissions for Scotland and Wales received rather fewer, 46 and 31 respectively.

Some of those who wrote raised matters, such as the number of representations and observance of local government areas, which were not within the competence of the Commissions. In particular, the English Commission received nearly 200 representations about their proposed Cornwall and Plymouth Assembly constituency from those who clearly felt very strongly that the county should be separately represented in the Assembly. However, the Commission felt that the county's electorate of 40 per cent. below the electoral quota necessitated the inclusion of Parliamentary constituencies from outside Cornwall in this European Assembly constituency.

Elsewhere, the Commission responded to the views expressed in some of the representations that had been made to them by making five modifications of their original proposals affecting the area of eight constituencies and the name of another. The Commission for Scotland similarly changed two of its original recommendations affecting the area of two constituencies and the name of a third. This last is the Highlands and Islands constituency which, because of its geographical nature, has the smallest electorate of the Assembly constituencies in the United Kingdom.

The majority of all of the recommended constituencies, however, have electorates within 5 per cent. of the electoral quotas. Clearly, they will not all equally commend themselves to those who think that other solutions would have been preferable. To a certain extent, the absence of local inquiries made it difficult for the Commissions and those who would have participated in them to assess the merits of the alternatives or the degree of support that existed for the various proposals. However, the Government consider that the final recommendations provide a sensible and balanced scheme of constituencies for the direct elections to the Assembly to be held on 7th June next year and I recommend them to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft European Assembly Constituencies (England) Order 1978, laid before the House on 28th November, be approved.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

3.12 p.m.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the appearance at last of these draft orders and agree with the findings of the Boundary Commissions as contained in their reports. We take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for his detailed explanation of the reports and the conclusions to which the Boundary Commission came, taking into account the limitations imposed upon them by the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. They have done a remarkably good job, considering the time factor and limitations imposed upon them. Reading from the reports and the reasoned replies, they have paid considerable attention to the many recommendations and comments made both by individuals and members of political Parties, including of course the Conservative and Unionist Party. We welcome these draft orders and recommend approval of them.

Despite the more romantic name of Highlands and Islands instead of North of Scotland, and in view of the fact that we do not have phonetic spelling in our language, I was wondering how easy it was going to be for other members of the European Parliament from other countries, Dutch, Danish, and, eventually, Greek or Portuguese, to pronounce Highlands and Islands as they do in the Highlands and Islands. That might lead to a little local difficulty. Apart from that, we very much welcome these draft orders. The Parties—and our Party in particular—have made plans to be ready for 7th June next year to proceed with direct elections to the European Parliament. The Euro-constituencies can now be formally set up and get on with their work.

There is one question that I should like to put to the Minister. As he will know, this is only part of the procedure which is necessary in order to prepare political Parties for these elections. The draft regulations for the conduct of European Assembly elections in Great Britain, which were published as a White Paper (Cmnd 7323) in August 1978, seems to have fallen by the wayside. Although comments were invited from the public, we have not heard whether any conclusions have been reached; whether there is any document in print; whether they are lying in HMSO's warehouse, and when the Minister and his Government intend to lay these orders and regulations before Parliament. I shall be grateful for a reply on this matter.

3.16 p.m.

Lord BANKS

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his explanation of these orders. There is no need for me to remind the House that we on these Benches were strongly opposed to the electoral system which necessitates drawing up these boundaries. The main reason for that was that we believed it would lead to a distorted and unfair result. Another reason was that it left no time for a proper boundary procedure. I noticed that the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Brynmor John, said, when this order was discussed in another place, that the Commissions obviously to some extent felt the absence of the assistance which local inquiries and further representations would have given them in gauging the strength of support for and opposition to both their proposals and any amendment put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has confirmed that statement. He has told us that the Commission for England alone received over 800 submissions. Yet, only four revisions of its draft proposals were made, affecting only eight European constituencies out of 66.

In the announcement of the draft proposals which the Boundary Commission for England issued, they mentioned the need to get as close as possible to the electoral quota but failed to mention the qualification in the Act about special geographical considerations. It was largely these which led the Liberal Party to present objections to and alternatives for 46 out of the 66 constituencies proposed by the Boundary Commission. Naturally, we are somewhat unhappy that the final proposals contained in the order differ so slightly from the original. In particular, we objected to the inclusion of Plymouth in a single-Member constituency with Cornwall. The noble Lord has told us that some 200 of the 800 submissions to the English Commission were about that inclusion. I know a little about that part of the country, having been a Parliamentary candidate in Cornwall for some years. I am well aware of how much the people of Cornwall prize their separate identity and how they talk of going to England when they cross the Tamar to go to Plymouth.

I mention only one other area in England: I understand that the proposals before us will result in there being four official Cheshires, all completely different from each other. There is historic Cheshire; local government Cheshire; postal address Cheshire (which broadly follows local government boundaries in the West and historic boundaries in the East); and with this order now there is Euro-Cheshire, which is roughly the reverse of postal address Cheshire. What a mess that seems to be!

Turning to Scotland for a moment, may I, in spite of the difficulties of pronunciation referred to by the noble Baroness, welcome the change of name of the North of Scotland constituency. The change to Highlands and Islands describes much more accurately a constituency which stretches from Shetland in the North to the Mull of Kintyre in the South; and from Stornoway to Dunoon in the Firth of Clyde, from which the tail of the bank at Greenock is clearly visible. I know that for Dunoon was my father's home town. It will be very difficult indeed for one man to represent so wide an area. It will involve a great deal of travelling, and one can only hope that proper provision will be made for that to be done. May I conclude by saying this: we are promised a full boundary procedure next time but not, I trust, for a revision of these single-Member, first-past-the-post constituencies. I hope we shall not be using them again.

3.20 p.m.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, while congratulating the Government on the difficult task of mapping out these areas, I should like to say that nothing I have read in the White Paper, or anywhere else, seems to show a realisation of the responsibility involved in trying to get fair and democratic representation. For instance, there is no advice on the question of whose law an agent works under in the contest. If I am contesting an election—and I have no intention of doing so— whose law is the agent subject to?—because the agent in an election is responsible for all the finance.

Secondly, nowhere is it made clear where all this money is coming from. Thirdly, if anybody has witnessed an election in the United States, God save us from that kind of racket where we shall have people running around vast constituencies and lobbies pushing finance. None of this is clear. I think all this should be clear and we should know under whose law it is to be done. Do not let us call this a Parliament to which these new members will be elected: it is an assembly of pantaloons of different colours, with no real responsibility and no real power, but which nevertheless will take away some of the power of this noble Parliament—both Houses. Consequently, I believe there should be greater research in depth into the finances and the legal working of these elections. I do not want to delay the House any further; nor do I want to object to the order at the moment, but I think that caveat should be made. I have made it.

3.22 p.m.

Lord KENNET

My Lords, this order is the second last step in the statutory preparation for the European elections, and clearly the whole House will and should welcome it. We on this side of the House might perhaps have commented on the fact that both the changes in the boundaries in England which have been made by the Commission as a result of the representations have penalised the Labour Party, but nothing is perfect in this world and I know that the House will pass this into law following approval by the other place, within a few minutes. I certainly go along with that.

It is not altogether the last step before the State steps back and hands over to the political Parties to get on with the battle. That will be the regulations order which has already been mentioned. There is also the question of possible State finance for the Parties. Here I fear the difficulties that may arise in the transition from British Government control of things to the first European political fight.

For years the European Commission and the European Assembly have been agreed that each should spend large sums of money on a so-called neutral information programme in each of the member States of the Community in advance of the direct elections. It would be a programme which would say "Look out: you have a vote. Learn what your constituency is and remember there is a Euro-vote coming." I imagine this order now before the House will be very much part of that neutral information programme.

A sum was agreed between the Commission and the European Assembly, which was carried forward year by year. First, it was thought that they would go 50–50 on it, but then the European Assembly got its democratic claws into the matter and switched that to 65–35 in its own favour. The total sum is quite unclear.

It is hard for ordinary Members of the European Assembly to keep track of what is happening. The administration is carried out by a joint committee of officials from the Commission and officials from the Parliament and it is not too happily known as"The Organ of Contact." European Assembly officials on the Organ of Contact can draw on the advice of three members of the E uropean Assembly, who are my noble friend Lord Ardwick, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and Mr. Jahn of the German Bundestag. I am sure that these three have discharged their duties diligently and according to their best lights, but I have to say that it is not clear what their duty was. It is also not clear why it was thought appropriate to have, from all the 18 Parliamentary chambers in the EEC, two Members of your Lordships' House and one Member of the German Bundestag. Nor is it clear in fact to whom this three-man group should report. Certainly they do not report to the European Assembly as a whole.

Last summer we in the Assembly heard of a film in connection with the direct elections and some rank-and-filers—I was one—tried again and again to find out what was being put in this film which was being made in our name. I wrote to everyone I could think of, including the President of the Assembly. I raised the matter under an emergency procedure at a plenary meeting of the Assembly, and I got nowhere. At last after four months of importunate pressure, I managed to see that film and I realised there were certain things in it which would not have been correctly understood against a British political background. Accordingly, I wrote again to the President of the Assembly to point that out and to ask whether changes could be considered. My letter was neither asnwered nor acknowledged. I have no complaint about that; the dual mandate does make life difficult out there. You cannot get good internal communications working under a dual mandate.

This story with which I am boring the House simply reconfirms, in my view, the need for the elections we are discussing today. Even now, since that time it is still impossible to know what the Commission and the officials of the European Assembly are to spend in Britain on the information programme for the direct elections. I have heard several sums mentioned, including £1.2 million for Britain alone. I have heard the sum of £600,000 mentioned for a single contract to a single advertising agency. I do not know, and I am not asking the Government, because they probably do not know either; but I am telling this story because I think it should be made clear in Britain, and to this House, that what is being done is not being done on any proposal of the European Parliament, any more than the recent opinion, or whatever one likes to call it, of the Council of Ministers about what would be a proper salary for directly-elected Members was put forward on a proposal from, or with the approval of, the European Assembly. It was not.

The House will have seen the news from Paris this morning; namely, that the Gaullists and the Communists in the French National Assembly have formed an alliance which obtained a majority for the proposition that none of this money in France was to be spent; that is, they appear to have created a new crime under French law, which is for anybody to accept the Commission and Assembly money in advance of the direct elections for a neutral information programme. Whether that will really be turned into a new crime I do not know, but there exists a Parliamentary majority for it in France. In any case, a considerable red herring has been drawn across the trail, with obviously far-reaching and undesirable effects. I think we want to take what steps we can to avoid red herrings of that kind arising here.

I should like to turn now to something I have proposed before more than once; that is, the idea of an all-Party committee to supervise the expenditure of this money by the Commission and the officials of the Assembly in London. Possibly—who knows? I am not the person to suggest it—the Speaker might have a part to play. This is what is known on the Continent as the "Dutch Solution", for obvious reasons: it was adopted in The Hague. I have never been clear myself why the Parties themselves in this country should not be trusted to do some neutral informing up to a certain date. The all-Party committee I am suggesting could ensure that that too was really neutral, if it came into existence. If anyone is afraid of the National Front problem, if you get an all-Party committee and the possibility of State finance, then, of course, we have the Houghton formula, which is familiar to all Members of this House, to hand. The whole argument shades off into State aid to Parties.

Perhaps that is going too far, but without even the minimum precaution of an all-Party committee to supervise the expenditure of the Commission and Assembly Euromoney, I believe that we may be standing into danger. If British Parties are not informed of what is being done in this neutral information campaign, and if what is done is, when it comes to the light of day, attacked, they may find it impossible to dissociate themselves from those attacks—either the Parties as a whole, or certain wings of the Parties—and this is a position which, I submit, it is worth taking some trouble to avoid.

So will the British political Parties—and perhaps I am speaking here especially to the Party of noble Lords opposite—think seriously about this idea, and favourably? There is a clear area for co-operation between the Parties in preparation. After that, we should, of course, be quite free to stand back and fight as wholeheartedly as usual. The House has been tolerant in allowing me to range a little wide. As I said, the matter is connected with the order before us and the news from Paris is, in my view, grave and alarming.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether, in view of his very interesting suggestion about an all-Party group to control information, he has the support of his Party, or is this an individual proposal?

Lord KENNET

My Lords, this is an individual proposal. I have no formal support from my Party. I know that many members of it would support such a proposal, and I hope that many members of the noble Baroness's Party would, too.

3.32 p.m.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE

My Lords, in order to help me, I should like to ask one question, because people like myself have not had time to look at these papers in detail. It seems to me extraordinary that in South Tyne and Wear my old division of Tynemouth is added on to constituencies which are all on the South Bank: Blaydon, Gateshead East, Gateshead West, Jarrow, South Shields, Sunderland North and Sunderland South. But Tynemouth is not in South Tyne and Wear. Tynemouth is in North Tyne and Wear, and I should like to know whether an explanation can be given.

When I look at Northumbria, I find my old division of Wallsend which is in some parts linked with Tynemouth. But here I find that Wallsend goes into Northumbria, and Tynemouth goes into South Tyne and Wear. I should have thought that Tyne-mouth would have gone into Northumbria. Why is it transferred to South Tyne and Wear when, for all the years that I represented it, it was on the North side of the river? It would be very helpful if we could be told the basis on which these papers have been made out. I am sorry to ask this question, when I have not had time to read the papers in detail. But I always like to get to the reasons why action has been taken, before discussing a matter. Tynemouth is not South Tyne; it is North Tyne.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, it is clear that there will be no Division on this Motion. The statement has been made that it is welcomed on all sides of the House. My trouble is that silence means consent. I do not consent, and I am opposed to it, lock, stock and barrel. I believe that, sooner or later, the truth about the Common Market and our entry into it, and all that relates to it, will not be able to be disguised from the British people. When that happens there will be a political row in this country the like of which we have not seen for many hundreds of years. That will be the catalyst which will break Parties asunder. It may even break the nation apart.

I believe that it is disastrous. I believe that it is bogus. Nothing that is ever associated with it is either straight or honest. The jamboree that was held in Brussels last week is a very good example. Of course, we have decided to enter the EMS if the Labour Party wins the Election. Occasionally I have a bet, and I am open to any Member of the House to have a bet, that if Mr. Callaghan wins the next General Election we shall enter the EMS. That information is already in the possession of Mr. Giscard d' Estaing, Mr. Helmut Schmidt and, doubtless, Mr. Carter. That is the way it has been handled—shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. The British people are confused and beguiled.

The other day a noble Lord said that he wished that the power of the Common Market would be used externally to force the people of this country to face up to what he regarded as economic reality. That is what it is all about. I believe that the British people live only by freedom. I do not believe that any group of bureaucrats in Brussels can solve the problems which face Great Britain. The problems of Great Britain can he solved only by the British people, and the essential precursor to that is that they must understand what those problems are all about.

The truth, if history means anything at all, is that the British people have never failed to believe in themselves and to act accordingly when they have realised the truth. There is not a Member of this House who is not old enough to remember those tragic days of 1940. Nobody believed that we would survive. We did not even stop to ask ourselves. But we did survive, because we believed in ourselves and because of our sense of unity. That unity is now being denied to us by the machinations, the chicanery and the Machiavellian concepts which are implicit in this order today. I will have none of it. I am opposed to it. If I have any justification for speaking today, it is the hope that I may live long enough to be able to say: "I told you so".

3.37 p.m.

Lord O'HAGAN

My Lords, I do not wish to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said.

Lord SHINWELL

Why not?

Lord O'HAGAN

That is all that there is to be said about it. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, a question which reverts to a matter that has been commented on by other noble Lords. It might be called the Cornish question. Can he reassure noble Lords, and the audience outside Parliament, that at the next drawing of the boundaries for the European Parliament there will be plenty of time for those to be heard who are anxious that the new boundaries should be different from what we are, I hope, going to assent to today? I do not think that those who have had a chance to express their anxieties, and who have not had their views accepted, are likely to feel any less strongly on the matter in a few years' time. Therefore, would it not be helpful for the noble Lord to spell out precisely what the difference between the procedure that we are agreeing to today, and that to be adopted in future, will amount to? Can the noble Lord tell us precisely the difference in the number of representations and in the amount of time that will be given to those people living in areas with objections to the present constituencies, the next time round?

3.38 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, may I begin by saying that I am grateful to all those who have participated in this short debate this afternoon. I will do my best to answer the various questions which have been put to me. May I start with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles? I should like to join with her in her expression of thanks to the Boundary Commissions for England, for Scotland and for Wales. The members of the Commissions have done an extremely good job of work in a remarkably short period of time. It is right that on an occasion like this we thank them. I am glad that the noble Baroness did so, and we—and I am sure that I speak on behalf of Members in all parts of the House—join with her in what she said.

Secondly, she raised, perfectly reasonably, the question of the draft regulations for the conduct of the elections, and this deals with the point made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. The question which he put to me was on the position of the agent in these elections. That will be dealt with in the next set of regulations which, like these, will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. We hope that these will be available to us very early in the New Year.

If I may turn to a number of other points which were made, I take note of what my noble friend Lord Kennet said about his interesting proposals to have some form of all-Party committee to supervise the information campaign. I think that it is generally recognised that it is desirable to have an information campaign about these elections. This is the first time that the people of the European Economic Community will have the opportunity to choose their representatives, and it is clearly desirable that people should be made aware of this as a result of some form of information campaign. As my noble friend realises, this issue goes rather wider than the issues which are raised in the Motions which are before the House this afternoon. However, I will gladly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons to what my noble friend has said, for I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will be extremely interested in this proposal.

Also, I take note of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I do indeed recall the vigorous criticism to which the proposed electoral system which is now incorporated in the Act was subjected by the representative of the Liberal Party. I do not want to go over all that ground again. Nevertheless, I realise that there are strongly held feelings about the system of election. However, as I pointed out during our discussions on the matter—this deals with the point which has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan—when we come to the next set of elections, one of the issues which will undoubtedly be argued out again on that occasion will be the system of election, not just the question whether Cornwall and Plymouth should be in the same Assembly constituency but whether there should be a totally different arrangement. That issue will undoubtedly occupy a very substantial amount of Parliamentary time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, asked me why the Boundary Commission—I am delighted to say that it is the Boundary Commission rather than the Home Office—have put Tynemouth into the constituency of South Tyne and Wear. I should very much like to be able to answer her question this afternoon, but I do not have the advantage of being a member of the Boundary Commission—which will no doubt reassure a very large number of people. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that the Boundary Commission had the exceptionally difficult task of bracketing together groups of existing Parliamentary constituencies, and undoubtedly they decided that the right and appropriate thing to do was to put Tynemouth into this group of constituencies. They then chose this name for it. Certainly I think that it is appropriate to bear in mind the matter which the noble Baroness has raised for any future discussion that there may be on this range of issues.

I come, lastly, to the speech which was made by my noble friend Lord Wigg, who expressed his strongly held opinion about the undesirability of this country being a member of the European Economic Community. It always saddens me to differ from my noble friend, but as he and I will recall we had different opinions on this matter during the referendum campaign. As I recall, the British people, by an absolutely overwhelming majority, decided that this country should become a member of the EEC, and I am delighted that they did so. I think that this decision which we are asked to implement today—namely, the decision to regularise the arrangements that have been proposed by the three Boundary Commissions—gives the British people the opportunity of democratic representation in the new Europe, which is highly desirable.

Lord GLADWYN

My Lords, can we assume that the Government do not share the view of the French Gaullists and Communists—that the funds apparently to be made available by the European Parliament should not be distributed in this country? If the Government do not share that view, have they any view as to how exactly these funds should be distributed among the political Parties in this country?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, as I tried to indicate a few moments ago, the position is that my noble friend Lord Kennet made a proposal about some form of all-Party national committee to supervise this information campaign, and I said that I would draw that proposal to the attention of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Commons. No, we certainly do not share the view of the French Gaullists and Communists.

On Question, Motion agreed to.