Lords Sitting of 23 March 1990

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: the DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AMPTHILL) on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

North Sea: Pollution
Lord Campbell Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in reducing pollution of the North Sea from discharges into rivers from the United Kingdom and other countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the United Kingdom published its action plan on reducing inputs of dangerous substances via rivers and estuaries into the North Sea on 5th March. It shows good progress, with reductions of 31 per cent. in mercury, 22 per cent. in cadmium and 15 per cent. in lindane between 1985 and 1988. The UK fully expects to achieve the 50 per cent. target by 1995, as agreed at the Second North Sea Conference.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. As most of the worst of the pollution which comes from rivers entering the North Sea is difficult to observe or detect, in contrast to dumping from ships, do adequate arrangements for monitoring rivers exist in all the countries concerned?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at present the figures for pollutants currently carried by major rivers into the North Sea are monitored by each North Sea state according to its own requirements. The standards and methodology vary considerably. Some surveys have attempted to make a comparison on a common basis. The first comprehensive exercise will take place this year, co-ordinated by the Paris Commission.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on this bright spring morning, with such good news coming to us from Lichfield in Staffordshire, will the Minister and his colleagues reflect that it was the attitude to environmental matters which they adopted hitherto as much as the poll tax which brought the spectacular victory for Labour yesterday? Will the Minister tell the House what the Government have in mind in terms of providing support for local authorities which are likely to be affected by the changes in the Government's policy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is an inevitable fact that the cleaning up of all countries will cost money which will be a burden on the taxpayer. There is no such thing as a free lunch for the authorities, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch for anyone else when it comes to cleaning up the environment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there will be clear evidence of the amount of pollution emerging into the North Sea from the Rhine and the Elbe? Will that result from the inquiries to which he referred?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is very important that in all cases the establishment of pollution is carried out on a like basis. We hope very much that for the first time we shall be able to establish who is doing what. The most recent Dutch study confirmed that the Rhine and the Elbe contribute about 65 per cent. of North Sea pollution.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister explain the procedures which in a few months turned the Thames, which 15 years ago was one of the dirtiest rivers, into the cleanest river in Europe? Why cannot that process be applied to all of our rivers so that other countries can emulate our good behaviour?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am afraid that it is true that even though the appearance of our rivers has improved— and what the noble Lord said of the Thames is also true of the Tyne— in this country there are still residual problems which cannot be removed because they lie within the ground itself.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the other North Sea riparian states are yet satisfied with the methodology employed by the riparian states of the Rhine and the Elbe in ascertaining and controlling pollution?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that the comprehensive exercise to be undertaken by the Paris Commission, to which I referred earlier, will provide exactly what my noble friend asks for.
Lord Harrington: My Lords, arising from the very hopeful and constructive answers which my noble friend has given this morning, will he give an undertaking that in four, five or six months' time— without being asked, because I am sure that he will have good news— he will advise the House what improvements have been achieved between this day and that?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, there is a difficulty in giving such an undertaking. The method of checking river discharges and establishing that they relate to a particular river are rather complex. I can give my noble friend further updated figures. I shall be more than happy to write to him since I have several sheets in front of me which I believe noble Lords will not thank me for reading ad nauseam.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord said in answer to a supplementary question that the cleaning up of rivers costs the taxpayer money. Has he read the report of David Pearce, who is adviser to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he suggests that, rather than the taxpayer having to pay, it is the polluter and the polluting company who should pay for any pollution that is discharged into rivers?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am well aware of the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has drawn my attention. However, I fear that he may not have listened with his usual accuracy to the remark that I made. I referred to assistance to local authorities rather than to the general principle. In the case of the local authorities the money would come from the taxpayer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it emerged from reports in the press and media that at the recent Community ministerial conference attended by Mr. Patten our partners in the Community were blaming Britain and saying that Britain was the chief offender? From the exchanges that we have had in this House and the answers from the noble Lord it appears that that is not the case and that the evidence shows that we are at least as good as our partners in the Community, and especially those who discharge into the Elbe and the Rhine. In those circumstances what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to set the record straight and to make it clear that the statistical evidence is published so that we are not excoriated in that way in future?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am grateful for that point. This is a matter of national pride. I hope that at the Paris Commission we shall for the first time obtain some proper, like-on-like, figures. Many comments have been made, but the figures behind them are rather dubious. If we are to be good Europeans, it is most important that we are all good Europeans together.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Lord make sure that his department is aware of the lines from Coleridge which state:
"The river Rhine, it is well known,
Doth wash your City of Cologne;
But tell me, Nymphs! what power divine
Shall henceforth wash the river Rhine?"?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it will be interesting to see whether Mr. Ripa di Meana will be the new publisher of that work when it is reissued in Europe.

Invisible Trade Balance Forecast
11.14 a.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the prospects for the invisible trade balance.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the latest forecast, published in the Red Book on Budget day, is for an invisible surplus of £ 1–5 billion in 1990.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the deficiency shown for the first time in the invisible account in the fourth quarter of last year which amounted to over £ 700 million, and in view of the forecasts of a nil balance in the first two months of this year,
506
perhaps I may ask this question. How do the Government arrive at a forecast of a positive balance by the year end, bearing in mind that government expenditure overseas appears to be rising; private earnings are being subjected to greater competition and that the continuing relatively high level of interest rates is leading to a negative balance on dividends?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, obviously in arriving at our figures the Government take into account a great many factors, some of which the noble Lord has mentioned. However, there were special factors with regard to the fall in the second half of 1989. The fall partly reflected temporary factors. One was the high net Community contributions in the third and fourth quarters resulting from delayed receipts and annual reassessments of the UK contribution in earlier years. That contribution is likely to be substantially lower next year. There were also exceptionally poor insurance figures as a result of recent heavy claims.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, even on the assumption that the forecast of the noble Earl for the current year is likely to prove to be an accurate one, will he explain how a £ 9 billion surplus on the invisible account in 1986 has now reached a point where, at the moment at any rate, we are about breaking even with only a derisory surplus within the current year? What has happened to the Government's bland statement made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to "automaticity" whereby any kind of visible trade deficit would automatically be compensated for by an increase in invisible earnings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the invisible surplus in 1986 to which the noble Lord refers was the highest on record. At that stage the current account was broadly in balance. As the noble Lord said, the subsequent turnaround has been dramatic; but we foresee an improvement.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that this Government inherited a 100-year tradition of a strong invisible surplus as well as a 20-year tradition of a visible balance, and that to have dissipated both these within four years when the oil is still flowing strongly is a remarkable achievement? How does the Minister square that with the economic miracle of the 1980s?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me into a long reply which is the subject of a debate in its own right. I know that your Lordships would not appreciate that when we have so much other business to cover later today. There have been a number of factors involved, but I know that the noble Lord will be particularly concerned about the increased receipts to the Community. However, he will also welcome the fact that our net overseas assets rose very strongly in 1989.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, as regards 100-year inheritances, does not my noble friend agree that we inherited a national debt which is now being reduced year by year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right, but I think we are straying a little far from the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Earl has not answered the second part of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. What has happened as regards the rubbishing by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Aldington Report, and the evidence that he gave to us that the projected deficit in manufacturing industry would automatically be made up by a surplus in invisible earnings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I fear the noble Lord has an advantage over me as I cannot remember who the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, admirable as his replies to questions have been, it is quite unreasonable to expect him or the House to debate these major issues of economic policy on the basis of a Starred Question?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I try to answer whatever questions are put to me; but I agree with my noble friend that we have gone rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper today.

Foreign Exchange Turnover Figure
11.19 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in January and February 1985 5 billion dollars passed across the exchanges in support of the pound and whether they can say what was their origin.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a 1986 Bank of England survey estimated that the average daily turnover of the London foreign exchange market was about 90 billion dollars, undertaken in a variety of currencies. It is impossible to identify the source of individual components of the overall figure.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 29th January 1985 the Sultan of Brunei was entertained by the Prime Minister, and that a few weeks later 5 billion dollars from the Sultan of Brunei was passed through the exchanges in support of the pound? Is the Minister further aware that in the following March approval was given for the Al-Fayed takeover of the House of Eraser? At the same time the bid by Lonrho was blocked by the DTI's inquiry. Is the Minister aware of those three events and is there any connection between them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am aware from the DTI report that the Sultan visited London in January 1985. With regard to any agreement with the Sultan about supporting sterling, I have absolutely no knowledge.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the DTI report went a little further than notifying the public that the Sultan visited London? If the noble Earl turns to Chapter 15 of the DTI report (at page 286) he will find that the Sultan of Brunei, accompanied by Mohamed Al-Fayed, visited the Prime Minister on 29th January and later that day also visited Kleinwort Benson who played some part, I think it will be agreed, in the later transaction to which my noble friend referred. Is the Minister aware that it may well be in the public interest from time to time for governments to seek support for the British currency? At that time the exchange was running at 1.15 dollars or 1–05 dollars to the pound. Therefore it is quite reasonable for any government to take whatever steps are open to them in order to obtain support.
What is not clear in this case is from where the support came. Does the Minister agree that it would be unfortunate to say the least if the public ultimately had the impression that those two matters were linked and that a favour might have been owed to the Sultan of Brunei, or the holder of his proxy. Al-Fayed, which might have given the impression that our obligation was later discharged by the takeover to which my noble friend referred?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my opening Answer, the Bank of England survey showed that about 90 billion dollars was the annual daily turnover. It is impossible to identify the resources from which those funds came. As to government intervention, it has been the practice of successive governments never to disclose details of past or present interventions in foreign exchange markets.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that under the Companies Act any small company would hardly get away with such an answer when confronted by the auditor?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am not quite sure to which of the many answers I have given the noble Baroness refers.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may enlighten the Minister. He said that it was impossible to identify the money. Does he agree that it is a curious kind of book-keeping that the Bank of England is operating?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords. With respect, the duty of the Bank of England is to monitor the foreign exchange markets. It so happens that in 1986 the Bank did a survey and kept a daily total. That is why I was able to give a rough figure.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I am an amateur in economic matters. Will the Minister explain to me how it is possible that we are now discussing Harrods and a takeover bid? How is that linked up with the Question on the Order Paper?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I quite agree. I find it difficult to see in such allegations any

509
consistency at all. I have answered the Question that was put down on the Order Paper.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, further to the intervention of my noble friend will the Minister agree that I put my question to him very temperately? I simply asked him to clarify the position. I regret that so far he has not been able to do so. Is he by inference telling the House that the Sultan of Brunei and Mr. A1-Fayed went to the Prime Minister to discuss the weather?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, whether or not they discussed the weather I do not know, but it is true that the Sultan met the Prime Minister.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the Question seems to contain an implied connection between the visit to the Prime Minister and the subsequent approval of the takeover with regard to the Sultan supporting the panel. That is a very serious implication. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look into the matter and submit a further report to this House in order that we know whether there is some substance in the allegation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a very full Staterment was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place, and it was repeated by my noble friend Lord Trefgame. There is also to be a debate next week. I have nothing further to add.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I asked this question: will the Minister himself look into the matter and then give the House a report on his findings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord links two points. One is allegation; the other is a question about which there has been a report from the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I persist in my question which has not yet been answered. Will the Minister look into the implications of the Question asked this morning and report back to this House?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that my noble friend asks the noble Lord to have patience. Perhaps we can all discuss what is clearly in his mind and indeed in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, next Wednesday.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be very sensitive. I did not put the question to him.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Earl not perfectly well aware that there is a connection, as shown by the DTI's own report, between the Sultan of Brunei and the Fayed brothers who took over the House of Fraser? There have been very serious allegations made in that DTI report about the probity of the Fayed brothers and their takeover. Why have the Government taken no action under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986?
510
Why has the Governor of the Bank of England not taken any action under the Banking Act 1987, in particular Section 39, on the basis of the statements made in the DTI report?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord is alleging fraud, that is a matter to be dealt with by the prosecuting authorities.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the Government and in particular the DTI and the Governor of the Bank of England. The matter has been put before the serious fraud committee. As a result of the investigation, why has no action been taken under either of the Acts that I mentioned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I fully expected when I saw the Question on the Order Paper, the real purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is to ask a totally separate question which is not related to the Question on the Order Paper.

Stamps: Non-Value Indicators
11.28 a.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their attention has been drawn to a leaflet produced by the Post Office entitled New Stamps without value? and, if so, whether they are aware how far "gentlemen's agreements" have been concluded with other countries to ensure the acceptance of mail bearing this type of stamp.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand from the Post Office that it produced this leaflet solely for internal purposes to brief its counter staffs that non-value indicator stamps were being issued for domestic mail only. Before issuing those stamps the Post Office had notified the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union, requesting it to issue a circular to the 170 member administrations asking them to accept any non-value indicator stamps that erroneously appeared overseas. The Post Office has received no comments since that circular was published.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply. Is the noble Viscount aware that the leaflet to which I referred mentions that,
"The Universal Postal Union … dictates that stamps should bear a value. Customers should not therefore be advised that the stamps are valid for overseas mail"?
The leaflet goes on to state:
"In practice, however, 'gentlemen's agreements' with other countries will ensure that any NVI stamps inadvertently used on overseas mail will be accepted without difficulty. This is for your own information and not to be divulged to customers".
Does the noble Viscount agree that at no stage was that made clear to the customers who bought the stamps in good faith and presumably have used them in good faith on overseas mail? Does he not think it is about time that this monopoly organisation was referred to the Office of Fair Trading for concealing information from its customers?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Post Office states that the final paragraph of the leaflet referred to by the noble Lord attempted to encapsulate into a single sentence the provisions of the Universal Postal Union Convention and the Post Office's action in informing the UPU's international bureau through its 170 UPU-member postal administration about the issue of NVI stamps. The Post Office now recognises that this simplification was misleading. Nevertheless, it believes that in the context of the leaflet as a whole the paragraph provides sufficient information to equip members of its staff to deal with the public.
The Post Office has assured me that if it decides to issue books of non-value indicator stamps in future, these will make clear that the stamps are not suitable for overseas mail.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, will the noble Viscount assure us that no immediate increase in postage is envisaged? Does he not recall that the purpose of issuing these stamps was to bridge the gap between the announcement of an increase and its coming into effect? It was a total failure. When people realised that they could buy for 19p stamps which would shortly become worth 20p there was a short run on them. They totally disappeared some two weeks before the change of price. Is there therefore any point in continuing to issue these stamps?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, there is a slight inconsistency in what the noble Lord says. I agree that the stamps were made available before the change. It was done on the basis that many retail outlets also sell stamps and it helps customers if they can buy stamps before there is an imminent change about which they know so that they do not have to buy small denomination stamps to make up the difference. I have no information to advise the noble Lord of any impending increase.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that when these stamps first appeared I was told that one ought to have known that the stamps were not usable for overseas mail because inside the book there was nothing to say how much it cost to send postage to India or anywhere else? The non-value indicator stamp books now have such information printed inside. It therefore gives the impression that they are good for anywhere in the world.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I indicated that there is some possibility of the public being misled. That is why I have said that the Post Office has now assured us— and I repeat the assurance to the House— that if it decides to issue books again it will make clear that the stamps are not suitable for overseas mail.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would it not be best for the Post Office not to issue that type of stamp again in the future? It will only lead to confusion.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the Post Office has a commercial interest to pursue. It has found it very useful to be able to issue these
512
books in some quantity to the 40,000 small shops which also sell stamps to the public at the time of a change in postal values.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this farce. How long are these books likely to be on sale? In answer to the question regarding how long these books will be on sale, the leaflet to which we referred earlier, states until early January. I bought this book last week.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my last answer indicated the difficulty that there would be in withdrawing the stamps. Only a limited number of books was issued. The noble Lord may know that there are 1,400 Crown offices. There are 19,000 sub-offices which are run by independent people under franchise. There are 40,000 small shops which have purchased these books at a discount. It would be an extremely difficult operation to withdraw all the books from those 40,000 shops.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, did the Post Office ask the permission of the Government to do that? It is dealing with an issue of value. It is playing with values that are handed to the general public.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, as I understand it, the Post Office does not require the permission that my noble friend suggests. Obviously any increase in the postal rates has to be agreed.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, is there a philatelic aspect to the Question? It might be a good idea to get hold of these stamps and give them to one's grandchildren for birthday presents.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, these stamps are obviously of a limited duration and a special colour with a special indicator on them. They may or may not in the future have a value much in excess of their face value.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if the Post Office must continue to issue these NVI stamps can the Government ask it to be very careful never to issue them in the future in a colour, such as red, that colour blind people cannot recognise?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall certainly draw that interesting suggestion to the attention of the Post Office.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if the Post Office is to make further issues of valueless stamps, can it make sure that they are in conservative blue?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the stamps that are issued are not valueless. They are non-value indicator stamps.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, can my noble friend explain how the stamps without value do not get letters delivered abroad and the stamps with value do not get letters delivered here?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that it is the intention of the Post Office that letters bearing stamps of whatever value should be delivered according to its rules.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—
Clause 1,
Schedules 1 and 2,
Clause 2,
Clause 3,
Clause 4.— (The Earl of Caithness).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliament Electoral Reform Bill [H.L.]
11.38 a.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a modest measure to change and to reform the way in which Members of the European Parliament are elected. First, I must point out that in the Bill as it stands two errors have been drawn to my attention. The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, have told me that the references to the European Assembly are incorrect. The correct term is now the European Parliament— a change brought about by the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, on the coming into force of the Single European Act on 1st July 1987. That is how the Bill was first drafted. It was only on expert advice that "European Parliament" was changed to "European Assembly". It is clear that the advice was wrong and I shall be happy to change it back again in Committee.
Secondly, in Clause 11 the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 and the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1958 are mentioned. They were repealed and re-enacted in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. That will also have to be changed in Committee. I apologise to your Lordships for those errors.
Perhaps I may make it clear at the beginning that the measure does not in any way alter the way that Members of Parliament are elected to the House of Commons. It is designed to provide the European Parliament with the maximum legitimacy and authority, which in my view is the best answer to those who are fearful of the powers of the Brussels bureaucracy, as they call it.
Secondly, it is an attempt to introduce a system that cor forms more closely with Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, which states:
"The [European Parliament] shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States".
As it Stands, the existing British system is totally out of line with any electoral system used elsewhere
514
on the Continent to elect Members of the European Parliament. First, the United Kingdom elects its MPs, rather eccentrically, by two totally different systems; one for Great Britain and the other for Northern Ireland. The system for Northern Ireland is proportional and uses the single transferable vote system. The system for Great Britain is first past the post, and in that it is unique. Those used in all other member states are proportional in one form or another, thereby ensuring that seats won broadly match the votes cast. The Bill simply transfers the system used in Northern Ireland to the rest of Great Britain.
The shortcomings of the first-past-the-post system were vividly demonstrated at the last European election. For once it was the Conservative Party which suffered from the disproportionate unfairness that the system always brings. In that election the Conservative vote dropped by 5–2 per cent. from 38–8 per cent. to 33–6 per cent. However, the party lost 13 seats out of 45; that is nearly a 29 per cent. loss of seats for a 5 per cent. loss of vote.
It was not only the Conservative Party which suffered from the system; all the voters throughout Great Britain also suffered. Of the 78 British European MPs, 53 were voted against by the majority of their constituents. That is an astonishing state of affairs. Throughout Scotland and Wales Conservative voters were totally disenfranchised. Throughout southern England, excluding Bristol and London, Labour voters were disenfranchised. Throughout Great Britain Green and Alliance voters were disenfranchised. It is difficult to justify a system which produces such wildly eccentric results.
Nor are the ordinary objections to proportional representation relevant in this case. The European Parliament does not elect an Executive and the nature of its proceedings are consensual rather than adversarial. It is to that kind of Parliament that a proportional system is particularly well adapted.
The proportional representational system which I have chosen is the single transferable vote. However, the Bill is so constructed that Parliament can approve the principles of proportional representation in regional constituencies without committing itself to the single transferable vote system. Other options are open for consideration and it is important that that should be taken on board.
I have opted for the single transferable vote for a number of reasons. First, it is used in Northern Ireland and there is a certain elegance in transferring a system used in one part of the country to the rest of the country. Secondly, under the system each elector can indicate his preference between candidates and parties. He can discriminate between candidates whatever their party and that is desirable. He can also escape the diktat of the party machine which is the weakness of the list system. Finally, as in all proper proportional systems, he need never waste his vote.
The Bill in no way alters the number of Members of the European Parliament. There remain 66 from England, eight from Scotland, four from Wales and three from Northern Ireland. However, we propose to create single constituencies for Scotland and

515
Wales and nine for England. The boundaries of those constituencies will be settled on a shire basis by the Boundaries Commission allowing public inquiries on the publication of its recommendations. There is no change in the procedures for by-elections. Under a single transferable vote system a by-election becomes an alternative vote election.
Such are the bare bones of the Bill. I trust that it will commend itself to your Lordships. I have called it a "modest measure" and so it is. I believe that if it is passed it will have important consequences. It will make the European Parliament, which is of growing importance, more representative. In my view, it will make the European Parliament more accessible to the citizens of Europe. One hopes that it will increase the turnout at European elections in this country from the shocking 35–9 per cent. on the last occasion. It is not without significance that in Northern Ireland the turnout was then 47–7 per cent. The Bill will be of importance in strengthening the consensual politics of the European Community which are of fundamental importance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Bonham-Carter.)
11.46 a.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I support the Bill, but I do not propose to debate the merits or demerits of proportional representation as such. What we do here in Westminster is not a necessary or valid precedent for what we might or should do in the case of the European Parliament. The two institutions are entirely different: they have a different constitutional base; they operate in a different way, and their powers are quite different.
The first point I wish to make in support of the proposal is that the European Community is not simply a trading entity; it is a community. That comes out most clearly in the terms of the founding treaties. Thus in 1952 the Treaty of Paris referred to:
"establishing… a broader and deeper community among people".
The Treaty of Rome referred to a determination: "to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
It is interesting to note that both quotations refer to the peoples of Europe but not to the member states. Perhaps that is a different issue.
The concept of a community has been extended and deepened over the years by a succession of developments in the European Community, including not least the Single European Act which established economic and social cohesion as one of the policies of the Community. If one has a community one expects, and one is entitled to expect, a certain consistency in the structure, framework and laws of that community. Normally we should expect to see a certain consistency between the laws of the three or four countries which make up the United Kingdom. It is not unreasonable to expect a consistency in the way in which members of the European Parliament are elected in the different member states of the Community. Indeed, when it was first decided that members of the European
516
Parliament should be elected by universal suffrage instead of being appointed, it was envisaged and provided that there should be a uniform electoral procedure.
That procedure is subject to unanimity. I am well aware of the fact that some people— particularly our Government— tend to regard unanimity as a right of veto. In fact, that was never the intention of unanimity and is not the way that that is commonly regarded in the other member states. The purpose of unanimity is to allow all member states to proceed together; that is, to make progress towards an agreed objective and not to veto progress towards that objective.
Not all but most Community legislation— for example, the treaties— are couched in general terms. They provide a framework which then has to be filled in by subordinate legislation in the form of regulations, directives or decisions. The fact that they require unanimity does not mean that one or even more than one member state is really entitled to stop progress towards the agreed objective by refusing to agree on the basis of a unanimity rule. The position now is that we have 11 member states which have, broadly speaking, a form of proportional representation. At present the European Parliament is trying to reach an agreed position on a broad system which would bring together the voting procedures of the various member states. This Bill supports that movement.
There is one other important point which I should like to make which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I should like to make it quite clear that I am not raising this point in a purely party political way because the same point can arise on other elections and can move in the opposite direction. One may very well ask— and no doubt the point will be argued— why should not the British stick to their own peculiar and individual system and why should we have to come into line with what other people do as it is only a matter which concerns the United Kingdom? That is not true at all. The European Parliament does not operate at all on the basis of national representatives. It both sits and works broadly on the basis of political parties in the same way as we do in this House and in the other place. You have the two great groups— the Socialist group and the Christian Democratic group— with members drawn from virtually every member state. There are then a number of smaller groups; for example, the Communists, the French Liberals, the British Conservatives, the National Front and the Greens. Broadly speaking. Parliament operates on the basis of a Socialist group and a broadly Conservative or Christian Democrat group.
The effect of the last election was that the very big swing between the Conservative and Labour Party, coupled with the effect of our own first-past-the-post system, was to give the majority to the Socialist parties in the European Parliament. It is really ironic that the campaign which was conducted on the lines laid down by the Prime Minister should have resulted not only in the loss of a number of Conservative seats but should also have resulted in the election of a socialist European Parliament. I do not put that as a party political point because it can

517
quite easily go in the opposite direction. However, it therefore follows that what we do in this country is of importance not only to ourselves but also to the people in the other 11 member states.
Finally, I know that from time to time things happen in the European Parliament which result in considerable criticism both in the media and elsewhere. Of course, the European Parliament is not unique in that respect. That that happens should not blind us to the fact that there are many extremely good members in the European Parliament who are both far-sighted and hard working. They do an effective job. Increasingly over the years the European Parliament has played a more effective and constructive part in the affairs of the Comnmnity.
Quite frankly, in 1985 I was rather concerned when the powers of the European Parliament were increased in relation to the single European market. I envisaged the possibility of all kinds of difficulties arising in the Parliament. That never occurred at all and the Parliament has done and continues to do a very good and constructive job in relation to the internal market programme. It has also, both there and elsewhere, performed the extremely valuable function which your Lordships' House has in acting as a revising chamber and improving the quality of European legislation. It is on all those grounds that I strongly support the Bill as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
11.56 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eonham-Carter, made a very good case for his Bill and I was extremely interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, based on his experience and his deep knowledge of this subject. For me, the major argument in favour of making this change in relation to our electoral system for the European elections is that under the Treaty of Rome there was a requirement that there should be a common electoral system for the European Parliament. In my view that means that this particular change in our electoral system is something which belongs entirely to the European argument rather than to the general arguments about changing our electoral system here.
When one looks at all the changes and all the forms of integration and greater unification between the systems of the member countries of Europe, this very minor change rather pales besides those economic changes with which we shall be faced in 1992. That makes us look at this Bill in a very particular way.
It is also important to look back to 1977 when there was a Bill for which my right honourable friend Merlyn Rees was responsible. In April 1977 there was a White Paper which looked very hard at the different options. It contained a passage of great interest which said:
"Since the European Assembly does not constitute a legislature or provide a government, and since its members do not have the same constituency responsibilities as a Westminster MP, proportional representation for the European Assembly might not be open to the same objections as proportional representation for the Westminster Parliament. A different institution might warrant a different form of election".
518
When it came to the Committee stage of that Bill, that particular option was jettisoned. Nevertheless, it existed and I think that many people were not happy about the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 which is the Act which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, now wishes to amend.
It is also very sad to look back at the failed attempts by the European Parliament to bring about some kind of harmonisation. For example, after the 1979 elections, which used national electoral systems, the newly elected parliament referred the question to the political affairs committee. Although its report was adopted by the European Parliament in 1982, it was not adopted by the Council of Ministers. The reason, it was believed, was that Britain objected to the principle of PR and the Irish objected to a party list system.
There were then the 1984 elections and the matter was again referred to the political affairs committee of the new parliament. The same thing happened; the committee's report was published and discussed, but no agreement was reached. The 1989 elections were held, again using national systems. The issue was once again referred to a committee, but this time to the institutional affairs committee. One is tempted to ask whether this attempt is more likely to succeed than its predecessors over the past 10 years. One may think that it is not very likely.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, every other country uses a proportional representation system. I am impressed that even France, which is not currently using a PR system to elect its National Assembly, uses one for the European elections. As the noble Lord said, that means that Britain is the odd man out. We use STV for Northern Ireland's representatives. That is a major strength that he pointed to. In this Bill we can follow the example of the European elections in Northern Ireland which worked very well.
The noble Lord pointed out the anomalies which came to light, especially in the 1989 election. Perhaps I may make the point even more strongly in another way. There are 33 European elections north and south of a line from the Severn to the Wash. In 1989 south of that line the Conservatives polled 41.8 per cent. of the votes, obtaining 25 of the 33 seats. The Labour Party obtained the remaining eight seats, seven coming from Greater London. North of that line the Labour Party polled 48–7 per cent. of the votes and obtained 26 of the 33 seats, the Conservatives taking the remaining seven. That puts a stronger aspect on the anomalies that the noble Lord described.
In conclusion, I see many advantages in the noble Lord's Bill. First, it complies with the Treaty of Rome. Secondly, it provides a more democratic system whereby the electorate is given the widest possible choice. Thirdly, it has been tried in Northern Ireland where it seems to provide a reasonably proportionate result. Fourthly, there is a great simplicity about it. That is a great strength. Most importantly, it does not interfere with either the mania of those who wish for electoral reform throughout Britain or the paranoia of those who will not even contemplate changing our electoral system. This Bill charts a safe course between the two.

519
Finally— dare I say it— such a system might give women a better chance of obtaining representation in the European elections. I hope the Government will look seriously at this Bill.
12.4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this Bill is of limited impact and I venture to support it. Its limited impact has been argued in cogent and most informative speeches that preceded mine; but though of limited impact if raises wider questions in relation to parliamentary democracy. A generally accepted description of democratic society is that a society is democratic not if but in so far as the mass of the people can influence the decisions that affect their own lives.
Our own system, though imperfectly, enables the mass of people in the sense of the majority of people, through their representatives in Parliament, to influence decisions that affect their lives. However, increasingly questions are asked about the interests of minorities. Undoubtedly, our system of first-past-the-post does not, on the face of it at any rate, adequately provide for the minorities having a proportionate and proper influence on the decisions that affect their lives.
Electoral representation is not the only way of securing that influence. Our traditional way has been tolerance and consideration of the interests of minorities without any legislative or electoral entrenchment. Moreover, the interests of minorities are probably better safeguarded by a bill of rights entrenching individual rights. I, like many other noble Lords, wish to see that come about and to be an entrenchment in our constitution.
There is also another way, which was expressed admirably by a practical statesman. Lord Attlee, who said that democracy is not merely rule by the majority but majority rule with deference to the interests of minorities. It can hardly be questioned that the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and so ably supported by subsequent speakers vindicates the interests of minorities, particularly central minorities.
There is only one other point I wish to make. Our system undoubtedly provides decisive government. However, it does that at the risk of very violent tacks in policy. One particularly notices that with the prevailing "Butskellism" over so many decades. The Prime Minister's prestige and popularity are not at their height at the moment, but it would be extremely unjust not to recognise the courage, determination and skill with which she wrested round the tiller when the ship of state was diverging so widely from a centre line. Undoubtedly the type of representation which this Bill advocates will minimise those wide gaps and enable the ship of state to proceed more centrally, more gyroscopically, particularly when the wind is not ahead of the beam.
12.8 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised when I say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and urge your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I was chairman
520
of the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform which reported in 1976 and which recommended proportional representation for parliamentary elections and also for Euro elections, which at that time had not taken place. I am currently president of the Electoral Reform Society and of Conservative Action for Electoral Reform. Therefore, when I say that I support the Bill some people might reply, "He would, wouldn't he?" I am sure, however, that your Lordships are far too courteous to say that, even if you thought it.
There are strong arguments for a proportional system in national and local elections. A few years ago I brought in a Bill on proportional representation for local elections which your Lordships were kind enough to pass. Of course, it sank without trace in another place but at least it went through this House. However, we are not concerned with those issues. There are even stronger arguments for proportional representation in Euro-elections. In national elections the case against proportional representation has always been that it could produce hung parliaments and wobbly coalition governments— Italy, Holland and Israel are often cited. That actually depends on what form of proportional representation is adopted, but it is not relevant in the context we are now discussing.
The electorate is not, as has been said, voting to sustain an existing or alternative government. It is voting for a delegate to sit in a representative assembly. It is a sounding board, in some ways, as to the opinions of the various nation states. The Hansard Society Commission actually favoured what is called the alternative member system for national elections, though most of us were only marginally in favour of that rather than the single transferable vote. Personally, I would have gone along with either. In this context I would prefer the single transferable vote, if only because we already have it for Euro-elections in Northern Ireland and the process of extending it to the rest of the United Kingdom would be comparatively simple. In fact, I do not believe any of the EC countries have adopted the additional member system for Euro-elections; not even the German Federal Republic.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the Bill is so constructed that Parliament can approve the principle of proportional representation without necessarily being committed to the single transferable vote. It could adopt some kind of list system if it wanted to do so. The real point is to get rid of the first-past-the-post system in this context. Whatever the arguments for it nationally, it is an indefensible system for Europe. Sooner or later we will have to adopt some brand of proportional representation for these elections.
It is perfectly true that all 11 other European countries each elect Euro-MPs under a slightly different system, but all of them are variants within the broad category of proportional representation; that is, the number of seats corresponds approximately to the number of votes cast. Our first-past-the-post system sticks out like a sore thumb. We will be under increasing pressure as the years go by to join not a uniform system— that may never come— but a group of systems all of which

521
converge in the direction of some form of proportional representation.
I am in favour of this Bill not only because, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield pointed out, of its effect on other countries in Europe but also for the sake of fairness to ourselves. It is not merely a matter of giving way to pressure from outside. The case for having fair and proper representation of ourselves in the European Parliament is, to my mind, overwhelming. I very much hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.
12.14 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, in common with all the previous speakers, I am in favour of this Bill. It is right that this country should be properly represented in the European Parliament. It is right that, since all the other countries in the European Comnunity use some form of proportional representation, this country should do the same. I also believe that since we have already accepted the principle of the single transferable vote for Northern Ireland, it is simple to extend it to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Moreover, we use the single transferable vote for electing members from universities and in organisations with which I have had some connection. In the General Medical Council, for example, doctors elect their members by the single transferable vote. That has had the effect of having half a dozen overseas doctors on the General Medical Council, which we did not have previously. Therefore, the question of the value of this form of representation in terms of looking after minorities has been proved by the results obtained where it has been used.
I also believe that it is important to recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, we are electing to the Community and, what is more important, after the election there is a grouping within the European Parliament which is on political lines. Therefore, it is right that our representatives should, in fact, be politically representative of the United Kingdom. In the first-past-the-post form of elections they are not. Therefore, that is an additional reason for adopting some form of proportional representation. As I said, the single transferable vote seems to be the most logical for such an election. I very much hope that the Bill will receive a fair wind in this House.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, one of the remarkable features of this debate so far is its unanimity. I became: increasingly interested in electoral reform before I became a member of the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Blake. As he pointed out, the commission did not in fact espouse the system of a single transferable vote but it chose the system allowing the co-option of certain additional members which was naturally strongly opposed— and has been ever since— by all who are convinced that elected members should be attached to a territorial constituency.
522
I remember the critics being particularly shocked by the possible co-option of candidates who had been defeated in a constituency at a recent election. The opponents also shrank, and continue to shrink, from a system which manifestly attaches more attention to the concept of justice than to the kind of government which that system would create. I remember that alarming pictures were drawn during our discussions of uneasy coalitions which were brought to birth with difficulty after possibly questionable deals in rooms which for some reason are always described as "smoke-filled rooms". I imagine that in these days of comparative abstinence, the smoke would be rather less; but that does not affect the argument.
I admit that the critics' case had, and continues to have, a considerable amount of weight. Certainly, the most recent experience in this country of a coalition with the Lib-Lab pact did not inspire enormous confidence; nor did it reduce fears of even less desirable arrangements in the future. I am drawn to the conclusion that whatever its complexion, a government elected under the first-past-the-post system seems to carry more weight, even among its opponents, than the rather fortuitous collection of political parties and men and women which no one on the eve of an election can precisely foresee.
Moreover, hard as it is to hold together members of a single party— as we have seen on various occasions in fairly recent times— it must be much more difficult in the case of a coalition of two or more parties with no shared political philosophy. These criticisms, as I have done my best to point out, seem to have weight in the context of any system which is designed to choose a national or possibly a local government. But they seem to have very little relevance in relation to the European Parliament which, in the opinion of most people, looks unlikely to enjoy or to provide executive power in the foreseeable future.
The system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would create no kind of government whether strong or weak. Therefore, the criterion of justice, in the context of European elections, seems to deserve far more attention than the opponents of electoral reform have been willing to give it in relation to elections leading to the formation of a British Government. I am bound to admit that justice is a quality which the present system is quite unable to claim, not that the major parties have any great cause for complaint.
My own party enjoyed a considerable bonus in the first of the elections when it won three-quarters of the seats with half the number of votes cast. Last year, the Labour Party also gained rather more seats than strict electoral mathematics would afford it. I find it extremely difficult to defend a system, where no question of electing a government arises, which denies one single seat to a party winning nearly one-fifth (one-in-five) of the popular vote, particularly when that system provides a seat to a party which won fewer than one in 50 of the votes merely because those votes happen to be, fortunately, concentrated geographically.
I shall be most interested, as will all noble Lords, at the attitude of my noble friend when he comes to

523
reply. I do not know what line he is going to take. I hope that he will not rely too much on arguments about thin edges of wedges because a firm Northern Irish wedge, as we all know, is firmly in the door already. I cannot see any threat to my noble friend's position— if he resists proportional representation in general in this rather limited move to elect English, Scots and Welsh Members of the European Parliament— by a method of election comparable to that which already elects Members from Ulster. Therefore, I should like to give my support to the Bill.
12.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, Friday is always a good day on which to debate electoral reform. This morning, following yesterday's by-election, we have had the advantage of seeing our electoral system in action. Another fact that we also find on a Friday in these circumstances is that certain noble Lords are disposed to celebrate the victory of those whom they favour by wearing a highly-coloured tie which has a political notation. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, was joining in the conventional practice of celebrating the victory of a candidate at a by-election. I have only one red tie. I would never have bought it because it is much too red for me. It was given to me. I asked myself this morning whether I should put it on. I am not wearing it. When I looked at it this morning I thought that it would be misunderstood if I turned up wearing a red tie. I have never arrived in your Lordships' House at any time wearing a red tie. That is nothing to do with politics, it is really a matter of personal taste.
The speeches this morning have all been in support of the Bill. I shall do the same. I have been a member and vice-president of the electoral reform movement for many years. There are some movements which one belongs to and one wonders if they are ever going to see their objectives realised. My father was a most active supporter of the daylight-saving movement. Conservative Britain was very slow indeed to see the advantages of that. However, all at once, when the war came, we adopted the system, and we have never left it.
The movement under discussion requires some popular will, and some force behind it. We know what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would say if there were enough electoral backing for this change in our electoral system. Why is it that we do not get a more rapid appreciation of the relevance of a change in our electoral system? One reason is that, although the British people have a highly-developed sense of fairness and probably know before most governments what is fair and what is not, in some areas of public matters the British people have a completely blind spot. They seem to be unable to recognise the unfairness of what they are considering every day.
I do not want to introduce the poll tax into the debate this morning. However, those who recognise unfairness in one form of taxation are failing to recognise a great deal of unfairness in others. That
524
is what the situation is. We shall soon have to change in order to be contemporary in parliamentary affairs in Europe and in our appreciation of what is meant by representative democracy. Most interesting speeches have been made this morning. The combination of them all, except mine, might well form part of a report of a seminar. The speeches dealt with some of the points which have been hindrances to the acceptance of the case for electoral change.
The noble Lord whom we have to watch this morning, since he has the right of reply, is my noble friend Lord Underhill. If I remember rightly, he has always been an opponent of a change in our electoral system, at least in the introduction of proportional representation. He has been a practitioner in electoral matters for many years, and he knows all the snags of systems. That is always a very good thing because sometimes snags in systems prove to be very serious obstacles to the general acceptance of change.
We had elections in Europe some months ago and what happened was quite shameful. The Government put up the price of failure in the election by introducing regulations to increase the amount of deposit necessary for candidates in those elections. I believe I am right in saying that, for parliamentary elections in England and Wales, the deposit is still £ 500. But it was raised to £ 750 between one election and another and then raised to £ 1,000 for candidates for the European elections. This was done supposedly to discourage frivolous candidature. However, the Greens polled 15 per cent. of the vote but did not win a seat.
In fact all of our 87 seats in the European Assembly have been divided between the two main parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, pointed out, that is not only unfair here but it is undesirable there. It influences and distorts the political composition of the European Assembly. We have pushed into the European Assembly an element of representation which is alien to its own and which distorts the ultimate result. We shall have to come into line with Europe very soon if we are to continue to be bearable to our European friends in the matter of elections.
An important point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. There was probably a time when election results represented broadly the political trend of the nation. They provided a government not necessarily wholly representative but broadly so, with a tolerance which governments were expected to show towards minorities. In total they provided stable and responsible government. That cannot be said to apply today. We are not working a system designed for this generation. It is an inheritance. It began in the days when there were only about 800 votes to count. In Rotten boroughs there were not even as many votes as that. Under this system the person who receives the most votes is elected. Moreover, this system was in operation when those who received votes were nominated and controlled candidates. Even Gladstone could not stand as a Conservative candidate in his first constituency of Newark until he had the blessing of the Duke of Newcastle. That is how it was then. Why should one

525
bother about the method of voting when one knew that one had to wait for the votes to come out of somebody's pocket?
This inheritance has become tired. It is kept going only because the media and probably the sporting instincts of the British people like to see a contest. They are absolutely bent on winners. What seems to be important is who will win and who will lose. That happens in every shread of reformation in our affairs. It happens in fiscal matters, in philosophical matters and in all other matters in which one can generate some sense of personal interest. That is not good enough for today.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, made some interesting points. Some sections of our community will not concede representation of their interests to someone not of their section of the comnunity. After all, why do we want women in Parliament? Men can represent the interests of women perfectly well. Why bother to put women there? That is what many men thought for a very long time. But women said that they wanted to be there. Indeed the only really representative body that many of us know is the one of which we are members. That is what women wanted. Now other sections of our community want to see themselves in Parliament. We must adjust our system to make it more representative.
Does our system produce the results that we want? Does It produce stable government and all the rest of it? Does it smack of firm government? Oh, that smack of firm government! Where is the smack of firm government? It rests on a large majority in the elected chamber. There is sometimes no sign of it. I remind noble Lords that the Bill in 1911 under which we lost our full powers and became subject to a humiliating veto was passed by a Parliament in which the Government did not have a majority. They had to rely on 40 Irish Nationalists to get through a Bill to clip the wings of your Lordships' House That is a shameful episode in our history. No wonder noble Lords never refer to it. No one ever goes back to those days. It is passed over. When I called a Division on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, the Chief Whip rushed over to me and said, "Douglas, that is not done here". I knew that very well. That shows the reticence of the House in regard to some of the origins of its present condition.
The question of whether government can be firm depends on whether they are representative. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, once gave an address on why British governments become unpopular so soon after they have been elected. The answer is that they were never representative from the start; they were never representative of the people from the beginning. Even in the landslide victory this morning the winning candidate received less than 50 per cent. of the vote. A by-election is pending sadly in, a Labour stronghold where the late Member of Parliament still had less than 50 per cent. of the vote.
Then; are other crudities about our electoral system. The noble Lord, Lord Holderness, referred to people in international company feeling a sense of representativeness. But we do not have a
526
representative Parliament, and that is why we do not have a representative government. Governments will derive their strength from support. Coalition governments are not to be despised. After all, we have to have them in time of war. Europe has them all the time. There is nothing to show that they are a model which we should not follow. We would probably have a greater sense of responsibility in political affairs and it would lead to better results.
We suffer from a constant sharpening of political differences on every issue. We are told that there must be another point of view and that it must be sharply expressed. It is said that there must be no grey areas in British politics because people are colour blind. In those circumstances we have an entirely misleading condition in our politics. People outside go about their daily tasks, their leisure and so on. For a large part of the time they do not bother about what Parliament is saying.
That is enough to be going on with. The Bill should herald renewed support from the House although we are not directly interested. I am quite sure that if we stood for election many of us would be elected. I am happy to see that there is movement inside the Labour Party. If we make a score I put it as follows: first, we have proportional representative in Northern Ireland; secondly, if we set up regional assemblies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they will have proportional representation. Much more to the point, when this House is reformed, and noble Lords stand for election, we shall be elected by PR. That is the promise in what we have heard. I have no information about the matter, but that is what we are likely to receive. We shall have PR for Northern Ireland, PR for regional assemblies and PR for the reformed Upper House. Surely we shall not leave England, the Home Counties and the rest of it to operate under the old system in those circumstances.
There is also a strong movement among the rank and file for this change. In my view that is a good sign. We must get rid of these shadowy fears about the state of government. The state of government will depend upon the will of the people. It is extraordinarily difficult for governments to continue in office and say that they have authority if people are showing by their voting in by-elections that they do not want it that way at all. You cannot have it all ways; there is no perfect solution in human affairs. However, I think that your Lordships are likely to find one if we plod along for long enough.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may as a chauvinistic Englishwoman suggest that winning and losing is certainly not peculiar to us. I recommend that he should go to an international football match where he will see that the Europeans carry out exactly the same systems as we do. Of course every nation wants winners, but they know there will always have to be losers.
12.41 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should begin by apologising for the fact that my name does not appear on the speakers' list. I did in fact put my

527
name forward at 7 o'clock yesterday evening, but a slip-up seems to have occurred as sometimes happens. However, I shall be fairly brief.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, introduced the Bill with his customary conviction and eloquence. Unlike him, and unlike most other noble Lords who have spoken thus far, I am decidedly not an enthusiast for PR across the board. For a number of reasons, of which the unhappy examples of Greece and Israel comprise only a few, I certainly do not believe that proportional representation is in any way appropriate for elections to our House of Commons.
The case for PR for elections to the European Assembly or European Parliament is much more finely balanced; indeed, I believe that the balance may tilt in the direction of the noble Lord's Bill, or some modification thereof. For example, I do not really believe that the Scots of the Highlands and Islands and the Borders feel that their interests coincide with those of the Scots of Strathclyde. However, that is a matter which will have to be dealt with at a later stage— that is, if we get that far.
One problem so far as concerns this country is that the question is bedevilled by the British electorate's habit of using European elections in the same way as it uses parliamentary by-elections; in other words, they are used as occasions for registering a mid-term protest vote, sometimes a mid-term frivolous protest vote, as is its privilege. Heaven help us if we ever became as staid and unfrivolous as the Germans or the Swiss. Nevertheless, there is no reason to suppose that this habit of the British electorate would in general produce more eccentric results under proportional representation than under the existing first-past-the-post system. One remembers, for example, the European election— I cannot remember which one it was— which resulted in the Labour Party finishing up with practically no seats at all, despite the strong support it had in numerical terms in the country.
In constituencies in which seven or eight candidates are to be elected, there would be a good chance that one or more of them might turn out to be an independent. What could be more desirable than that? The electorate might also be able to choose between pro-federalist and anti-federalist Conservatives. That is a development devoutly to be desired. It might even be able to choose between a pro-federalist and an anti-federalist Liberal, if such a rare bird existed.
Additionally, there is the example of Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, pointed out in his opening speech. I believe he said, if I understood him correctly, that what applies to one part of the country should also apply to other parts of the country. I wholeheartedly endorse that view. Indeed, the same point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Blake, Lord Pitt of Hampstead and Lord Holderness.
One observes from one's calculations that the Bill in effect proposes that there should be 718,000 electors per English MEP; 709,000 per Welsh MEP; 639,000 per Scottish MEP; and 525,000 per Northern Ireland MEP. That shows a slight bias in
528
favour of Scotland and Ulster, but this is not out of line with present practice. However, it is that aspect— namely, the number of electors per MEP— which leads me to the main point of my intervention this morning.
Time and again I have complained in this House about the undemocratic composition of the European Parliament with, for example, Luxembourg being allotted six times as many seats as it would be entitled to on a per capita basis; the Republic of Ireland with two and a half times as many seats as it would be entitled to on a per capita basis; while conversely France, West Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy are under-represented. I believe that it is only in respect of Spain that the position is about right. In other words, a vote cast in Luxembourg is worth 11 times as much as a vote cast in France or the United Kingdom and an Irish vote is worth three times as much as an Italian vote.
So long as the European Parliament remained essentially a talking shop that situation may not have mattered. But the moment it starts to exert increasing control over all of our lives, it begins to matter very much indeed. The whole issue will obviously come to a head with the reunification of Germany. It is inconceivable that a reunited Germany within the EC would be content with a mere 81 seats when even now, before reunification, it would be entitled to 90 or 91 seats on a strict per capita basis.
Whenever I have raised this matter previously I have been met with nothing but evasion— I imagine embarrassed evasion— from the Government Benches. But the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, does not sit on those Benches. I am sure that I can count on him either to give a spirited defence of the present undemocratic allocation of seats between the various member states of the EC, or, better still, in view of the pending accession to the Community of East Germany, followed closely, one imagines, by Austria, Malta, and possibly other Eastern European countries, to propose a much more democratic and representative alternative.
12.47 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, a person winding up a debate in favour of the proposition is normally expected to have the opportunity to reply to the arguments which have been deployed against the Bill. My difficulty is that if there are to be arguments against the Bill they will be put forward after I have spoken, because they have not been mentioned thus far. They may come from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, or from the Minister of State, but not I hope too strongly, if at all, from either of them. But, regarding those noble Lords who spoke before me, they have been unanimous in their cogency and in their support for the Bill, and they have been widely spread throughout the House.
I shall begin by making a concession to those who are cynical or sceptical or determined defenders of the status quo however indefensible it may be. No electoral system for the election of any representative body can ever be perfect. The only perfect solution is not to elect representatives but to have everyone sitting in the parliament, assembly or whatever it

529
may be. But that would also be open to disadvantages. However, that does not mean that some systems are not a great deal better than others. It certainly does not absolve us from the duty of trying to get the fairest system possible. In the absence of any strong contrary arguments, that must surely be the one which produces elected representatives who most nearly represent the views of those who elected them to be their representatives. Certain contrary arguments can exist, though I do not think they apply to this Bill.
In relation to the House of Commons— although I think its strength is sometimes exaggerated— there is the argument that this must give way to a substantial extent to the desire for strong coherent government. We have seen examples of strong, coherent government in the past few days under the other system. However, while one can exaggerate the degree of enforcement given to that argument, it must be recognised as an argument of some validity. As has been pointed out several times, clearly that does not apply to elections for the European Parliament which has no duty, power or possibility of sustaining, forming or dismissing a government. The people— not in your Lordships' House but elsewhere— who will be most strongly opposed to the Bill are also those who would be strongly opposed to giving the European Parliament powers to control or dismiss an executive government of Europe.
The other argument which is sometimes strongly used against electoral reform is that it would break the identification of individual members with a relatively small individual constituency. As the German system has shown, that is a difficulty which can be substantially overcome. But in this case it cannot be argued that such an intimate link is there to be broken. Euro constituencies, by their very nature, have been too big for such an intimate relationship— the value of which I would not entirely deny— to have been built up. It will not amount to a qualitative difference, whether we have the fairly large constituencies which exist at present or whether we have somewhat larger constituencies, as would be necessary under the Bill.
In addition, in the case of the European Parliament we have a clear obligation to which we have several times put our signature as a nation to move towards a harmonised system of election. That obligation is in Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome to which we are signatories. It is fortified by the Single European Act to which we are also signatories.
Article 138 does not specify a proportional system, it specifies a common system. Eleven of the member states; have systems which vary somewhat but are all broadly proportional. We ourselves in a part of the United Kingdom have a proportional system because it is thought that balance is peculiarly necessary in that province. In the circumstances in which this is so, we can hardly think that it is a practical or reasonable proposition that the other 11 member states should be expected to harmonise around our rather eccentric and distorting system.
The common European system which may emerge, to judge from work currently being done in the European Parliament, could well leave a good deal
530
to local variations. The juggernaut of Europe is likely to be fairly tame in this respect. But it will certainly be a common system of which proportionality will be the essence. That degree of harmonisation will be required. The proposal that we put forward is fully compatible with the work currently being done.
The important point which was powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, with the great experience with which he speaks, is that we are not just misrepresenting our own electors. That could be argued— although I do not entirely accept it— to be exclusively our own business. But we are also distorting the shape of the European Parliament. Therefore it has a considerable adverse effect on an institution which is the common property of Europe as a whole. The approximately 5 per cent. swing from Conservative to Labour between 1984 and 1989 produced a large shift in the number of MEPs which set the Socialist group zooming into the lead position in the Parliament. That was just as the small Labour contingent of 1979 held it back artificially.
Equally, the so far permanent and total exclusion of the strongest Liberal vote in Europe in this country, as it has been throughout the election— the Liberal Democrat vote now— has weakened the ELD group in the Parliament and given the Communist group the undeserved third place among the groups in the Parliament. The Communists being in third place as a group is entirely due to the non-proportionate nature of the British electoral system.
These are not negligible consequences. By an act of imagination one can consider what view would be taken in the Parliament of the United Kingdom if for some historical reason one region of the country had remained with a franchise which was quite different from that of the rest of the kingdom but which altered the balance in the United Kingdom Parliament in a way that was of considerable importance. That would not be regarded as a matter of concern only to the particular region of the country which decided to act in that eccentric way.
I speak as the President of the European Commission at the time when the European Parliament was first directly elected, and continuing as President for the first two years of the directly elected Parliament's existence. My experience matches that of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who saw the directly elected Parliament operating over a longer and later stage than I did but not as president and not right at the beginning. My experience marches almost exactly alongside his. I have no doubt at all that our voting system for that European Parliament damagingly increased our reputation for semi-detachment from Europe. That is a tremendous disadvantage to the country. It is one reason why our influence in Europe is not commensurate with that of Germany or France. It is because we are felt to be semi-detached, conditional, only half or three-quarter members. I have no doubt at all that the way to exercise influence in Europe, the way to play a part in the development of European institutions so that they develop in accordance with the interests of Europe, but also compatible with British national interests, is fully to participate in every aspect of the European game.

531
We are therefore in a position in which this modest, precise Bill is fair in purpose and likely to be beneficial to British interests in its results. Where all those factors come together, in my view it amounts to an overwhelming case for this small, modest but important Bill. I very much hope that it will not only receive a Second Reading in your Lordships' House today but will go forward from here to come into law in the near future.
12.57 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, first I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on the way in which he has presented his Bill, and on the tremendous support he has received from other noble Lords in your Lordships' House. It is my job to endeavour so far as I can to explain the attitude of the Labour Party to the subject and to the Bill before us.
Other noble Lords may have received the same memorandum as I did from Mr. Andrew Duff in which he reviewed various events, and also set out an explanation as to why the Bill should be supported. That caused me to examine my own records at home. Apart from looking at Labour Party conference records, I examined others, particularly the case against proportional representation by the Fabian Society in 1924. I looked also at The Objections to Proportional Representation Answered published by the Proportional Representation Society in 1939 and the Hansard Society report to which reference has been made.
My noble friend Lord Houghton said that he was interested in hearing what I was going to say. My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs referred to the mania of those who oppose proportional representation and the paranoia of some of those who want it for everything. What few noble Lords may know— they may be doubtful about this in the light of other speeches I have made in your Lordships' House— is that way back in the early 1940s, as a delegate for my constituency party to the Labour Party conference in 1942 while I was on leave from the National Fire Service, I proposed on behalf of my constituency party a resolution advocating proportional representation. I did so because, first, I was a delegate and I carried out my party's democratic decisions; and, secondly, because I believed in the maximum representation of minorities that could be achieved.
Later, when one studied the matter carefully one had to recognise that we were first, dealing with the principles of PR; secondly, what system we should adopt; and, thirdly, the possible consequences. Reference has been made to the possible consequences. There was, first, the lack of constituency contact. What would happen if we had a party list? As a former national agent of the Labour Party I know what power the party list would have given me, and so I disliked that idea. I was interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who could see many arguments against PR in general although he saw arguments for its possible use in the European elections. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made clear that the Bill in no way affects the electoral system of the other place.
532
I shall go back a little. The 1976 Labour Party conference considered a document which set out the arguments for and against direct elections, because that matter had to be decided before we decided upon what system would be used. It also set out various options for consideration, and so there was no mania or paranoia in that document.
My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs referred to the White Paper issued by the Government in April 1977. That document set out three options for the electoral system which could be used at the first direct elections for the European Assembly, as it then was. I accept that it is now the European Parliament. The three options were: the simple majority system, the regional list system and the single transferable vote. The subsequent Labour Party conference received a report from the Parliamentary Labour Party which said that in the two-day debate on the White Paper in the other place there was little support for STV but significant support for the simple majority system and the regional list system. The Labour Government then brought forward in June 1977 the European Assembly Elections Bill which provided for a choice between those two systems.
The Bill was approved on Second Reading by an overwhelming majority of 247. Labour Members of Parliament were given a free vote on the principle of direct elections and the Prime Minister said that there would be a free vote for members of the Parliamentary Labour Party on the electoral system to be used when that issue came before the Committee. I shall refer to the possibility of a free vote before I conclude what I have to say.
However, before the Bill could proceed further, preparations had to be made for the first direct elections to be held in 1979, and the Bill was dropped. Hence we had the 1978 European Act, and the Boundary Commission started work to recommend the 66 constituencies for England, eight for Scotland and four for Wales. They were all single member constituencies to be elected by the first-past-the-post system. At that time I attended a number of meetings of the Community Elections Committee and the Socialist Group in Brussels and Strasbourg. As the Labour Party national agent I set to work to set up European constituency organisations. I believe that we were the first party to set up the whole constituency organisation system for the European elections. We laid down accountability in the rules. Each European constituency organisation had to have at least two meetings a year of its delegate organisation and executive committee. That was regarded as a vital consideration.
The subsequent elections were due to take place in 1984. This point has not been referred to by any noble Lord this morning, but your Lordships may recall that your Select Committee on the European Communities decided to consider the European Parliament's proposals for a uniform electoral procedure for those elections.
I have refreshed my memory in the past few days by reading that excellent report. After hearing some preliminary evidence, the Select Committee decided to set up an ad hoc sub-committee. I have the list of

533
its members. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and I were members of the committee and the noble Baroness, Lady White, was the chairman. At the outset the Select Committee accepted the view that,
"Proportional representation is not the name for a single electoral system but a generic term denoting a number of different systems".
The Select Committee's conclusion was:
"The fundamental issue is whether to adhere to our traditional system or adopt some form of proportional representation for European elections rather than the choice of a specific electoral system".
I fully appreciate that a number of noble Lords have stressed that no other member state followed Britain's plurality system (first-past-the-post); nevertheless, no common system was adopted by the member states. There may be various types of PR, but no common system has been adopted and it has been stressed that one may not be adopted now.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has confirmed that the Bill seeks to adopt the system used in Northern Ireland. That is made clear by the explanation of the first clause. However, I have always stressed that it is what is written in the Bill that matters, not what people say. When the STV system was first introduced in Northern Ireland for the local elections and for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the European elections, it was made clear that that would not be held as justifying the use of the system in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Some noble Lords may recall that I have said in previous debates in the House that I looked carefully at two general elections conducted in Eire. In some cases the STV system was followed. In some cases as many as six, seven or even eight counts had to be conducted where surplus votes were dropped off or the votes of members at the bottom were lifted up. On a number of occasions we found that candidates who often did well in the first election with the first preferences were not elected, whereas others who did not do too well in the first vote became the elected candidates because of the transfer of votes. That was one of my greatest criticisms of what I saw in two elections in the Republic of Ireland.
The Bill provides quite clearly for a system of multi-member constituencies. It is no use saying that the Bill allows us to adopt whichever system we like. It will, if amendments are moved in Committee. However, it lays down quite clearly that there will be multi-member constituencies. I wonder what the Scots will think of their 72 Commons constituencies becoming a single constituency to elect eight MEPs, or the Welsh of their 38 parliamentary constituencies becoming a single constituency returning four MEPs. In England, where the 523 parliamentary constituencies are divided into 66 European constituencies, under the Bill there would be just nine constituencies to elect 66 MEPs.
Those are the factors which have not been mentioned but which have to be considered if we are to discuss the system which the Bill lays down. The Bill goes far beyond proposing a system of proportional representation.
The Labour Party is considering very carefully possible changes in the electoral system for the various institutions. Noble Lords will know that the
534
recent Scottish Labour Party conference decided that there should be a wide-ranging survey of the systems that might be adopted for the Scottish assembly elections when that body is established. I saw a report that the leader of the Liberal Democrats believed that there should be flexibility regarding the system to be adopted. Therefore, there should not be a firm adherence to what the Liberal Democrats have proposed regarding STV.
Before I close perhaps I may quote two statements from Labour's policy review document— Meet the Challenge— Make the Change. I must here make a party political point. I heard the chairman of the Conservative Party say this morning that the Labour Party had put forward no policies in the Mid-Staffordshire by-election. I have in my case an 88-page document which sets out our final review statement on all aspects of Labour Party policy for the next election. That document was presented to the Labour Party conference last October and given general approval. However, so that noble Lords can refer to it I shall quote from page 55 of the document. It reads:
"The form of election to the new second chamber will be a matter for further consideration, but, because of its nature, it may be appropriate to adopt a scheme different from that by which Members of Parliament are elected".
Noble Lords may know that I was critical of the proposals for the reform of the second chamber.
Referring to Scottish and other suggested regional assemblies, on page 58 the document states:
"The form of election to the regional assemblies is a matter for further consideration".
Following the Labour Party conference in Scotland recently, on 12th March, in an editorial dealing with the decision at the conference, the Glasgow Herald said:
"Commitment to a particular system would clearly be premature at this stage. It is obvious that a lot of homework has to be done first, and that the educational process should not be confined to the party".
The editorial concluded:
"In any case the Labour Party is already examining PR systems as part of a broader programme of constitutional change".
I am informed that the next Labour Party conference in October will be asked to set up a working party to consider the form of elections to those bodies and other institutions. Those inquiries could include the method of election to the European Parliament. I understand that it will be suggested that there could be different systems for the different institutions. Therefore, so far as concerns the Labour Party, that is a matter which the party is considering very deeply. Members may smile, but it is far better to consider carefully what you are going to do before jumping in with a system which may not be workable or deciding that a common system will be adopted. It might be better to have a different system for elections to the House of Commons, the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, the regional assemblies which we propose and the European Parliament. On the other hand, there might be a common system.
Therefore, I cannot recommend to my friends to determine whether or not to accept the Bill as it stands today. When it comes to Committee stage I hope that we shall be able to give my noble friends

535
a free vote, as the Prime Minister promised when the subject was raised in 1977, first, because this a Private Member's Bill, and, secondly, because the Labour Party itself has yet to work out its eventual policy. By the time the Bill reaches Committee stage we may still be in the process of working towards those decisions.
1.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers):: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I tried to fathom on which side of the fence he would fall. As he castigated my right honourable friend the chairman of the Conservative Party for saying that the Labour Party had not put forward any clear views in Staffordshire, I thought if it had put them forward as clearly as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had put the Labour Party's attitude to the Bill it was not surprising that my right honourable friend made that speech.
I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on having introduced a Bill which has secured an astonishing amount of apparent unanimity from those who participated in the debate— apart from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. I have dreaded the debate, not because I dreaded the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, but because I dreaded the thought of trying to understand proportional representation. As I prepared myself for the debate I found that my apprehension was not unfounded. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that she was in favour of the Bill because it was simple. Whatever the merits of the Bill and the alternative voting system, simplicity is not one of them. It is a very complicated system.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, succeeded in working the poll tax into the debate on the Bill. I could not think what its relevance was, and I particularly liked the way in which he introduced the subject. He said that he did not really want to introduce discussion of the poll tax but nevertheless he thought that he ought to do such and such, and promptly introduced it.
It is only fair to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter— I know that it will come as no surprise to him— that the Government cannot support the Bill. However, I can put him out of his misery immediately and say that the Government have no intention of voting against it. The Government's position on proportional representation is well known. We have always made clear that we have no plans to introduce any form of proportional representation for local government elections in Great Britain, or for elections in the United Kingdom to another place.
The first-past-the-post system may not be perfect but it is simple. It is familiar and it is easily understood simply on the basis that he or she who gets more votes, even just one more, wins. It is much more likely to produce an overall majority for one party to provide strong and effective government, at either local or national level. The question which is
536
asked of the voter is simple. It is: what person and what party do you want to represent you, either in Parliament or on the Council? Proportional representation is, however, far more difficult. Those who advocate it say that it gives a fairer balance of view in Parliament. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the Select Committee which said that proportional representation is not one system. There are about 20 different forms of the system in practice and each form provides a different answer in each case. Therefore proportional representation as a system is not strictly comparable with the first-past-the-post system, as proportional representation is in fact a variety of widely differing alternatives.
It is, therefore, a misconception to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, indicated, that proportional representation as a system is fairer. Each proportional representation system may throw up a different parliamentary result. However, all the alternatives cannot be fairer. They are all different. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who said very fairly, openly and correctly that no system is perfect.
Proportional representation, in whatever form it takes, often results in some form of coalition based on a programme which the electorate has not in fact had the opportunity to approve and, indeed, of which it may disapprove. Voters can only guess what kind of coalition their party might have to enter into after an election, what new policies it might have to adopt and what compromises it might have to make in order to keep the coalition in existence. Furthermore, in a coalition parties which poll few votes can exercise an influence out of all proportion to the number of people who voted for them, and they can keep on exercising that influence notwithstanding the fact that they keep on coming low down in the poll.
Your Lordships may consider that these arguments apply with less force, or that they do not even apply at all, in the context of elections to the European Parliament. It can be argued— my noble friend Lord Cockfield used this argument— that the European Parliament is not a legislative body, and that its functions and powers are different from those of another place, or of any other national parliament. The role of its members, it can be said, is different, and the constituencies are much larger. A member of the European Parliament does not and cannot represent his or her constituents in quite the same way as his or her counterpart at Westminster. The link is therefore more tenuous. So the argument might run.
Others, however, might point to the fact that elections to the European Parliament in one part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, are already held under the system which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would like to see extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I should like to turn to the question of Northern Ireland for a moment. First, I shall explain why I am not convinced that elections to the European Parliament are so different from those to another place that they could, or should, be held under a different system. It is true that European

537
parliamentary constituencies are large. In most cases they consist of seven or eight United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies. But they still cover a manageable geographical area which, in most cases, electors can recognise and with which they can readily identify. Those areas constitute, for example, a city, a county or part of a county.
Under the arrangements which are proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in his Bill, we would have only 11 European parliamentary constituencies to cover the whole of Great Britain instead of 78 as at present. That would completely destroy any notion of local representation. It would also make it much more difficult for a member of the European Parliament to identify with his or her constituency— of which he or she would be but one of a number of representatives— or to retain links with his or her constituents. I imagine that at least some United Kingdom members of the European Parliament see their role, not just as part of a European political grouping, but as representatives who are well placed to further the local interests of the area for which they were elected.
The European Parliament is often seen as remote from the people who elect its members and not only geographically. Many electors in this country have little or no idea what the European Parliament is or what it does. Many do not know the name of their MEP and even those who do know often have only the vaguest notion as to what his or her job is. That is regrettable, although I have no doubt that the situation will improve as the Parliament takes a more active role in European affairs and becomes better known.
The arrangements which are proposed in this Bill, by destroying the direct one-to-one relationship between a Member of the Parliament and the recognisable geographical area which he or she represents, would, if anything, tend to make the MEP an even more remote and more faceless individual.
In Northern Ireland, the single transferable vote system was used as long ago as the 1920s. The elections to the Stormont Parliament in 1921 and 1925 used the single transferable vote system, although it was abolished for the 1929 and subsequent elections. More recently, the single transferable vote was introduced for the Northern Ireland local government elections of 1973 and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections of the same year. It has been used ever since for local government and now also European parliamentary elections in the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, may say that as it is used in Northern Ireland why not let the United Kingdom use it in the European elections. That seeems a plausible argument on the face of it. However, there is a very special reason for using it in Northern Ireland. The reason is the sectarian nature of Northern Ireland society and political life. The divided community, each side of which votes on both religious and political lines, makes the simple majority system unsuitable there.
There is, therefore, a strong case for an electoral system for European parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland which is likely to lead to the
538
election of three members who together represent the great majority of those voting at European elections. I see no similar case for adopting the system which is used there in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the special and indeed unique circumstances of Northern Ireland do not apply.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting, but is he saying that it is not necessary for the representatives from the rest of the United Kingdom to represent the views of all the people?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry but I do not follow the argument of the noble Lord.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister said that the system was introduced in Northern Ireland because it was able to represent the views of all the people. Is he saying that it is not necessary to represent the views of all the people when it comes to the rest of the United Kingdom?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has a unique and mischievous way of suggesting statements that he knows perfectly well I have never made. I said that the conditions in Northern Ireland were particularly unique and that those conditions made the system which operates there suitable. I said that in my view and the view of the Government it was not a suitable system to operate elsewhere.
The European Parliament has, for some time, been pressing for the introduction of a uniform electoral procedure throughout the Community. Indeed, the European Community Treaty requires the Parliament to draw up proposals for such a procedure. It also requires the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously, to recommend the appropriate provisions to the member states for adoption. In 1982 the Parliament adopted proposals for uniform procedure which was based on a report from its political affairs committee. The proposals were for a list system of proportional representation with multi-member constituencies. The trouble was that these proposals proved highly controversial and most member states understandably were reluctant to move from their own system which they understood and which they not unnaturally thought was the best.
Those proposals would have required changes to the procedures of all the member states and they raised substantial difficulties for several of them. Those difficulties could not be overcome in time for the 1984 elections. I am bound to tell your Lordships that there has been no significant progress since then towards the introduction of a uniform electoral procedure, although the Parliament has expressed the view that the 1989 elections should be the last to be held under national provisions.
In all the different systems that are used by member states, none of them, other than the Rebublic of Ireland, uses the system which the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, proposes that we should use. If we were to adopt his proposals, we should only complicate the system yet further.

539
My noble friend Lord Cockfield said that adoption of this Bill would be a move toward a common form of electoral system. But the procedures for election to the European Parliament vary widely between member states. All except the United Kingdom, which uses the simple majority system, and the Republic of Ireland, which uses the single transferable vote system, use list systems of proportional representation. But they too are of many different kinds. Some use regional multi-member constituencies. Others use national lists. Some allocate seats proportionately within regions; others at national level. Some allow the voters to choose between different candidates of the same party, and so on. Therefore proportional representation provides a kaleidoscope of alternatives. It does not of itself provide uniformity.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Cockfield took the opportunity to refer to the work of Members of the European Parliament. I should like to reinforce his remarks. They work very hard, often at most inconvenient times; they travel a great deal and their work is often unsung. They get very few thanks and most people do not understand what they do. But their work is of enormous benefit to Europe and for the concept of a united Europe.
We do not know what fresh proposals will emerge from the European Parliament, if indeed there are any, before the next European parliamentary elections in 1994, It is, however, highly unlikely that any proposed new procedure will be based on the single transferable vote system. Of the member states, only the Republic of Ireland uses that system.
The Government will consider on its merits any recommendations for a uniform procedure from the Council of Ministers. Until then I suggest that we have a system which is familiar and which— although I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, would agree— suits us best. Were we to adopt the proposals in the noble Lord's Bill we should have a system which was not only different from that for electing Members to another place and from that for local government elections throughout Great Britain. We should have a system which would also be different from any system used in the other member states save one.
If a uniform procedure were eventually to be adopted, we should almost certainly have to change our own system for a second time. I believe that noble Lords would agree that that would be a pretty disageeable prospect. Although, as I indicated, the Government cannot support this Bill, we shall not seek to deny it a Second Reading. However, I am afraid that for the reasons which I have given, I should not be able to offer the noble Lord assistance from this Bench either now or at a later stage. But I doubt whether the noble Lord expected anything different from that.
1.33 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, after this longish debate I hope that noble Lords will not expect me to reply in detail to the arguments put forward by either the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, or the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. However, I should like to thank
540
all noble Lords who have participated in this debate— with a rare degree of unanimity, save for the last two noble Lords to whom I referred— for the cogency of their speeches and the strength of their arguments. I hope that the noble Earl will read them as he has listened to them. They constitute a very powerful set of pleas for something which seems to me to be gaining in support. The review of this matter which the Labour Party is undertaking is encouraging. It means that one will look once more at this issue.
The noble Earl made two points which have not been tackled, so to speak, by earlier speakers. He put a good deal of weight on the size of the constituencies that would be formed under the system suggested in the Bill. He suggested that it would be difficult for people to have any sense of local identification in constituencies of that size. Perhaps I could refer him to the United States, Senators there have constituencies which are as big or bigger. The senators' identification with their states is very powerful. In fact sometimes they are accused of being too locally identified in their politics.
Secondly, the noble Earl said that proportional representation represents a variety of different systems. Of course it does. We have suggested one which is practised by one state in the European Community. The point about our system compared with the other systems used in the Community is that ours is not proportional. All of their systems are proportional in principle. They differ in means but they are proportional in principle. That, I suspect, is what the Commission and the committee which is examining this matter will propose. Therefore I do not think that it would in any way complicate our affairs— indeed it will be a step forward— if we adopt a single transferable vote system.
I repeat that the Bill is so constructed that Parliament can approve the principle for proportional representation in regional constituencies without committing itself to the single transferable vote system. That is not, therefore, what people are being asked to do.
I should like once more to thank noble Lords for participating in this debate and thank them for the support given to this Bill. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1990
1.36 p.m.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order [S.I. 1990 No. 290] be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should declare an interest as the current chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council which represents the views of all national shooting organisations throughout the country.
The Home Office announcement of the new scale of fees for firearm and shotgun certificates came as a considerable surprise and has caused great anger

541
and concern among the legitimate shooters all over the country. Not for the first time, they have an inescapable feeling that they are the victim of the Home Office's favourite occupation of shooter-bashing. There has been a complete lack of consultation with the shooting interests and the Firearms Consultative Committee.
The Association of Chief Police Officers is in the course of carrying out an inquiry into these fees. So also is another body; namely, Coopers and Lybrand. It is sponsored by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, one of the members of the British Shooting Sports Council.
Your Lordships will remember that in 1986 a working group was set up by the BSSC and the Home Office to consider the whole question of firearms fees. The work went well until the disaster of Hungerford. It put a stop to the work of that group, which has not met since then. However, we were given the impression that its functions would be taken over by the new Firearms Consultative Committee. So one would have expected that that committee would be consulted before any change in the fees structure was contemplated. Perhaps my noble friend will tell the House what part that Firearms Consultative Committee has played. The Government were forced, against their wishes, to accept that committee during the Bill's passage through another place. They took an unconscionable time to decide on its membership. Ten per cent. of the planned life of that committee had expired before the composition of the committee was decided and announced. I am well satisfied with the representation of shooting interests on the committee. However, to what extent has it been consulted on what I should have thought would be an ideal subject for discussion? I should like to know why it was not included in the consultation.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Government, having reluctantly agreed to the setting up of a Firearms Consultative Committee, are determined to treat it just as a talking shop and are not prepared to use it for the purpose for which it was intended. There is a growing feeling in shooting circles that they need more concrete evidence of the Government's good faith and their willingness to bring shooting interests into consultation.
I pass to the role of the police. Your Lordships will remember that about three years ago a survey was carried out among a sample of police forces. The forces produced an analysis of their costs in administering the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968. They produced a tremendously wide variety of answers. The Metropolitan Police were way ahead of the rest of the field by several lengths. In any case, the feeling is that these costs were assessed on a very doubtful basis. There is evidence of a considerable misuse or inefficient use of police time and manpower. The Government's policy is to recover the full administrative costs in the fees for the firearms and shotgun certificates. It was referred to in a letter from my noble friend on the Front bench to the honourable Member for Colne Valley;
"it is important to bear in mind that the new controls were introduced as a public safety measure".
If any member of the public wishes to consult the police on the security aspect, whether or not he is a firearms owner, the police will readily send their crime prevention officer to survey the house and make recommendations. For this service they make no charge whatever.
The police are constantly putting road patrol vehicles on motorways and other main roads and such cost is not passed on to the motorist either through driving licence fees or car registration fees. It is all part of the police service to the public. The crime prevention element of these police costs, whether in home security, motoring or administering the Firearms Act, is an element of normal police costs and should not be taken into consideration and included in the fees.
When the Firearms (Amendment) Act was introduced, we were told by the Home Secretary at that time that he foresaw an increase of about 80 in police staff across the country to administer the provisions of the new Act. There is every indication now that that figure will be greatly exceeded. My latest information is that there are 52 new posts established in only 10 police forces. If we therefore extrapolate that figure— which could be a slightly risky business— we arrive at a total of about 250 across the country. That seems either to indicate a woeful miscalculation, a guess which is very far from inspired, or even a deliberate attempt to mislead Parliament and the public.
Who will have to foot the bill for these extra police staff: It is of course the long-suffering shooter who has put up with so much already. The shooting public are wholly behind the Government in their efforts to reduce armed crime by all reasonable means. But they are becoming increasingly fed up and sick and tired of being made whipping boys for the criminal, because if the Government cannot catch the criminal they will turn to the nearest person— the innocent. legitimate shooter. There is a growing feeling that the Government's intention is to squeeze shooting sports out of existence altogether. I should like to be reassured by my noble friend that that is not their intention.
The latest level of increase in the fees is much greater than the cumulative rate of the retail prices index since 1986. Is it the serious intention of the Government to price all shooting sports out of the market? It is a sport for all ages and both sexes. Even at my present age I am still an active shooter, although without the degree of success that I used to enjoy. Nevertheless I still enjoy the sport. Your Lordships may know that there is an annual match at Bisley between this House and another place. I am pleased to say that we have won the last three matches. We hope to win this year's match and subsequent matches. However, future matches depend a great deal on the Government's attitude towards firearms control.
The United Kingdom is pre-eminent in shooting sports throughout the world. An English shooter has won a gold medal in two successive Olympic Games. There has been an outstanding performance by shooters from the United Kingdom in the recent Commonwealth Games. This year the National Rifle Association celebrates its centenary at Bisley. It is

543
not the centenary of its foundation, which took place in 1860, but of its move to Bisley in 1890. This year we are expecting an extra large meeting, with many competitors from overseas.
Clubs are the mainstay of any national association in any activity. They depend on the regular intake of young shooters. But the Home Secretary's latest regulations on rifle clubs are totally lacking in logic and are based mostly on mistaken premises. There is a grave danger that the recruitment of young shooters to the sport will be stifled altogether. That is another question that is outside the present debate. I hope that my noble friend will tell your Lordships exactly why the Government have chosen the present moment to pre-empt all other discussions and to introduce this order now without any form of consultation with shooting interests.
I understand that the present order is only the first in a two-stage process. Perhaps my noble friend can enlighten us on when we may expect the next step and what form it will take. The long-suffering shooting public is rapidly running out of patience. After their experiences of the past few months and yesterday, the Government surely need all the friends that they can get. I should like my noble friend to tell the House that the Government will withdraw the order. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order [S.I. 1990 No. 290] be annulled.— (Lord Swansea.)
1.50 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, some of your Lordships may have a room in your house where you hang old school photographs. I am conscious of the fact that I have a shooting eight photograph in which the captain is none other than my noble friend Lord Swansea. Therefore it hurts me a great deal to have to repudiate in this House so much of what he said, particularly about the Firearms Consultative Committee.
I speak today in my capacity as chairman of the Home Office Firearms Consultative Committee. I must tell my noble friend Lord Swansea that we have on our agenda the whole question of fees and the certification process. At our first meeting we were advised that of course the Government must recoup the costs of the police work. I remind him that the order deals only with the recoupment of police costs at this stage. In no way does it reflect the costs which may be added by the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988.
Your Lordships will know that the Firearms Consultative Committee was established under Section 22 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act. That was brought into effect, together with a number of other provisions in the Act, on 1st February last year by means of a commencement order. A second commencement order, laid before Parliament in May 1989, brought into effect, among other things, new controls on smooth-bore guns.
On 31st January this year the transitional arrangements provided under the second commencement order came to a close. I sincerely
544
hope that all those who held, by virtue of a shotgun certificate prior to 1st July 1989, a large magazine smooth-bore gun now raised to Section I control know about or have been told about the end of the transitional period.
During the eight-months transitional period it was open to such certificate holders either to apply for a firearms certificate for their weapon or have it adapted. I do not wish to bandy figures about but we know the approximate number of large smooth-bore pump-action shotguns that have been sold. We know from the trade the number that have been adapted. We do not know the number that have been transferred to Part I firearms certificates, but there is a gap. I am certain that there are many people in the gap who are committing an offence without knowing that. However, the time has now come to publicise the fact, to remind them that they are in default and that they must take action or there will be serious trouble.
I am conscious that the Firearms Consultative Committee's wide-ranging terms of reference make it an important forum for the discussion of firearms matters. Its main functions are to advise the Home Secretary of the implementation of and any improvements to the workings of the Acts of 1968 and 1988 and, if necessary, to make proposals for amending those Acts. As my noble friend Lord Swansea has reminded the House, we have recently provided the Home Secretary with advice on his proposals for the memberships of approved rifle and pistol clubs.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I take this opportunity to correct a mistake that I made in a radio interview. I said that recent tragedies, excluding the one in Glasgow, were committed by members who held a day membership of a rifle club. The correct record is one day member and a probationary member. I am sorry to say that the recent tragedy in Glasgow was committed by someone who held a full firearms certificate under which he was licensed to hold two rifles and four hand guns.
The membership of the committee reflects the interests of those who administer the legislation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swansea for paying tribute to the fact that the shooting interests are well represented on the committee. The committee was made aware of the Government's intention to introduce this interim measure— the fees are only an interim measure— at an early stage. However, if felt most strongly that the concerns of the shooting community about the level of fees should be put on record and that the reasons and justifications for the increase should be clearly explained. After all, members of the shooting community must bear the burden of the increase.
During its first year the committee began its consideration of a wide range of issues as part of what I regard as a strenuous programme of work. The way in which firearms controls are being administered has featured prominently in the committee's discussions and will continue to do so. For this reason I hope that those involved in the British Association for Sport and Conservation's management consultancy survey and the Association

545
of Chief Police Officers' survey on value for money will consult the committee and involve it in all the processes. I regard these studies and the advice of the committee as being complementary to each other. Together they can go towards achieving the objective of all those concerned. That is the most effective, efficient and safe way of operating the firearms legislation.
The subject of fees raises a particular point which I am sorry to say was not mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swansea. It is the validity of shotgun and firearm certificates. At present they are issued for three years. The committee has begun to give careful thought to the question of whether the validity of a firearm and shotgun certificate might be extended without any loss to public safety. The committee will look at that matter during the course of its programme of work and will be giving careful consideration to whether some extension of the duration of the certificate may be appropriate. It is too early to give any firm indication of what our advice may be. However, your Lordships may agree that in the long run this matter may well have a bearing on the level of fees.
I am not under any false illusion that my committee can help to overcome all the difficulties facing the shooting community and the police where firearms controls are concerned. However, I am confident that the Firearms Consultative Committee has a vital contribution to make towards ensuring that the licensing controls are being administered effectively, efficiently and safely.
I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time on the work of the Firearms Consultative Committee. My purpose in doing so is to put firmly on record the vital role which the committee can play in establishing the true costs of an effective licensing system and the fact that it is essential for the committee to be able to play a full and informed part in that process.
1.58 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, tabled the Prayer notwithstanding that I disagreed with almost everything he said. However, it is useful to have such a debate not only to discuss the level of fees, which is a matter of concern to those holding firearms licences, but also to look at some of the wider issues involved in firearms control. Some of those issues were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball.M
I first wish to deal with some of the wider issues and then deal with the level of fees. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be aware that there remains substantial public unease about the quality of firearms control in this country. That is so in relation both to the provisions applying to the clubs and club membership, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and to the general question of shotgun licences. Not only is the general public concerned but so are the police. The noble Earl will be aware of their view that the present controls require to be strengthened.
546
Our short debate is taking place only a few days after yet another deplorable incident concerning the use of firearms. This was the tragic episode in Renfield Street, Glasgow, in which one man was killed and seven injured when a gunman fired on a crowd of pedestrians. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that that man has recently died.
This incident has once again led to many expressions of public disquiet about our firearms controls. I should like to remind the noble Earl of what the chairman of the Strathclyde joint branch board of the Police Federation, Mr. Ian Black, said on that incident in Glasgow:
"Once again, as at Hungerford, we appear to have someone shooting people he does not know and with whom he had no quarrel.
The federation will press once more for greater restriction on the possession of fireams and it may well be that gun clubs, especially those where hand guns are used, will have to be curbed in the interests of the public."
That represents my view, and I suspect that it represents the view of a large number of other people, including senior police officers, who have the responsibility for the safety of the public.
I look forward to hearing anything that the noble Earl proposes to say about that incident in Glasgow, speaking as he does as a representiative of the Government as a whole and not just of the Home Office.
I turn now to the rather narrower issues involved in the Prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. He has complained, as he has on previous occasions, about increases in the level of fees. He referred to the Government and the noble Earl being involved in shooter bashing. I have known the noble Earl for quite a few years now and I cannot imagine that he spends as much time as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, appears to believe in thinking of disagreeable measures to impose on the shooters of this country.
The fact is that the noble Earl and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary have another responsibility not touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea; that is, that the present Government, just like their predecessors, have a clearly defined policy in licensing systems. That policy is that if there is a licensing system, those involved in it must pay the full economic costs. That seems to me right, and I cannot believe for a moment that the general character of the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, really bears a moment's examination.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said that the police are prepared to give advice, as they are, through crime prevention officers. That is not the question. The fact is that the full cost of the administration of the system by the police service must be carried by those who apply for licenses. It is as simple as that. That was the policy of the present Government and their predecessors. I can see no conceivable way in which that is likely to change. I know that we shall almost certainly not vote on this today because it is not the tradition of this House to do so. However, I must make it equally clear that were we to do so, I should have no hesitation in supporting the Government.
2.4 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmondon: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the main purpose of this short debate; namely, to approve a variation of fees. Following the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, for giving us an opportunity to speak on this matter. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for giving us the benefit of his experience in this sphere and also for his authoritative stance in rebutting the unfortunate inferences of the noble Lord who moved the Prayer. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, that if it is a question of being for or against shooters, the public will be against rather than for them.
The noble Lord and his colleagues are wringing their hands. They feel that they have been badly treated. The noble Lord talked about the shooting public but I assure him that there are far more members of the public who are not shooters. If the Government are taking action which is seen to be punitive against the shooting public, then I believe that they will have the overwhelming majority of the public on their side if they are taking steps which they sincerely believe are necessary in the light of the disaster at Hungerford.
We know that disasters occur. However, the disaster at Hungerford, which the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, acknowledged was a disaster, was horrific. The opinions of the public were coloured by what took place there. This Government are under a very strict obligation to satisfy the public that they are doing everything possible to prevent that from happening again.
The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said that the shooting public is sick and tired of being used as whipping boys for criminals. The general public, as opposed to the shooting public, is sick and tired of finding that their interests are damaged by the activities of people who are able to obtain guns by one means or another. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, an increase in fees is an imperfect weapon, but it is the best we have to try to make sure, in view of all the dishonest methods which people use to obtain firearms, that there is a process of registration and certificates.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said that one of the measures which may be introduced was the extension of the period of the licence. I am not happy about anything which will ease the lot of the shooter in legitimately obtaining a licence. I have no objection to the vast range of activities by the shooting public which are controlled and protected. Shooting is a sport. As the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said, Britain has had two recent gold medallists who exercised their skills. However, we on this side of the House believe that the noble Earl, must satisfy himself that no one can accidentally or deliberately find himself in possession of a firearm, and that possession has not been made easier rather than harder. That is not to say that we should be punitive. We should be fair.
We examine fee increases on a range of other matters. This increase is from £ 33 to £ 46, which is £ 13. That is an increase of around 40 per cent. over the four year period. That may be a little on the high
548
side although perhaps not in the context of inflation. However, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for explaining where the fee structure fits into the overall position. If more people need to be employed as a result of all this, then the Exchequer must ensure that the costs of policing this legislation are properly worked out and paid for by those who use the system. We on this side of the House would then have no objection.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to satisfy me on one matter. Under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 some firearms were banned. Is the noble Earl able to say whether the issue of compensation to these owners of those firearms is making progress? My information is that there has been some dilatoriness in reaching agreement on the levels of compensation to be paid.
I agree that there is a need to monitor, to control and, in some circumstances, to restrict the provision of firearms. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be doing the House and the country a service if he indicates that there should be an increase in fees. That will satisfy the public because licences will be marginally harder rather than easier to obtain. The public will appreciate that.
2.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Swansea for the opportunity of debating this Order. I too am grateful, but not quite so grateful for the rather less than felicitous observations that he made concerning the Government, shooters and the Government's attitude. I know that he feels very strongly about this subject. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Graham of Edmonton, for their support. One of the curious things about anything to do with firearms in this House is that one's friends tend to fractionate out in directions slightly different to those anticipated. However, that is all part of the pleasure.
This debate gives me an opportunity of explaining some of the problems which worry my noble friend. At the end of his speech he said that he hoped the Government would withdraw the order. My noble friend tries to press friendship a little too far if he thinks I shall do that. I may turn round and ask if he will withdraw his Motion when the time comes.
My noble friend referred to Bisley and to the Lords and Commons shooting match. I am glad that he did because he is held in the highest regard in shooting circles, not only because of his prowess as a marksman, but also because of the distinguished service which he has given over many years to the promotion of legitimate shooting interests, and most recently in his capacity as chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council.
On the subject of marksmen and women of prowess, I should like to congratulate, on behalf of your Lordships, the British shooters for the excellent results which they achieved at the recent Commonwealth Games.
No increase in fees for any purpose is ever popular, and I can understand the anxiety of those who enjoy shooting sports. But, it is a fact of life that prices do

549
rise from time to time, and I think that it is appropriate that I should try to explain to your Lordships why the Government take the view that the increase in fees, which is set out in the order before the House, is justified.
First, the last increase in firearms fees took place some three or four years ago, in 1986. Even then, not all the fees, which were payable for the grant of a certificate or a licence under the Firearms Act, were raised in the 1986 order. The fee of £ 12 for the grant of a shotgun certificate was set as long ago as 1980 and has remained unchanged for 10 years.
Firearms controls are always contentious. What is not contentious is that the acquisition and possession of firearms must be controlled in the interest of public safety.
It is the nature and extent of the control which has to be exercised which is so often hotly disputed. Unfortunately, there are some shooters who seem to believe that it is Government policy to make life so difficult for them that they will eventually abandon shooting. Frankly, I regret that very much. My noble friend referred to what he thought was the latest government sport of shooter bashing. I must say that I thought that was an extraordinary description and totally away from reality. He said he thought that the Grovemment were trying to squeeze shooters out of existence. My noble friend has a vivid imagination, but I can assure him that today he has extended it beyond the bounds of reason.
I assure the House— and, I hope, the shooting fraternity— that our policy is and will remain to safeguard the legitimate interests of shooters. However, the public must be of paramount consideration. It is not government policy— I hope my noble friend realises this— to put unnecessary obstacles in the way of the perfectly legitimate enjoyment of shooting sports. It is not government policy to set fees at levels to discourage the legitimate use of firearms. However, it is government policy to provide for public safety and to that end the firearms Acts provide a licensing system which is designed to prevent firearms from falling into wrong or irresponsible hands. That means control, and that results in expense.
Inevitably, controls impinge on all shooters, including the legitimate shooters. There is simply no way in which to exercise controls without such controls being felt by the lawful and unlawful alike. I hope that my noble friend Lord Swansea will not think me unduly flippant if I remind him of what Charles Bowen said somewhat frivolously but nevertheless quite accurately. He said:
"The rain it raineth on the just
And also on the unjust fella".
He went on to say, which has a certain ring of relevance to our debate:
"But: chiefly on the just, because
The unjust steals the just's umbrella".
In other words, in colloquial terms, if one is intent on making life difficult for the baddies, that is bound to have an impact on the goodies.
The licensing system is essentially a public safety measure. Under it those who are granted licences
550
are permitted, under prescribed conditions, to acquire and to use arms. For this benefit it is reasonable that they should pay.
Indeed, it has been the long-standing policy of successive governments— I am glad this was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton— that the costs of the licensing system should be fully recovered through fees. The Government have the responsibility for setting the level of fees and we do not believe that it is right or fair that these costs, or any part of them, should fall upon tax payers, the vast majority of whom do not shoot.
If no increase in the present level of fees is made, the licensing system would cost some £ 1–2 million in the current financial year. I do not think that that is a burden which should be placed upon the tax payer. It should be shared out among licence holders. We propose therefore to increase the fee for the grant or renewal of a firearm certificate from £ 33 to £ 46. I do not think that that increase— the first since 1986— is excessive or unjustified. It costs that just to have a washing machine repaired.
The fee for the grant of a shotgun certificate will increase from £ 12 to £ 17, and for the renewal of it from £ 8 to £ 11. The last time when these fees were increased was 1980. I do not honestly think that these increases are excessive or unjustified.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely the noble Earl is not suggesting that we have had something so awful as inflation in the past 10 years?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am merely discussing what is a practical reality. If the noble Lord believes that he can purchase an item now for the same price that he paid in 1980, he is a remarkable person.
The fee for registration of a firearms dealer will increase from £ 68 to £ 94 and for the issue of a new certificate of registration from £ 36 to £ 50. Again, I really do not believe that these increases can be reasonably described as excessive or unjustified. On the contrary, I am bound to tell your Lordships that, even with these modest increases in fees, a full recovery of the costs of the licensing system is unlikely to be achieved.
There are several reasons for that. First, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 and the Firearms Rules 1989 introduced tighter controls for the grant of certain certificates. These controls require some, although not a great deal, of new activity by the police. The new controls were introduced only last July and the Government have decided to make no charge to cover the cost of carrying out these activities at present. We think that it is right to await the outcome of a thorough scrutiny of costs which is being undertaken.
I believe my noble friend Lord Swansea said that 10 police forces were already employing 50 more people, and that that was more than the Government had suggested. When the Bill went through Parliament we had to make an assessment of what was the likely increase in numbers. We made that assessment in good faith. What that figure turns out to be in total— and my noble friend did not suggest it— remains to be seen. I was slightly shocked when

551
he said that possibly the Government deliberately misled Parliament and the public. That is not so and he knows that perfectly well. He went on to say that the shooters will have to pay. I have just explained to my noble friend what fees they will have to pay. The shooters are not going to be whipping boys, as he suggested.
The 1988 Act also introduced fees for the grant or renewal of a museum licence and the approval of rifle and pistol clubs. These fees also came into effect on 1st July last year and no change is proposed in them. My noble friend Lord Swansea said that there was no consultation about the controls put on rifles and pistol clubs. My noble friend is not wholly correct. I remind him that my right honourable friend's proposals were published in November of last year and they were referred to the Firearms Consultative Committee for its advice. In the light of the advice which that committee gave to my right honourable friend, he announced his decisions on the new controls in January 1990. There was consultation, and my noble friend should not exaggerate.
The fees for the issue of visitor permits were introduced last October. At present no increase is proposed in that or any other fees prescribed in the 1988 Act. Your Lordships will note that we are not proposing, even with these new rates, to charge the shooting community the full cost of the licensing system as yet. The shooting community is being let off rather lightly. That does not reflect any intention on the part of the Government to depart from their policy of full cost recovery. We recognise the need to find out the necessary costs of administering the licensing system and then to move to recover those costs.
The Government have warmly welcomed the initiative taken by the Association of Chief Police Officers to carry out a scrutiny of the firearms licensing procedures over the next few months in order to determine the most cost-effective way of operating the licensing system, always having in mind the need for public safety. I am also aware that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has commissioned a management consultancy team to look at the licensing procedures governing firearms and shotgun certificates. I hope that it will feel able to make its report available to the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers and to the Firearms Consultative Committee.
The Firearms Consultative Committee, under the expert chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Kimball, will also be taking a close look at the administrative practices on which the level of fees is based. I thank my noble friend for the remarkable work which he has done with the Firearms Consultative Committee. My noble friend Lord Swansea asked why were the shooters not consulted about the level of the new fees. I wish to make it perfectly clear that those involved should be consulted over the administrative practices, how the certification is being carried out and whether it is being carried out correctly, effectively and fairly. That is a perfectly legitimate cause for consultation.
552
It is not the responsibility of the Government to invite the Firearms Consultative Committee or any other loaded interest, to discuss what the level of fees should be, provided that it is understood that the level of fees is such as to recover the Government's expenditure. It is then up to the Government to make the proposals.
My noble friend Lord Kimball said that the firearms committee will have a big part to play in going through the licensing system. I have no doubt that it will. I shall be grateful for the work that it does on this matter. The committee provides a most useful forum in which its members— who often start out with different points of view— may reach a common understanding on issues which can be frequently both difficult and contentious. I am sure that the committee will provide sound and responsible advice to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the wide range of subjects which falls within its remit. Its advice will always be most carefully considered.
We shall also consider in due course, in the light of the outcome of these studies, whether any further adjustment to the level of fees is needed. But there is an immediate need to increase fees in order to reflect the increase in operating costs since 1986. It is right that these costs should be recovered from those who benefit from holding firearms licences, and it would be wrong to allow the burden to fall on the taxpayer.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked about the shooting incident in Scotland. The incident is being investigated by the Procurator Fiscal, who will submit a report to the Lord Advocate. He will then decide whether a fatal accident inquiry should be held.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to those firearms which were banned. He asked about progress in regard to payments to those involved. Almost 3,000 claims, involving more than 3,500 weapons, were received between 1st February and 30th April last year under the scheme. Payments totalling more than £ 600,000 have been made to applicants who made claims under the scheme. We hope that any outstanding claims will be completed in the not too distant future.
The order achieves the reasonable objective of enabling the Government to recover the costs. I commend it to the House and I commend to my noble friend the thought that he might think it appropriate to withdraw his Motion.
2.27 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I have no intention of pressing my Motion. But before I withdraw it, perhaps I may make one or two points. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kimball, who is chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, for what he said about the work of the committee. He told us that the committee is in the middle of deliberations on fees as well as on other matters. That makes one wonder all the more why the Government did not wait until those deliberations were concluded before they acted by laying the order.

553
My noble friend also mentioned the possible extension of the period of validity of firearms and shotgun certificates. Primary legislation would probably be needed to amend the present Act but that would certainly soften the blow of the impact of the fees on the shooter.
It is impossible and impractical to have 100 per cent. control. One cannot prevent the criminal from getting hold of firearms by buying through underground sources. All the order does is make life more difficult for the legitimate owner. The Government have succeeded in doing that several times. The fact remains that one cannot prevent the criminal from getting hold of firearms for his own purposes. Nor can one prevent someone with a previously blameless record from flipping his lid, as has happened, regrettably, more than once. Someone in the United States once made a very wise remark. He said, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". That remains as true now as it was then. Perhaps noble Lords can cast their minds back to the 1968 Firearms Act. At that time the cost of a firearms certificate was five shillings— that is 25 pence in present coinage. We have come an awful long way since then and rather further than most of us would have liked.
There is another point I wish to make. The same fee is charged for a first grant and for a renewal of a firearms certificate. There is a considerable case to be made for having a differential between those two fees. An application for renewal should require less investigation and less police time spent upon it than a first grant. Nevertheless, I think we have covered the ground satisfactorily. I had not expected a different answer from that which I received from the Government. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
2.31 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is very simple. It is to make technical amendments to the 1985 Mineral Compensation Regulations as a consequence of the Local Government Finance Act 1988; to correct an error in the 1985 regulations, and to update the thresholds for abatement of compensation in line with inflation. Consultations were carried out with representatives of the industry, local authorities and other interested bodies and no objections were received.
The principles behind the 1985 regulations were fully considered and extensively debated both during the passage of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981 and when the 1985 regulations were made. The technical amendments must be implemented by 1st April 1990 to align references
554
in the 1985 regulations with changes to the non-domestic rating system which come into effect on that day. The error in the 1985 regulations, which concerns the inclusion of voluntary expenditure in a claim for compensation, could have no effect before June 1990 so there have been no winners or losers in the meantime. Its correction will bring the principal regulations into line with Parliament's intentions when they were debated in 1985.
Finally, the purpose of the 1985 regulations was to provide for the abatement of compensation payable by mineral planning authorities following orders updating minerals permissions, to ensure that mineral operators contribute a proportion of the cost of bringing their operations up to modern environmental standards. The increase in abatement thresholds in line with inflation since 1985 will simply ensure that they represent the same proportion of total cost as Parliament originally intended. I beg to move.
Moved, that the regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee] .— (Lord Hesketh.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister should have the temerity to bring forward regulations which relate to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, especially on this day when it has become clear that the people of this country do not want that legislation and that they will throw out any government who persist in its enforcement. I should have thought that it would be a kind of wisdom on the part of the Government, and all members of the Government, to seek to withdraw as rapidly as possible from the position of supporting the Local Government Finance Act 1988. However, the Minister has put forward a reasonable case for these very minor amendments which we on this side of the House accept.
I am especially interested in the amendments to Regulations 3 and 4 which ensure that claimants are not able to include expenditure incurred by voluntary agreement in more than one compensation claim. The implication of that is that claimants for compensation under mineral workings have actually been cheating the Government and the taxpayer. Can the Minister tell us whether any cases have been brought to court for that reason, or, alternatively, can he say what evidence the Government have that there have been multiple claims made for the same item of compensation?
With that question— and I suppose I should allow the Minister a little time to reply— I must say that it is interesting to note that an arithmetical error made as long ago as five years has only now been discovered. With that exception, we have no objection to these regulations.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I suspect that it was inevitable that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would insinuate that in some way these regulations should be thrown out, possibly on the basis of recent events. However, he will also believe and agree with me that it is important to persist in ensuring that as environmental standards rise, where there is a basis for improving appearance we should be able to do so, with or without the benefit of the aforesaid Act.

555
In reply to the noble Lord's question, the correction is of the error concerning the inclusion of voluntary expenditure in a claim for compensation which could increase the cost to a mineral planning authority. It merely brings the regulations in line with Parliament's intentions when they were debated in 1985. Although this is a protection, no claims have been made.
I hope that in the light of that answer and my response to the exciting events so far as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sees them with regard to other fronts, there are benefits to be gained from this Act, as from so many other Acts which the Government have brought forward.
On Quesion, Motion agreed to.

Sullivan/Bristol Evening Post Inquiry
2.36 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect to publish the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the Sullivan/Bristol Evening Post inquiry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say how glad I am to have the opportunity to raise the issue in your Lordships' House. I realise that the Minister will be constrained in his reply by the reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but it is particularly appropriate that I speak on the matter today because this is the last day on which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that it would receive representations on the matter.
One of the greatest privileges of membership of this House and of the other place is that of freedom from arrest in civil suits. This privilege which we enjoy has to be used carefully and sparingly. However, I must speak perfectly frankly in relation to what I feel is not only an important local issue in Bristol but one that has national implications.
On Wednesday, 21st March, this week, I bought a copy of the newspaper the Sport. It appears to be modelled on a publication in the United States called the National Inquirer which I am told is seriously suspected of having connections with the Mafia.
The copy that I bought on Wednesday is 32 pages long. One only needs to give it a cursory glance to see exactly what kind of paper it is. Three of its pages carry pictures of topless models; 17 contain advertisements for sexually explicit telephone lines; nine carry advertisements for pornographic literature and videos. I asked a member of the Commons staff whether he had ever read the newspaper. He said that he had bought one or two issues because it was called the Sport and he thought that it might contain information about what are normally regarded as public sporting activities.
On the previous day, 20th March, before the issue of this copy, there were two vital First Division matches: Queens Park Rangers against Aston Villa, which was vital to the outcome of the First Division championship; and Crystal Palace against Derby County, which was vital for the relegation stakes. However the Sport that I bought on the Wednesday
556
carried no reports of the matches. Even the First Division tables which were published took no account of the results of these matches. Needless to say, all the other national newspapers carried the results and match reports. Surely by using the title the Sport, the paper is using a sprat to catch a mackerel.
This is a sister paper to the Sunday Sport of which I was able to obtain a copy from the Library. In defence of the Library I must say that it had to send out for a copy because it is not normally stocked. However it was able to obtain the Sunday Sport for me. That again has 32 pages, of which 15 advertise sexually explicit telephone lines, five have pictures of "topless" women and eight have advertisements for pornographic literature and videos. Yet that is the newspaper which portrays itself as Britain's fastest growing family newspaper.
The owner of the Sport and the Sunday Sport is Mr. David Sullivan. That is the man who wishes to take a 25 per cent. share in the Bristol Evening Post. He is said to be interested in racehorses and to own racehorses. Let us look at his form. His business interests include a number of pornographic magazines. He once owned Britain's largest chain of sex shops and he has been responsible for the production of pornographic films. In May 1982 Mr. Sullivan was sentenced to nine months' (later reduced to 71 days') imprisonment for living off prostitution at massage parlours that he owned. Even before the launch of the Sunday Sport Mr. Sullivan was making something in the region of £ 10 million a year.
I do not wish to turn this issue into one of civil liberties, although the National Council for Civil Liberties has already studied the coverage given to women by Mr. Sullivan's newspapers. I should like to mention another aspect of the matter.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for one moment. The noble Lord has made out a deadly case against this regrettable figure. Will he deal with the question of whether that gentleman should be prosecuted?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will have noted that intervention. My remarks are addressed to the reference to the MMC of this bid for a 25 per cent. holding in the Evening Post.
A major element of Mr. Sullivan's publications is advertisements for sleazy telephone services, offering soft pom recorded messages. That is no surprise because, as I have said, Mr. Sullivan is one of the king pins in that despicable trade and advertises his own sordid offerings in his newspapers.
These so-called services have caused deep concern, not least to British Telecom. I have done some research into the matter and it is clear that British Telecom, contrary to a widespread misunderstanding, does not have complete freedom to keep unpleasant men like Mr. Sullivan off its networks. However, the chairman of British Telecom, Iain Vallance, took a strong stand against the "Sullivans" of this world earlier this year when he said:

557
"British Telecom does not provide such services, and we do not welcome their provision by others".
British Telecom has tried to give a lead in this matter, and I hope that the MMC and the Secretary of State will follow it. The issue at stake here is that Bristol's well liked, local family newspaper may come under the influence of a man whose only experience of publishing is not suitable for family reading. The Evening Post is of a high standard, but, judging by Mr. Sullivan's publications, in the event of him gaining a position of influence that standard may well drop dramatically.
I have already written to the MMC expressing my concern about this matter. I made the point that I have lived in Bristol since 1941. I had the honour to represent a Bristol constituency in the other place from 1970 to 1987 and so I feel that I may speak with some knowledge of Bristol and its people. To appreciate the enormity of what is proposed, it is important to understand that Bristol, unlike some other large cities, has, to a large extent, retained the characteristics of a much smaller town. There is a strongly developed sense of community and local pride. That was especially shown during the pounding that Bristol received from the Luftwaffe during the war. That sense of togetherness has been supported and fostered by the Bristol Evening Post. It has a wide circulation not just in Bristol but in the surrounding areas. It covers a great many national and international affairs but remains essentially a family newspaper. It publishes a wide range of articles and news catering for all tastes. It is entirely free from anything of a doubtful or salacious nature and the Evening Post can safely be left around the house where there may be young children. In addit ion to its news content the Evening Post renders a valuable service through its commercial activities. Quite apart from the normal house and car advertisements, its columns of small ads. are read assiduously by Bristolians as a mine of information for various requirements and entertainments, not least by myself.
I am not the only person to have expressed concern on the matter. Members in the other place who know the area have also made representations. The right honourable gentleman, the Member for Bristol West, said that such a move would be a disaster for the newspaper group. The Member for Wansdyke, the Member for Bristol South and the right honourable Member for Yeovil have all expressed considerable concern at the implications of the acquisition of a successful 25 per cent. stake by Mr. Sullivan. The Member for Bristol East has tabled an Early-Day Motion— No. 760— asking the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to recommend rejection of Mr. Sullivan's unsavoury influences. Indeed, the Member for Warrington South has already stated in another place that the constant advertising of pornographic telephone numbers by the Sunday Sport brings discredit on the telephone service. I have already referred to British Telecom's deep concern about the matter.
The Bristol Evening Post is an important local family newspaper. If Mr. Sullivan is able to exert an influence on it we may end up with nothing more than vehicle for publicising what is in effect soft
558
porn with local issues losing priority. If it can happen in Bristol where else may it happen? I hope that both the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Government will bear in mind the public interest in its widest possible sense when considering the matter.
2.47 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it is particularly appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, with his long record of service in Bristol, should raise this matter in this House this afternoon. The issues that he has identified raise matters of very serious concern in all parts of the House.
A few months ago my wife and I had a visit from a distinguished editor of an evening newspaper in the middle West of the United States who was visiting this country. On the Sunday morning I went out and bought him a bunch of our tabloid newspapers. He had the advantage of seeing the News of the World and the People — two newspapers he did not find at first glance particularly attractive. He then came to the Sunday Sport which was a newspaper the like of which he had not seen in America. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, referred to the National Inquirer, but that is an altogether different type of publication. The Sunday Sport and its daily companion purport to be newspapers.
My American friend found it almost inconceivable that, even in the atmosphere of the United States, there could be a publication of that sort in America. So far as I am aware there is no such publication in any country of the European Community outside our own.
For that and the fact that this is a British first, I suppose that we have to thank Mr. Sullivan. He is a noted pornographer, as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has rightly said. He is also a highly successful entrepreneur. He has managed to identify a very sleazy market. He has achieved a circulation for his newspaper of over half a million. No doubt he regards himself as a successful businessman. However, I take the view that it would be little short of a national outrage were he to be allowed to acquire a substantial interest in a fine old newspaper like the Bristol Evening Post with a long record of service to the local community.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has rightly asked, will it stop there? If he is allowed to acquire such an interest, what other evening newspapers will experience the same type of approach from him? I recognise that that undoubtedly raises some very difficult problems for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because it is being asked to look at a very different type of issue from those it normally has to consider. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that a report of these proceedings will be passed to the chairman so that he is aware of the concern in all part of your Lordships' House on this matter. I also wish to indicate once again to the Minister how much anger there will be not only in Bristol but outside it if Mr. Sullivan is allowed to acquire this interest in the Bristol Evening Post.
2.50 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe for raising this matter. I wish to address the specific issue that he raised and to follow other noble Lords in considering the general question. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, is right to raise the matter and place it before your Lordships. The people of Bristol are also right to be concerned.
In terms of the specific Question on the Order Paper; namely, when Her Majesty's Government expect the report to appear, I should like an answer to that question. In passing, I wish to congratulate or to sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, in that he has sacrificed his normal standards in order to buy a copy of this rag. I did not feel able to follow him in that. Even though I am an industry spokesman who is anxious to participate in this debate, I felt it was too much to possess such a sordid document.
On the general issue can the noble Viscount enlighten us on what the Monopolies and Mergers Commission can consider? I appreciate that under the fair trade legislation it is obliged to concern itself with matters to do with the purchase of newspapers. However, in considering those issues is the Monopolies and Mergers Commission limited to matters of competition policy, or can it interpret the public interest aspects of this problem more broadly? Can the commission interpret in particular the public interest aspects to take account essentially of pornography? My reading of the fair trade legislation does not make it obvious to me that that is the case. I hope that the noble Viscount can enlighten us on that aspect.
In considering any matter of this kind, I appreciate the civil liberties problem. My noble friend Lord Cocks has referred to that. Before I add a few words, I wish to make the general proposition that although all of us are concerned in virtually everything we do in your Lordships' House with civil liberties, that is not the only ethical consideration that we have in mind on every single topic. There are other moral aspects of matters. Although I stand second to none in my commitment to civil liberties, I realise that they are not the only topic that I or other noble Lords are committed to.
In that connection, I appreciate that there is always the problem of where to draw the line between the near pornography of the so-called gutter press and the more definite pornography of this particular rag; namely, the daily and Sunday Sport. I know that we may argue about that, but in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of all of us, there can be no doubt whatsoever that wherever we drew the line, it would be well to one side of the Sport. There is no doubt that that would be on the wrong side of the line.
As the noble Lords, Lord Cocks and Lord Harris, have said, we have here in essence a pornographer who may be able to buy into a respectable paper on the basis of his pornographic profits. He is seeking to exploit the liberality of our laws and our respect for press freedom. In my opinion, he must be stopped in his tracks now. As the Opposition industry spokesman I am always careful about not seeking to
560
influence the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I hope that it will come to its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, and after serious consideration of all the relevant matters. However, I have to say that in my opinion if its report does not provide a basis for prevention, the Government themselves must find such a basis even if in due course it involves primary legislation.
2.55 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is perhaps a reflection of the very important public interest issues that are often involved in the transfer of newspapers from one newspaper proprietor to another, that we have had the debate in your Lordships' House today. The matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, are important ones and it is because of these that we have had since 1965— first, in the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965 and now in the Fair Trading Act 1973— special provisions to deal with newspaper transfers. These are separate and distinct from those parts of the Act which deal with ordinary mergers.
What we read in the newspapers, and for newspapers to serve the needs of the public and community, is important and touches upon our basic concept of freedom. Freedom of the press is important. The Royal Commission on the Press in 1961–62 concluded, however, that action was needed to regulate increasing concentration of ownership which could threaten freedom and variety of expression of opinion and possibly unbiased presentation of views. It was from this report that the special newspaper provisions have their origins. The purpose of the original Act and the present Fair Trading Act is to safeguard the public interest when newspaper changes arise or are imminent. As I will explain later, the fact that major mergers, except in certain circumstances, have to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation is a valuable safeguard in relation to the very special public interest questions arising in relation to newspapers.
Thus, under the Fair Trading Act the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's prior written consent is required for any transfer of a newspaper or newspaper assets to a newspaper proprietor whose newspapers, including the newspaper to be transferred, have an average paid-for circulation per day of publication of 500,000 or more.
A newspaper proprietor is defined as any person having a controlling interest in a newspaper, or a company which is itself a newspaper proprietor. Controlling interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, informed us, is defined as controlling indirectly or directly 25 per cent. of the voting shares.
Consent cannot normally be given without there first being a report from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but the Secretary of State has discretion to give consent without a report in cases of financial urgency or if the newspaper being transferred has a paid-for circulation of less than 25,000.
A reflection of the importance which successive governments have placed on these provisions is that

561
should a qualifying transfer take place without the Secretary of State's consent, then the transfer shall be unlawful and void.
In the case of the inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to which the noble Lord referred in his question, an application by Mr. Sullivan for the Secretary of State's consent to him acquiring a controlling interest in the Bristol Evening Post was received on 12th February. Mr. Sullivan, by virtue of his beneficial interest in 50 per cent. of the shares of Sports Newspapers Ltd., which publishes newspapers with a combined circulation of above 1 million, is therefore a newspaper proprietor within the meaning of the Fair Trading Act. The Bristol Evening Post publishes newspapers with a paid for circulation per day of around 230,000.
There was no doubt that this was a qualifying merger which required the Secretary of State's consent. As no application was made for the discretionary consent of the Secretary of State, a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was automatic.
The reference was made on 5th March and made public the following day. The commission has been given two months in which to report from the date of the reference and the Secretary of State will publish the report as soon as possible thereafter. That is probably the date that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was seeking.
I referred earlier to the special concerns which led to the newspaper merger provisions. These concerns are directly reflected in the terms in the Act which specifically require the commission to report to the Secretary of State whether the transfer in question may be expected to operate against the public interest, taking into account all matters which appear to be relevant and in particular the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the Government at that stage cannot
562
tell it to consider particular aspects in particular cases. The matter of whether or not newspapers are obscene for the purpose of the Obscene Publications Act is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Act also allowed for the formation of a newspaper panel which could be appointed by the Secretary of State to the commission to help it with a particular inquiry. For this reference the Secretary of State has appointed three experienced and eminent journalists and broadcasters. I am sure that the additional experience and knowledge they will bring to the commission's inquiry will be of great value.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can we be reminded who these gentlemen are?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes. The three concerned are Sir Alastair Burnet, Mr. Mark Kersen, the managing director of a major regional newspaper, the Wolverhampton Express and Star, and Mr. Robert Kernohan, a freelance journalist, former editor of Life and Work, which is a Church of Scotland magazine, and former editor of the Glasgow Herald.
The matter is now before the commission. It is considering it and in the usual way has invited observations of the proposed transfer from any who care to make them. I am sure noble Lords will understand that it would not be right or proper for me to comment on its investigation, nor to express an opinion on what attitude it should take towards it. However, I am sure that the views expressed here today by noble Lords will be noted by the commission. To assist the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I shall make certain that the comments your Lordships have made today will be passed to the commission.
House adjourned at three minutes past three o'clock.