HL Deb 18 December 1990 vol 524 cc801-21

Lord Hacking rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the Council of Ministers towards agreement on the European Commission's proposal for a directive on voting rights for Community nationals in local elections in their member state of residence (Com. (88) 371, as amended by Com. (89) 524).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with some humility to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is only after your Lordships have adjourned for some short pleasure that I address you on this matter. I apologise for not having been in the Chamber when I should have been. I am grateful to your Lordships for arranging the affairs of the House so that the Unstarred Question could nonetheless be heard. The Question is directed towards the Commission's proposals on voting rights and the right to stand in local elections for EC nationals resident in another member state. The purpose of the Question is, first, to ask Her Majesty's Government about the progress on that measure in the Council of Ministers; secondly, to draw attention to the Select Committee Report of 6th February this year and, for the first time in your Lordships' House, to have a debate upon it; and, thirdly, to probe further what is the Government's true case on this issue.

I also ask the Unstarred Question in the hope that the Government can be persuaded to take a fresh look at the matter. In a letter I sent earlier to the Minister, I asked him whether he would come with listening ears to this short debate. Perhaps I may mention that the Minister has a record as a good European and has spent no fewer than six years in the European Parliament. It was not the original intention of your Lordships' Select Committee to have a debate. It was prepared to rest its case upon the contents of its report; but regrettably I have to say that our Select Committee was disappointed in the quality of the Government's evidence before it and their response to the report.

Without being acrimonious, I should add that the Select Committee was also a little upset about the unfortunate delay in the Government's statement, in the form of an explanatory memorandum, on the Commission's revised proposals which deprived the Select Committee of comment upon it in its report, although the Government well knew that the Select Committee was considering the proposals and was about to report upon them.

The Commission's proposals are contained in draft directive (88) 371, as amended by draft directive (89) 124. I give the latter number because there is an error on the Order Paper. The principal feature of the proposals concerns the right of EC nationals to vote and to stand for local elections in member states other than their own. This is contained in Article 2.

As proposed, that right can be exercised only after application is successfully made for entry on the local electoral register, which must follow: A continuous period of residence in the host member state of not less than the term of office of a municipal council", in that state. I refer to Article 4.

Concerning the right to stand for election, as proposed, this can only be exercised after continuous residence of not less than two terms of office of a municipal council. That is covered in Article 8.

As concerns other voting qualifications, for example minimum voting age, EC nationals are to be treated equally with the nationals of that member state. I refer to Article 5. Other measures are proposed in the draft directive, such as a mayor or deputy mayor may be restricted to the member state's nationals. I refer to Article 10(1). If members of the municipal council also act as electors for national parliaments, as they do in some instances in France, nationals of other member states who have been elected to that municipal council cannot participate in that process. I refer t3 Article 10(2).

There are also transitional provisions. For example, there is a waiver when the proportion of EC nationals exceeds 20 per cent. of the total population of that member state. That was specifically included in the draft directive to cope with the situation in Luxembourg. It is covered in Article 11. Another transitional provision is that elected EC nationals cannot occupy over one quarter of the seats in a municipal council. That is to be found in Article 12.

The core of these proposals is that nationals of member states residing in another state who pay the local taxes, use its local facilities—roads, parks, schools, public swimming pools and so on—and participate in local affairs should have the right to vote and stand for election at a local level on matters of direct concern to them and for which they pay. Your Lordships may think that that proposition which, as I have just described, is the core of the proposals, is intrinsically fair.

The history of the matter goes back to the Paris Summit of December 1974 when there was a commitment made to the right of nationals to vote in local elections in other member states. There was also a most thoughtful report which may be described as a green paper which the Commission presented to the European Parliament in October 1986. There has been support for these proposals from the European Parliament which on two or three occasions has endorsed them. It also encouraged the Commission to enact them. There has also been support from all other member states except the United Kingdom and Germany. In the case of Germany there were special reasons. The position of the United Kingdom is a matter that we still seek to probe.

This proposal affects 5 million out of the 13 million non-nationals in the Community. In the United Kingdom it currently affects between 100,000 and 200,003 EC nationals living here, depending on whether the figure is based on the figure produced by the Commission, which is the 100,000, or that put forward by the Home Office, which is 200,000.

Your Lordships may wish to note the present United Kingdom voting rights at local elections. All United Kingdom citizens, including your Lordships, are allowed to participate in voting at local elections. All Ccmmonwealth citizens are entitled to do so, as are Irish citizens. There are 600,000 Irish nationals resident in the United Kingdom who have that right.

I would mention, in passing, that while the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in local and national elections is most welcome, it has to be noted that some come from far regions of the Commonwealth and are far more remote from the matters which concern us than, for example, many of the EC nationals who also reside in our country. Three member states—Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland—already have full voting rights for all foreign nationals.

The report of your Lordships' Select Committee, as is invariably the case, is a report of high quality. I do not say that to congratulate myself because, although I participated in the proceedings of the committee, I had nothing to do with the drafting of the report. It was left in the skilful hands of our good chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. I am grateful to him for his presence in the Chamber tonight. It was also in the good hands of our legal adviser and clerk.

In summary, your Lordships' Select Committee came down decisively in favour of the general principle of the draft directive but thought that some matters in it should receive further attention. For example, the voting rights of Irish citizens should be the same as those of other EC nationals. This point was misunderstood in the correspondence which was conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, with the Home Secretary. The committee did not recommend that Irish citizens should be deprived of any of their current voting rights. It merely made the point that they should line up with those of other EC nationals. To put it the other way round, the rights of EC nationals should be lined up with those of the Irish. For that and other reasons, we were brought to the recommendation that the residence requirements which I have outlined to your Lordships should be greatly simplified and that the qualifying period should be omitted altogether.

We agreed with the Government on the problem concerning a proper treaty base. In doing so we disputed that Article 235 of the EC Treaty provided a proper treaty base. We, with the Government, considered this to be most important and preferred that this measure should be brought in by way of resolution of the Council of Ministers in the same way as the European passport was introduced.

It has been hard for our Select Committee to ascertain the true position of the Government. It is clear that there is some hostility on the part of the Government on the issue. We were circulated with a newspaper report from the Daily Telegraph which wrote of, Ministers planning to stage a vigorous campaign against what they regarded as yet another example of Brussels' interference in the domestic politics of member states".

However, while it is not difficult to identify the hostility of the Government to these proposals, your Lordships' Select Committee has had considerable difficulty in establishing the constitutional basis, in the United Kingdom and the European Community, of the position which the Government appear thus far to have taken. I should therefore be most grateful if the Minister—to whom I referred earlier as a good European—could assist your Lordships' House by answering certain specific questions. I gave him notice of them, although I did not give a great deal of time.

The questions are as follows. First, what exactly are the Government's "reservations of principle" to which there is reference in the penultimate paragraph of the letter which the former Home Secretary, now the Leader of our House, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on 20th June 1990. Secondly, what do the Government mean when they state, "This is a matter within national jurisdiction of member states". I refer to the fourth paragraph of the same letter.

To this end, do the Government propose that each member state should do its own thing? That does not seem to fit well with harmonisation between member states. Also, what is the practical application of this proposition from the Government? We can think, for example, of Spain giving local voting rights to French and Italian nationals but not to British nationals because there has been no agreement between the governments of Spain and Britain. Vice versa, suppose that there is a reciprocity agreement between Italy and the United Kingdom which gives rights to Italian nationals in Britain voting in local elections but not to others.

I mention this also because one of the reasons put forward by the Government against these proposals was the difficulty in organising the electoral register. If that is the situation and certain EC nationals on a reciprocation basis have rights in local elections here while others do not, I venture to suggest that system would create complications in the electoral register well beyond those posed by the Government.

Thirdly, what is the Government's position on the issue of public opinion? I refer to the sixth paragraph of this letter. Are the Government saying that there is hostile opinion on this issue, and if so where is it? If that is not the case, are the Government saying that there is no evidence of public support, and until there is they will oppose the measure?

Fourthly, on the differences in local electoral systems, are the Government saying that these are grounds for opposing this measure? I refer to paragraph seven of the letter dated 20th June. I do so because there is a sentence in paragraph seven in connection with differences in local electoral systems which refers to, a weakness of the proposal rather than a decisive obstacle". What does that mean? The public opinion argument is perhaps the most intriguing of all. Originally the Government's position was that there was no public opinion in favour of this proposition. With it, there was a strong suggestion in the Government's evidence —which was not in any way substantiated—that public opinion was hostile to the proposition.

On 12th December your Lordships' Select Committee at a hearing attended by officials from the Home Office drew to the attention of witnesses the Euro-Barometer Survey carried out in December 1986. We had been told about that earlier by the Commission officials who gave evidence. Rather to our surprise, that was the first time that the officials from the Home Office had ever heard about the survey. The survey discovered that, taking the Community as a whole, 62 per cent. were in favour, in varying degrees, of the proposal.

It was further discovered that no less than 58 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom were in favour in varying degrees of the proposal. What was the Government's response to that? It was not entirely attractive. It downgraded the survey and said that it had taken place four years ago and questioned the quality of the questions in it. I refer to a letter that the Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd, wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. The Minister in his letter took points in minutiae on the quality of the questions in the survey.

We then asked the Government whether there was reason to think that any change had occurred since the report was published four years ago. As far as I can ascertain, the Government have not replied to that question. I believe that there is a simple question that could be put to members of the public which, when questioned, would show that they were in favour of the proposal; this is the proposition that I spelt out in the earlier part of my speech. In any event, is it not a fact that this Government seek to lead public opinion on measures the Government favour, such as the curbing of union power, the sale of council houses, privatisation programmes and other such measures? The matter goes further than that. If there is no ascertainable opposition—for example, there are no threats to wreck polling stations or to scare EC nationals as they seek to exercise voting rights—why is it necessary to have to prove that public opinion is in favour of the proposal, particularly when the public has not been asked to think about it?

Those remarks are sufficient for an introduction to the matter at this time of night. There is, I believe, some light at the end of the tunnel. As I said in introducing this debate, our purpose is, among others, to ask the Government to give further consideration to this matter. The light at the end of the tunnel is the high respect which the Commission has for our Select Committee's report. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will remember, Dr. Taschner paid us a great compliment at the beginning of his evidence to us. Then there is the new Prime Minister, who has just been able to report positively on last week's summit in Rome. The letter writing of the former Home Secretary played no insignificant part in bringing about this debate. He has now joined your Lordships' House although he has not, alas, been present for the debate tonight.

7.35 p.m.

Baroness Elles

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for bringing this subject before your Lordships, and particularly for putting such sharp and relevant questions to my noble friend the Minister. The timing of this debate tonight is particularly useful. It has only recently been announced that the inter-governmental conference on political union which started on Sunday will have on its agenda an item dealing with European citizenship. Under that heading the subject of voting at local elections throughout member states will be raised. I hope that at the conclusion of this evening's discussion and after due consideration of the matter by the current Home Secretary, the Government will realise that they can be seen to be supporting something positive. The measure will do no harm to British subjects and will help many other British subjects living throughout the Community.

The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has given a full analysis of the draft directive and the problems arising from this matter. I shall just touch on one or two other points which have perhaps not been enlarged upon sufficiently. The first concerns the people who will be affected by the measure. That ties in with what the former Home Secretary, the then David Waddington, wrote in his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on 20th June 1990. At page 28 of the report of the Select Committee on the European Communities entitled Correspondence With Ministers, the Home Secretary stated: More importantly still, as far as United Kingdom public opinion is concerned, there remains no evidence of any substantial public support for an extension of the franchise". However, the people who were asked to give an opinion already had the franchise. Therefore there is no reason for them to ask for an extension of the franchise. Presumably it was the British electors who were asked whether they wanted the franchise extended.

The Government may have been afraid that there would be an ugly rush of foreigners coming in to benefit from voting in local elections in the United Kingdom. However, the number of British electors who vote in United Kingdom local elections is, even at a generous estimate, around 35 per cent., and often that figure is around 20 per cent. Therefore one can see that there will not be much enthusiasm for such voting in any case.

The idea of this ugly rush of foreigners coming in to benefit from the beautiful British local authority electoral system is not borne out by the statistics. The statistics show that not many European Community citizens are particularly keen on coming to the United Kingdom in any case. The number of European Community citizens coming to the United Kingdom under the heading "acceptances for settlement on arrival and on removal of time limit by nationality", amounted to 3,540 in 1981. In 1989 that number had dwindled to 1,190. Over the past 10 years a maximum of about 25,000 European Community citizens have come to settle in the United Kingdom. Should this directive go through, they would be entitled to vote in local elections. I understand that around 100,000 EC citizen5 would be affected as regards the United Kingdom. That leaves out approximately 450,000 Irish citizens who already have the right to vote in this country.

The other point I wish to press is the question of reciprocity. While the Government may not want to give foreign citizens rights in this country, let us remember that there are something like 600,000 British citizens resident abroad within other member states of the European Community. As the entire directive is based on reciprocity and would apply to all member states of the Community, the people who would benefit from this measure would be the 600,000 British subjects who are resident throughout the other member states of the Community. There are some 300,000 resident in Spain alone, I understand. They would benefit.

The situation is different for British Commonwealth citizens. Under the Representation of the People Act, British Commonwealth citizens have the right to vote in this country—even if they have only just arrived here by the due date for registration —without speaking the language, without any knowledge of the country and without necessarily staying longer than a year. So long as they have registered on the due date, which is usually in October, they have a right to vote. I understand that very few Commonwealth countries give reciprocal rights to British citizens.

The directive would give British citizens that right wherever they might be within the Community. It is reciprocity that I should like to stress and which I believe would be of benefit.

The Home Office, and in particular the new Home Secretary, should be encouraged to look positively at the draft directive. It will benefit 600,000 British subjects. It is an issue on which the British Government can be seen to take a positive attitude when no doubt they will stick on many other issues. I shall be grateful to my noble friend if he will impress on his right honourable friend the Home Secretary the views of this House expressed in this debate.

7.41 p.m.

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton

My Lords, I am conscious that we are approaching the end of a long day. However, as the chairman of the sub-committee which was responsible for drafting the Select Committee's report on voting rights in local elections in February of this year, I should like to make a few observations in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, particularly as it was at the sub-committee's request that he was good enough to raise the Question for discussion by the House.

The House will be aware that the report was made to the House for information. I believe that I speak for the other members of the sub-committee as well as for myself in saying that we were a little saddened by what seemed to be the wholly negative attitude to the Commission's proposals which emerged from the evidence given by representatives of the Home Office. Nevertheless, it did not seem to us at that time appropriate to increase the burdens upon the time of this House by recommending a debate on proposals which were in any event likely to be further distilled and which we hoped would evoke a more positive response when the Select Committee's opinion had been published and considered.

Again, I have to say that the Government's considered response to the report was no less negative in approach than had been foreshadowed by its evidence. It emerged however that the Government would evidently welcome the assistance that they would derive from a debate. The Home Secretary's letter to the chairman of the Select Committee said: We shall doubtless be in a better position to judge public opinion on this issue after it has been debated in both Houses". It concluded by noting—possibly through a Freudian slip, possibly through momentary dyslexia—the Committee's recommendation that the matter should be debated by this House. I only hope that those citations are not to be taken as indications of the attention with which the remainder of the report was read.

Of course there are difficulties in the way of implementing the Commission's proposals in their present form. Not the least is the question whether a directive under Article 235 of the treaty is permissible and whether the proposals should not be recast as a resolution of the member states in council. The report draws attention to those difficulties, and they are reiterated in the Government's response. However, they are not insuperable.

What I have found so depressing about the response is the total absence of any indication of the desire to tackle the difficulties or to address what I, and, I think, the other members of Sub-Committee E took to be the central core of the Commission's proposals—proposals which, it should be said, were brought forward after years of steady pressure from the European Parliament. According to the recital to the draft directive: Steps must be taken to ensure that free movement of persons is not achieved at the expense of a loss of political rights at local levels". Paragraph 15 of the report quotes the Commission's 1986 report to the European Parliament where it says: The most important considerations are those of morality and justice. There is no doubt that non-nationals contribute to the economic development and prosperity of their country of residence. Added to which their presence contributes to the cultural life of the local community". There are substantial numbers of citizens of Community states more or less permanently resident in Great Britain, just as there are substantial numbers of British citizens resident in other Community states. They live here; they pay community charge here, they send their children to local schools. They are here in exercise of the right of free movement conferred by the treaty and incorporated into our law by the European Communities Act 1972. Come 1992 their numbers are likely to increase. We simply have to ask ourselves the question: can it really be morally justified that, by the exercise of a right which lies at the very root of the treaty, those persons while compelled to contribute to local government finances, should be deprived of any say in the conduct of affairs in the local community in which they spend their working lives?

It is said that there is no evidence that anyone is dissuaded from moving to another Community state by the prospect of the consequent disenfranchisement. Indeed, it would be very surprising if there were. However, that is not the point.

It is said that there is no evidence of popular support for any alteration of the qualification for voting in local elections. There is in fact some evidence, as paragraph 25 of the report makes clear, although I accept that it is now somewhat out of date. But certainly the injustice of the position has not escaped those who are disenfranchised. Noble Lords who read The Times newspaper may have seen only four days ago a letter from a lady in north London complaining that her foreign nationality deprived her of a local vote. If she had been resident in Denmark, in the Irish Republic or in the Netherlands she would not have felt moved to complain. While we in Great Britain are not alone in lagging behind those countries, we have to address the question. And we have to address it sooner rather than later. I should like to think that this country would at least be in the vanguard in moving to rectify what by any objective standard is an obvious injustice.

So far, the response to the committee's welcome in paragraph 64 of the report to the broad thrust of the Commission's proposal—as if it were the final and unanswerable argument—has been: The Government, however, remain of the view that the Commission's proposal relates primarily to the conferment and exercise of a political right, which has only a marginal bearing on the free movement of citizens between Member States". That is what I have ventured to categorise, I hope not unfairly, as a negative approach. It is not an answer to the moral imperative. I would hope that your Lordships could be assured that the question is being approached in the Council of Ministers with rather more interest and commitment than that response suggests.

7.49 p.m.

Lord Grantchester

My Lords, since this Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was first put down, a Community summit has taken place which, according to the reports which have appeared in the newspapers, has planned meetings to agree further advances towards the European Community as now envisaged. Against that background the answers which the Minister will give this evening in response to the Question will be carefully studied in the expectation that we shall be granted an insight into the future conduct of the negotiations towards that European Community.

There are a number of questions now at issue, some of which have appeared in all their strength only in the past few months. It is clear now that under the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act we are moving towards a Community of the present twelve member states on four fronts.

First, there is the front on which most progress has been made. That is the economic union front, which is currently in danger of running aground through its failure to solve external problems of free trade. Secondly, the front upon which there has been a great deal of recent comment and publicity is that of monetary union. The third front, which has been the subject of some discussion and has now come to the fore, is the one raised by the Question now before the House; namely, political union. The fourth front relates to matters of social policy. That has made some progress, though not much, since the Social Charter.

The Question tonight lies in substance and reality within the political union area. In its report the sub-committee took that view, as did Her Majesty's Government. Therefore however desirable may be the proposed variations in voting rights at local elections, it seems that, as they are outside the present treaty provisions designed to bring about economic and monetary union, it requires the unanimity of all 12 member states to agree to effect those variations. Therefore the proposals will fall into the discussions for political union which are now to take place.

The report itself shows that this is a good example of the Commission to date attempting, for reasons which could well be described as spurious economic reasons, to include a matter lying within the political area as a proposal falling within the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. It would certainly assist the future development of the Community so far as concerns public relations if the Commission were now to deal with problems within their proper areas and not try to force political and environmental wedges into the economic union area where they do not belong Should this be a matter within the political area and be treated as such, it will be of great assistance if Her Majesty's Government could indicate whether they will treat the proposals as set out in this report as part of the steps towards political union now to be put under discussion.

The first problem that arises is the doctrine of subsidiarity. Where does that fall within the present proposals? When Her Majesty's Government come to deal with discussions on political union, will the doctrine of subsidiarity leave it to the United Kingdom Parliament to deal with local government elections within the United Kingdom or will the Commission itself have a right to direct how local elections will take place in the United Kingdom?

My first question is this, therefore. This doctrine now having reared its head, especially in the monetary union area, how does the Minister regard the principle of subsidiarity as affecting the proposals in the report? Does he consider that that doctrine has any applicability here and, if so, how will Her Majesty's Government treat that point in the discussions?

I come to my second question. Will the Minister now consider whether it might be possible for Her Majesty's Government to bring out some document indicating the kind of political union that they can see coming at the end of the day? How will that political union appear at the end of the tunnel? Apparently we have laid on the table various proposals, which I must admit that I have not yet seen, in order to enable the 12 member states to hold discussions with a view to progress in that area. At the end of the day, what kind of political union are we looking at and how will accountability and answerability—those two important facets of democratic government—appear when these Proposals are put into effect?

I know that that is a large question and cannot possibly be answered tonight. However, I believe that the electorate will be most grateful if, in connection with these talks, it can be informed for discussion now how Her Majesty's Government envisage the progress that will be made and the goal towards which they are moving.

7.57 p.m.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for tabling this Unstarred Question. We have had the advantage of a comprehensive summary from the noble Lord and additional comments from the chairman and two members of the committee. Except for the Minister, I am the only person taking part in this debate who has not been a member of the committee.

I found the report extremely interesting and well written, as one always expects from a Select Committee. I have read it about three times, as the blue and red marks that I have made on almost every page will show. I note that the noble Lord's Question refers to the directive on voting rights, whereas in his opening remarks he referred to voting rights and standing for election. I note that the first conclusion of the committee refers to voting rights and the right to stand for election. The amended directive, Directive 524, which is also set out in the report, refers to both voting rights and the right to stand for election.

However, I recognise that the bulk of the report deals with voting rights. I note very carefully—and no noble Lord has said anything to the contrary—that there is no proposal whatever to extend voting rights for national elections; that is, parliamentary elections. It will be recalled that in the Representation of the People Act 1985, amended in 1989, our legislation gave the right to United Kingdom residents abroad to vote in United Kingdom elections for Parliament and for the European Parliament. That is purely United Kingdom legislation for our citizens who may be abroad.

The legal arguments regarding Article 235 are dealt with comprehensively in the report and have been covered by both the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. Therefore I do not propose to refer to that article at all except to note that paragraphs 69 and 70 of the report recommend a cautious approach. The report states: If Community competence were accepted, it would extend to national elections". The committee therefore proposes that the draft directive be adopted as a resolution of member states meeting within the Council.

I again quote from the report. It says: This is a less formal instrument than a Treaty amendment, and would imply that the franchise remains within national jurisdiction". The last sentence of paragraph 60 states: In the view of the Committee such an instrument offers the necessary flexibility, would enable implementation in the member states to go ahead without the full formality of Treaty amendment, and would acknowledge that even at local level the franchise is a matter remaining within national jurisdiction". I should like amplification of what that means. What are the rights which remain within national jurisdiction? It is important to know the precise meaning of those words.

Conflicting views were expressed about whether or not there is a public demand for an extension of the franchise. I do not know whether there is. From my contact with people, very few know much about the proposed extension of the franchise. Whether or not they would support it, I do not know. I know—as is stated in paragraph 20 of the report —that the organisation of which I am president, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, was unable to give a definitive comment on the report because of conflicting views from its 36 affiliated organisations. I therefore do not know whether there will be a general desire for such extended franchise. I believe that once it was decided to pass such legislation, the public would readily accept it.

When writing in the House Magazine on 10th December, Mr. Glyn Ford, MEP, leader of the European Labour Party and vice-president of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, stated: Europe as a genuine community must be a community of citizens and be responsible to citizens' wishes. Citizens and residents of Europe should be able to vote in European elections in the member states in which they reside". Noble Lords may know that a recent statement made by European socialist leaders meeting in Madrid included a declaration—which I paraphrase—that all Community policies must lead to the improvement of the living standards of European citizens. Measures to achieve that should include political rights such as the right to participate in local and European elections in the state of residence. However, any such development must be subject to further consideration of constitutional and citizenship arrangements in the member states. My interpretation of that declaration is that there is sympathy for the proposed objective but that consideration has to be given to possible constitutional and electoral questions.

In considering the main points raised in the report, I emphasise that my views are purely personal reflections. I state them mainly because of my keen interest in electoral matters, and because I also regard myself as a good European. At the time of the referendum, I decided that we should remain in Europe. I therefore consider the issue from the angle of a European who supports the Community and consideration of the electoral questions involved.

Reference has been made to the numbers involved. The Commission's estimate is that Community nationals represent 1.3 per cent. of the total UK population. Of those, about 600,000 Irish nationals already have the right to vote in UK elections. The Commission states that only 100,000 citizens would be affected by the proposals. However, in paragraph 28 the UK Government estimate that 200,000 Community citizens might benefit. That is twice the figure put forward by the Commission.

However, even if one takes the higher figure, on my simple arithmetic that represents about 430 persons per district council in Great Britain. I do not believe that that would greatly affect elections. When one sub-divides that figure into wards, the number of individuals involved in each ward would be very small. That disposes of any argument that to give voting rights to European citizens resident in this country would unduly affect election results.

More importantly, the report states that twice as many foreign residents in the United Kingdom were nationals of non-Community countries. Paragraph 28 of the report draws attention to the suggestion made by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities that, the introduction of voting rights for Community nationals might draw criticism from nationals of non-Community countries … who were resident and paid local taxes or charges in the United Kingdom, but had no voting rights". However, I note that in reply to question 38, when giving evidence to the committee, Dr. Taschner said: We should not and would not, cannot and could not, hinder you in granting rights to third country nationals". Nothing could be more definite about the right of Britain, if it so desired, to give voting rights to non-Community nationals. I do not say that we should do so, but clearly if we gave rights to non-Community nationals the important question of reciprocity would arise.

The position of Irish citizens resident in the UK is dealt with at some length in the report. The issue was raised by some noble Lords. It is argued that the rights given to Irish citizens in UK legislation may be considered anomalous if not extended to other European Community nationals. The committee concludes that there is need for those rights to be brought into line to avoid discrimination.

The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said that Irish citizens must not be deprived of their present rights. I am certain that the general view in the United Kingdom is that nothing should be done to interfere with the present right of Irish nationals to participate in United Kingdom elections. I believe that it would be most dangerous to do so, in particular with regard to the present situation in Northern and Southern Ireland and the endeavour to obtain agreement.

We therefore have to consider the existing franchise for local elections in the United Kingdom. It is governed by RPA 1983. The right to vote at local elections is restricted to Commonwealth and Irish citizens over 18 years of age on the date of election, resident in the area on the qualifying date and not subject to any legal incapacity to vote. It must be emphasised that there is no period of residence. The normal registration procedure obtains. All noble Lords will be aware that Form A, to which reference is made, makes it absolutely clear that those who may register to vote are British, other Commonwealth and Irish citizens. I am certain that there will be no desire in the United Kingdom to interfere with that procedure.

However, the question of a qualifying period of residence is raised in paragraphs 51 to 56. A period of years is proposed in the directive, together with the issue of residence certificates. I was pleased to note that the Select Committee proposed no residence period requirement. It emphasised that such a proposal would also remove the need for a tier of administration for the issue of residence certificates.

At paragraph 68 the committee concludes that the issue is best left to national or local law. I understand that a period of residence could still be prescribed provided that all Community countries were enfranchised equally. The question of reciprocity will arise; whatever we lay down in this country we shall wish to see laid down in other Community countries. If a directive is approved, any change in the franchise qualifications will need primary legislation by our Parliament. It will be highly desirable to retain our present registration requirements.

Another issue dealt with in the report relates to the local government bodies which will be affected by the change. The Commission's first proposal referred to municipalities, which were defined as first tier councils. That was criticised by the Home Office, which said that the powers of the first tier would vary from member state to member state. It pointed out that in the United Kingdom the structure of local government varies from area to area. Some areas have three tiers, some two tiers and others only one. I note that the Commission amended Article 1 of the proposed directive to state: Local elections shall mean elections which are defined as such by Member States". I dare to suggest that that is a loose definition. In the Select Committee's report, reference is made to a Community national who has lived in, say, Aberdeen for some years and who then moves to Hackney. It is asked what he will know about local conditions. The same argument already applies because a United Kingdom citizen who has been living in Aberdeen for some years can move to Hackney. He may know nothing about the area but, provided he is properly qualified, he can register and vote.

The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, raised the issue of reciprocity. We could find one member state—for instance, Great Britain—deciding that the right shall be given to Community nationals to vote in county council elections. However, another Community state may give the right only in relation to the lowest possible unit. Therefore, the directive must be more definite and state that the matter is solely for member states to determine.

Reference has been made to the right to stand for election. Although the committee included that in its recommendation, the report dealt mainly with voting rights. I believe that, if the directive includes the right to stand for election to local government bodies in the area in which a Community national resides, it will be highly desirable to retain in the United Kingdom the qualifications for candidature which appear in the existing Representation of the People Act.

I have endeavoured to draw attention to some of the important observations made by the committee. I have also endeavoured to look at a few matters that are pertinent to the United Kingdom. They are issues which will require the most serious consideration as suggested by the Conference of Socialist Leaders which was recently held in Madrid and to which I have referred.

8.4 p.m

Lord Reay

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I am also grateful to all those noble Lords who have contributed to this useful debate. I hope that in the time available I shall be able to deal with all the points which have been raised; if not, I shall certainly write to the noble Lords concerned. I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that I have listening ears. I can assure him and my noble friend Lady Elles that the department will pay close attention to the views that have been expressed.

This House has traditionally taken something of a back seat on matters concerning the franchise and representation of the people generally. We have thought it better to leave the minutiae of such matters to our colleagues in another place. Your Lordships may, for instance, recall the Representation of the People Act 1990, which dealt with the provision of long-term absent votes for those who move house. As a matter of convention, detailed scrutiny of such technical matters is not undertaken in this House. But it is clearly right that this House should express a view on such a fundamental issue as the proposed extension of our franchise, albeit only at a local government level, to resident nationals of European Community member states.

I must begin by paying tribute to the chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities, the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, whom I am pleased to see is present and to all the members of the committee, for their work on this directive. The committee's report, which was published in February of this year, is a painstaking and comprehensive analysis of the Commission's proposal. It emphasises the important principles with which we are all concerned in considering this issue and highlights the various technical and practical difficulties which are involved. I am glad that so many of the committee's members have been able to attend the debate this evening.

The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, asked what progress has been made in the Council of Ministers on the Commission's proposal. I should like to deal with that specific point first before moving on to discuss the merits of the draft directive.

The idea of a European Community franchise for local elections in member states dates back at least to the Paris Summit of 1974, since when there have been several attempts to achieve concerted action. The draft directive was published in July 1988 following many years of intermittent pressure—mainly in the European Parliament—for action in this area. In October 1989 the Commission published an amended proposal which had been revised in the light of the views of the European Parliament, and which made only a few minor changes to the original directive. If adopted, the directive would require the United Kingdom and those other member states who deny their local government franchise to foreign nationals, to extend such voting rights and the right to stand as candidates to all citizens of other member states after a minimum period of residence in the host state.

At the beginning of this year an ad hoc Council working group was established under the Irish Presidency to consider the detail of the directive. The working group has since met on three occasions and discussion has generally focused on details of drafting and on the difficulties envisaged by member states with various provisions of the directive. A report from the presidency on progress went to the Committee of Permanent Representatives of Member States, and thence to a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council in June. The report made clear that, although some progress has been achieved on points of detail, this has not yet gone so far as to overcome the constitutional, legal and practical difficulties expressed by various member states. At its meeting in June the Council took note of the current position without discussion and the Commission proposed that work on the directive should continue. The Council has therefore asked the Committee of Permanent Representatives to pursue the detailed study of the proposal.

That is the current position on this proposal. I shall turn now to the Government's approach to the proposal and the position that we have adopted in the current deliberations in Brussels. The Government agree with the Select Committee that this proposal to legislate in the field of voting falls outside the Community's competence and, therefore, that the Council does not have power under Article 235 of the EC Treaty to adopt the Commission's draft directive. Therefore, there is insufficient basis in the treaties for the Commission's proposal. In a report to the European Council in 1975 the Commission itself said: At present there are no provisions in the Community Treaties, even including Article 235 … which grant the power to act on political rights". And that remains the case. I think there can be no doubt that we are talking here of a political right. A number of our major partners in the Community share this view.

We do not accept—as a justification for Community legislation—the argument advanced by the Commission and set out in the preamble to its draft directive that the right to vote in local government elections (after a period of residence of up to five years or so) is integral to the free movement of persons for which the treaties do provide, and that it is, therefore, itself covered by the treaties. To suggest that the right to vote is fundamental to freedom of movement would be to accept a significant extension of the competence of the Community institutions; but if, as the Select Committee, the Government and other major member states believe, the Community is not competent under Article 235, then the proposal in this draft directive should not be a Community measure at all.

If we are now, as I think we are, agreed that this directive cannot be adopted by the Council, then, if its aims are to be achieved, some other means must be found to do so, and I shall return, if I may, in a few moments to the question of where we go from here. First, however, I should like to say a few words about some of the practical difficulties which the Commission's proposal gives rise to. Changing the franchise is always fraught with difficulties and it may help if I give an example or two of the sort of thing that I have in mind.

There is, for instance, the problem of deciding to which type of local government election the franchise would apply. Functions and powers vary considerably between, and sometimes within, member states, rendering the value of the vote widely different according to the country or type of local authority involved. The problem therefore is that this proposal would have a discriminatory effect because the value of the vote given to citizens of member states would vary according to the country they were residing in and which particular powers local authortities in that country were capable of exercising.

Another difficulty arises in respect of the registration process itself. Registration as an elector is in effect compulsory at present in the United Kingdom. But it could not be so for Community nationals resident here, who would be able to choose whether they wished to vote in local elections here or in their own country. It would therefore be necessary to maintain a separate and additional electoral register for resident Community nationals, and this would doubtless have significant resource implications for local authorities.

The Select Committee has identified many other practical points which need to be addressed. There is, for example, the potentially anomalous position of Irish citizens under the directive. It seems likely that, were the proposal to be adopted, citizens of the Republic of Ireland would have to be subjected to the same requirements of length of residence as nationals of other member states. Their position would therefore be worsened under the terms of the directive, and we would not find this acceptable. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said on that point.

The Select Committee also pointed to the unsatisfactory nature of the proposed residence requirement in the directive. We are inclined to agree with the Committee's suggestion that the best solution would be to drop this requirement altogether, and that it should be left to individual member states to decide whether to require a specific period of residence before Community nationals could be enfranchised. But your Lordships may think this is a rather peculiar way of attempting to harmonise arrangements relating to the local government franchise.

None of these points need constitute an overwhelming obstacle: far from it. But these, and similar technical difficulties faced by other member states, will need to be overcome if real progress is to be made.

I should not like to leave your Lordships with the impression that the United Kingdom is out on a limb in seeing some difficulties with this directive. That is not so. A number of member states share our doubts on the issue of the Community's competence to pursue those proposals—most notably France, Denmark and Germany. France and Germany also have constitutional difficulties with the proposals, as do Italy, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg. All those countries would need to make some amendment to their constitution in order to adopt the proposal. Severe practical difficulties with the directive's proposals are also envisaged by Germany, Luxembourg, and France as regards making suitable administrative arrangements for the proposal.

Where do we go from here? In its report, the Select Committee suggested that, as the Community does not appear to have the power to pursue this matter within the scope of the treaties, the Commission's proposal might be considered and adopted as a resolution of member states meeting within the Council. This is a mechanism whereby a proposal which could not be put into effect by means of a legislative act of the Community can nevertheless be pursued if member states are broadly in favour of its substance. In our view, this is the only way in which the objectives of the Commission and the Select Committee could be achieved.

As I have said, the matter now rests with the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Progress on this issue is dependent on resolving the difficulties raised by this proposal so that the necessary unanimity may be achieved. There is little point in attempting to predict how swift or how satisfactory that progress will be. But I can assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will continue to play their full part in the search for agreement.

I need not remind your Lordships that the intergovernmental conference on political union, which was launched in Rome on 15th December, will consider proposals for revision of the treaty. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, who is now on the Woolsack and therefore obliged to accept anything I say in reference to his remarks without being able to gainsay it, that the United Kingdom will play a central and a positive role in all of these negotiations. We are looking for reforms that will make the Community more open, liberal, democratic and efficient. We have already made a number of suggestions, and we will make more as the conference gets under way. Among suggestions made by others is the inclusion in the treaty of a recognition of a Community citizen's right to vote in European Parliament, and possibly local, elections, which would have the effect of making possible a directive along the lines that we are discussing. All of these proposals will be discussed in detail by the conference.

We understand the argument put forward by the Select Committee, reflected in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, that the right to vote complements freedom of movement and would reflect the close and growing ties between member states. Such arguments should not be dismissed out of hand. Our mind is not closed. We will consider carefully and without prejudice whatever proposals are put forward in the course of discussions at the conference.

The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, pressed me on the Government's reservations on principles. I have explained that those reservations stem from our doubt; about the Community's competence to propose legislation in this area. The noble Lord asked me also what the Government mean when they say that this is a matter within the national jurisdiction of member states. We consider the extent of the franchise to be a matter for individual national parliaments to decide. We agree with the Select Committee that that is not a matter which comes within the scope of the Community as set out in the treaties.

The noble Lord asked about our position on the issue of public support. I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said. Public support on the issue is hard to estimate. While there may be some support for the Commission's proposal, we see no evidence of overwhelming public interest in the matter. For example, in 1989 the Home Office received 31 letters from EC citizens resident in this country asking for the right to vote-l2 directly and 19 via Members of Parliament. By contrast, we received over 50 letters criticising the breadth of the existing franchise; in other words, arguing in the opposite direction. I agree that not all legislation needs to be preceded by public clamour. We do not regard the absence of evidence of public demand as an insuperable obstacle to legislation.

The noble Lord asked whether the Government are saying that differences in local election systems are grounds for opposing the proposal. No. We merely point out that such differences throw up practical problems which must be addressed before any significant progress on the proposal can be achieved.

My noble friend Lady Elles asked whether there is an estimate of the number of EC nationals resident in this country. Based on labour force surveys for 1984–86, we estimate that there are approximately 200,000 European Community nationals usually resident in Great Britain who may become eligible to vote under this proposal.

My noble friend made the very good point about the reciprocal nature of this proposal. As regards Commonwealth countries, not all Commonwealth countries offer reciprocal voting rights but a number do so. For example, of the approximately 500,000 Commonwealth citizens eligible to vote at the 1987 general election, around 150,000 came from countries which allow reciprocal voting rights to British citizens.

The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to what he described as the negative attitude of Home Office officials. I am sorry that he found their attitude negative. It may be that they had a number of negative things to say in respect of potential problems raised by the Commission's proposal. I assure the noble Lord that their concern was to give the committee the fullest possible explanation of the Government's position and to help the committee in its inquiries in any way that they could.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked how the principle of subsidiarity would apply to the proposal. If a change were to be made by a resolution outside the scope of the Community treaties, legislation would have to be enacted by national parliaments and Community institutions would not have a legislative role.

I should like to close by reiterating the Government's thanks to the Select Committee for its detailed consideration of the proposal. Its work helped to clarify the issues involved, to focus on the practical problems that need to be addressed and to point the way forward. As I said at the outset of my remarks, we shall give careful consideration to the many further interesting comments put forward this evening. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will accept that assurance in the spirit in which it is given, and that he and the other members of the Select Committee will feel that in raising the matter this evening they have accomplished a worthwhile exercise.