HL Deb 08 March 1979 vol 399 cc323-34

4.39 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham) rose to move, That the draft Regulations, laid before the House on 6th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient for your Lordships if I speak to the two sets of regulations together; that is, the regulations which will concern the conduct of the election by the simple majority system of Great Britain's 78 representatives to the European Assembly, and the regulations which will concern the election by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation of the three representatives to the Assembly from Northern Ireland. As your Lordships will no doubt have discovered, there are close similarities between the two sets of regulations. My noble friend the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office will be on hand to answer any detailed points which may be raised about the conduct of the election in Northern Ireland, especially on the single transferable vote system.

Before describing to your Lordships some of the detail of these regulations, it may assist if I sketch in their background and set them in context. The United Kingdom Parliament last year made provision in the European Assembly Elections Act for the basic framework of the elections: the number of representatives to be elected; the method of electing and the procedures necessary to draw up constituencies; the qualifications of those who may stand and those who may vote.

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Act gave the Secretary of State power to draw up regulations for the detailed conduct of the elections based on the existing Statutes governing parliamentary elections. Following representations, it was agreed that these regulations should be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament. As part of the procedure for consultation before the regulations were laid before Parliament two drafts, one by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the other by my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary, were pub- lished as White Papers in August last year.

Copies were sent to all those concerned with organising the elections, including the local authority associations, the returning officers' representatives, the broadcasting organisations and the political Parties. Comments were invited and the Government are most grateful for the very full and informed response which resulted from those consultations.

Although, as I shall explain later, the Government have not changed their proposals from the draft on some of the most important political questions—the size of the deposit, for example—a substantial number of improvements have been made. In this context I should add that we owe a debt to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which noted and drew to our attention an omission from the regulations regarding the declaration of secrecy to be made by the officers charged with verifying ballot papers.

The regulations, which were originally laid on 29th January last, were withdrawn and relaid on 6th March in order to take account of the point made by the joint committee. On behalf of the Government, I should like to thank the joint committee for their vigilance in this, and also add my thanks to all those, including the officials of my own party and of the parties represented opposite, who commented with great expertise on the drafts.

It may also be helpful for me to review briefly the other necessary preliminaries to the holding of the elections on 7th June. As your Lordships know, the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions made their reports at the end of 1978 on the composition of the constituencies in Great Britain. Northern Ireland forms a single constituency. The Orders in Council to give effect to the boundaries were laid before Parliament in draft in December and were approved. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now appointed returning officers from the Parliamentary election returning officers within the European elections constituencies. He has signed an order fixing 7th June as the day of the election. So far as the political parties are concerned, candidates are now being selected and local arrangements are being made to organise campaigns. It is now necessary to seek the approval of your Lordships' House and of another place for these regulations so that the administrative machinery can be fully set in motion.

As I have said, it was the intention of the Government—from the publication of the White Paper on Direct Elections in 1977—that these elections should be contested on lines closely similar to those of our own Parliamentary elections. Accordingly, the regulations are set out in a form which shows how the existing parliamentary Statutes have been adapted. This was the practice followed in the orders regulating the conduct of the EEC referendum in 1975 and the recent referendums in Scotland and Wales.

So far as the elector is concerned, in most respects the European Assembly elections will follow a precisely similar pattern to a Parliamentary election. He will generally vote in the same polling station as for Parliamentary elections; the procedure in the station will be the same and he will have the same type of ballot paper. In Northern Ireland the elector will vote according to a system which is well tried there in local elections.

So far as the returning officer and his staff are concerned, they will have very similar responsibilities and they will umpire the election using much the same rules as apply at Parliamentary elections. There will be broadly the same offences and the same punishments. For the candidate, there will be the same entitlements to free postage and the use of meeting halls, and so on, as he has under the Parliamentary election legislation.

There are, however, significant differences to which I should draw the attention of your Lordships' House. These largely derive from two aspects of the decision of the Council of Ministers on direct elections dating from September 1976. One was the decision to allot 81 representatives to the United Kingdom, so making it necessary to have much larger constituencies and higher levels of maximum election expenses, a higher deposit and a greater number of signatures to a nomination; and the other was Article 9(2), which provides that counting shall not begin in each Member State until the close of poll in the last Member State to vote during the period 7th June to 10th June, as determined by the European Council.

This means that, while we shall be closing our polls at 10 o'clock on Thursday evening, 7th June, we shall not be in a position to begin the count proper until the Sunday evening. The exact timing of this has yet to be determined. The effect will be that our first results will not be known until late on Sunday evening. In order to ensure that there is no risk of malpractice when there is such an interval between the close of the poll and the count, there will be a separate verification stage taking place in all constituencies on the evening of the poll. At this stage, the number of ballot papers will be checked against the ballot paper accounts. They will then be sent to the returning officer for the whole constituency and the result will be announced centrally.

One other aspect of the election which has attracted great attention and on which it may be appropriate for me to make some comment is the level of the deposit to be sought from candidates. As noble Lords know, the Parliamentary election deposit has been fixed at £150 since 1918. There has never been a consensus of view as to the proper level of the deposit (or even as to its purpose) but if we assume that it is to deter frivolous candidates without hampering the right of any serious candidate to stand for election then it could be argued that the deposit is now too low. The Government believe that this matter should also be considered by a Speaker's Conference. In the meantime, we have had to arrive at a view as to what level of deposit to prescribe for these elections, weighing the considerable free postage facilities and other publicity opportunities available to candidates, as against our desire not to do anything to prejudice the level of the parliamentary deposit. We believe that the figure of £600 is a reasonable compromise between the extremes that were pressed upon us. It will be returnable once a candidate achieves l22½per cent. of the valid votes cast in a simple majority election, and one quarter of the electoral quota at any stage in the count during the single transferable vote election.

To summarise, my Lords, I believe that both these sets of regulations are well-precedented. They apply to the novel constitutional feature of direct elections to the European Assembly systems of election which are well-tried and well-known. They complete the long and I think often difficult parliamentary procedure preparatory to the elections themselves. I believe that both sets of regulations fully deserve the support of the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations, laid before the House on 6th March, be approved.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)

4.50 p.m.

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his full explanation of the contents of the draft regulations before the House in connection with the elections to be held throughout the European Community between 7th and 10th June this year. Lord Boston will understand if I say that we also understand, but do not particularly admire, the reasons for which the word "Assembly" is used rather than "Parliament". Any body which chooses for itself a name is generally, both by tradition and courtesy, known by that name, but apparently not so in this case.

As for the contents of the draft regulations, we too wish to express our gratitude for the vigilance of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments who spotted what was obviously an anomaly in the draft regulations, and we are pleased that the Government accepted the amendments so that we have been able to discuss the draft regulations today and that there has been no hold-up in the procedures. In this case we can thank all those concerned in that the documents have been printed quickly and made available so that we are able to carry on as arranged.

The draft regulations, published in August of last year in Cmnd. 7233, set out certain provisions with which, as Lord Boston said, some people did not entirely agree, and we in our Party indicated our disagreement on certain aspects of the provisions. Our Party chairman, my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, wrote to the Home Office on 6th October of last year proposing certain changes and specifying clearly the grounds for those proposed changes, and therefore on this side of the House there is some regret that the Home Office has seen fit to disregard those proposals, except for one minor amendment.

The two proposals to which I wish particularly to refer, to one of which Lord Boston referred, are in regard to the bona fide and serious intentions of a candidate and how that was to be tested. Lord Thorneycroft made it clear that we did not think the deposit of £600 was realistic. Even the argument which Lord Boston put forward—that in no way did the Government wish to compromise the Speaker's Conference—is not tenable considering that the figure chosen is £600, which would indicate there were only four Westminster constituencies in a Euro-constituency, whereas I believe there is not a single Euro-constituency which has less than six Westminster constituencies.

Therefore we felt that £900 was a modest proposal and we are sorry the Government have not accepted that. If one takes into account the fact that the expenditure made by the Government per candidate will be in the region of £35,000—due to the free postage given per elector within the Euro-constituency—£600 is a very small deposit in relation to that potential expenditure, and of course bears no relation to the comparability of a £150 deposit to something like the £5,000 to £7,000 expenses which exist within the Westminster constituency.

My noble friend objected to the number of signatories which would be required to validate a nomination paper, which in the draft regulations is only 30. We considered that at least 10 from each Westminster constituency would be a more reasonable figure because, as my noble friend pointed out, it would not be difficult for anybody to go into a public house and collect 30 signatures in one evening, and in our view that was not conducive to seriousness in the nomination of a candidate.

I have some points I wish to put to the Minister and I apologise in that I have not had time to give him prior notice of them; I shall therefore understand if he is not able to answer them all now. If he cannot, perhaps we will let me have a written reply in due course, "in due course" meaning not a long time but fairly soon. The first is in regard to the position of citizens of the Irish Republic. Under our Representation of the People Act and our electoral law, citizens of the Irish Republic have a right to vote in our General Elections, and they are also being given the right to vote in this European election. Could the Minister say what will be the position of Irish emigrants from the Irish Republic?—because some States are giving to emigrants resident in the European Community the right to vote in their own national election within the Euro-election. Therefore, will Irish citizens have a right to vote both here and for a candidate in the Irish Republic?

Secondly, I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in date form the timetable set out on page 15 of the draft Regulations referring to Great Britain and on page 12 to Northern Ireland, assuming, as the noble Lord confirmed, that the date of the European election will be 7th June? It would be helpful for all those concerned if we knew exactly what date was the latest date for the publication of the notice of the election, the delivery of nomination papers and so on. It would be particularly helpful for prospective candidates.

Thirdly, perhaps Lord Boston could give further particulars about the declaration of the results of the poll. The Minister said that counting would not start until the evening of 10th June, at some time to be decided presumably taking into account the difficulties of summer time throughout the different member States of the Community. Can he say how the results will be declared? He said it would be done centrally. Does that mean that the Secretary of State will make announcements on television, or that they will be published in the newspapers, if there are any newspapers on the days following 11th June? How will candidates be informed, and how will returning officers be able to inform the public of the results?

Fourthly, may we know what modifications, if any, would be required to these draft regulations if a General Election were to be held on the same day? He mentioned that the same polling booths and the same form of voting paper would be used. Is there anything in the draft regulations which would prevent a General Election being held on the same day? If so, what legislation would be necessary to enable that to happen?

With those few comments, we on this side of the House recommend the approval of these draft regulations which, in our opinion, lay the basis for an election of historic significance, both in this country and in the other member States of the Community, when about 180 million electors will go together to contribute to forming the first ever internationally-elected body.

4.58 p.m.

Lord BANKS

My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his thorough explanation of the draft regulations, and I join the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in asking the question she put about the possibility of a General Election being held on the same day as the direct election to the European Parliament.

The noble Lord explained why there are two draft regulations; one is required for Northern Ireland, where the single transferable vote will operate, and the other for the rest of the United Kingdom, where the majority system—the first-past-the-post system—will operate; and of course we on these Benches regret that there is not merely one Instrument applying the single transferable vote to the United Kingdom so that all substantial minorities could be assured fair representation in all parts of the United Kingdom.

We support the greater part of these draft regulations, but we have some reservations about them and I shall mention three briefly. We do not agree with the provision of a deposit of £600. We feel that this country should fall into line with other member countries and dispense with a cash deposit. Instead, we would rather have an increase in the number of assenters required for a nomination—perhaps an increase more substantial than that suggested by the noble Baroness. We should have thought in terms of an increase from perhaps 30 to 500. If the cash deposit is to remain, we still believe that there should be an increase in the number of assenters, but we advocate a reduction in the deposit-losing limit from 12½ per cent. to 5 per cent.—a figure used in elections in other countries within the Community. We consider that these provisions would be more than sufficient to deter frivolous candidates. At present in parliamentary elections in this country many candidates who could not posibly be described as frivolous candidates are nevertheless penalised through the operation of the deposit system.

I turn to another reservation. We should prefer to dispense with the individual communication sent in an envelope to each elector, and have instead an election communication from each Party delivered to each household. This is the kind of arrangement which the Post Office are happy to undertake for commercial organisations, and there is a precedent for its operation in the EEC referendum of 1975. We believe that the adoption of this proposal would save considerable unnecessary effort and labour which could be diverted to other, more profitable, forms of campaigning.

Furthermore, we believe that the legal maximum for election expenses is too high and will give an undue advantage to wealthier Parties. We accept the basic figure of £5,000, but we would have preferred the additional 2p per elector to be reduced to 1p per elector. I have stated three objections which we have to the regulations, and they are our principal objections, but for the greater part we are happy that the regulations should operate.

5.2 p.m.

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for what they have said about the general terms of the regulations, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the joint committee and the way in which it enabled us to put matters right. I also wish to thank her on behalf of the other people concerned, to whom she very kindly made reference. I appreciate, too, what the noble Baroness said about certain unsatisfactory elements, from her point of view and that of her party, in the final form that the regulations have taken, in regard to the particular points she has mentioned. There have been certain difficulties. All the representations which were received, particularly those from the political parties and the other bodies I have mentioned, were studied very thoroughly, and thereafter the final decision had to be made as to what to recommend in the regulations to be put before your Lordships.

I appreciate the noble Baroness's concern regarding her point about "Assembly" or some other term being used. The term "Assembly" is used in the Treaty of Rome. It is also used in our own legislation, and therefore we feel that it should be used in the regulations. With regard to the question of a deposit, I understand that there was a reduction in the recommendation of the noble Baroness's own party from the original figure which they put forward and which I believe was £1,500, but as the noble Baroness said, the firm recommendation which she and her Party made was for a figure of £900. I appreciate that there is clearly room for argument here. One has already mentioned how out-of-date the parliamentary deposit may be. I feel sure that the points made by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, about the question of the deposit will be noted at the appropriate moment if and when Mr. Speaker holds a further Speakers' Conference on Electoral Law. The points that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have mentioned are the kind of arguments which could usefully be decided upon there.

With regard to Irish citizens, my noble friend is on hand here, but, subject to anything he may wish to add when the further order is formally moved, I believe that I am in a position to deal with this question. I understand the position to be that if Irish citizens are registered as electors in our constituencies, they can vote here, but double voting is in fact an offence both under Community law and under our own European Assembly elections law. I think that that probably crystallises the position on that matter.

The noble Baroness raised a very valid point regarding the timetable, and on this I should like to take up her suggestion and write to her. I agree that it would be very useful for all concerned to have a clear timetable set out in written form to which they could turn for guidance.

The noble Baroness also raised the question regarding the count. Apart from the verification which will be done, as it were, on the night, the count proper will be dealt with centrally. The detailed physical arrangements will to some extent be left to the discretion of the individual returning officers, but the count proper will be dealt with centrally; that is, centrally in each of the European constituencies. Therefore, for that purpose, a European constituency will be rather similar to our own parliamentary constituency, and the declaration will be made, again at the discretion of the returning officers in regard to the precise moment, in the same way as it is made for parliamentary elections. One assumes that some returning officers will go ahead and hold the proceedings as soon as possible after 10 p.m. on the Sunday night, while others will deal with the matter on the following morning, the Monday, in a way similar to what is done in some country constituencies in parliamentary elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned his concern about the distribution of candidates' election addresses or manifestoes. I recognise that there is room for argument in this matter, and I can quite understand the point of view he has put forward. The view we feel bound to take in recommending the regulations to your Lordships is that, aside from the practical problems with which the Post Office would have to deal if they had to handle material which was not specifically addressed to an elector, it would not be appropriate to make regulations for the European Assembly elections which differ from those which apply to parliamentary elections. Again, as in some of the other detailed features of the regulations, we have recommended sticking to the practice which is familiar. One cannot anticipate what might happen at a conference called in due course by Mr. Speaker, but this is one of the matters which might then be taken into account.

I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in emphasising the historic nature of the event which is now approaching. Having said that, I commend the regulations to the House—

Baroness ELLES

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he be kind enough to comment on the question which both the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and myself put to him—namely, would the regulations have to be amended if a General Election took place on the same day, and, if so, in what way?

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding me of that point. I think that I am armed with an authoritative statement on this matter which I can give her.

Of course, my Lords, this is not a question which really arises on these regulations—the noble Baroness will no doubt be with me so far as that is concerned—because these are concerned only with the European Assembly elections; but, in fact, we are not aware of any constitutional or legislative obstacle to the holding of the two elections on the same day, should that be desirable.

On Question, Motion agreed to.