Sitting of 20 April 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Rating System
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he now has for reforming the rating system.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): The improvement of the rating system is one of the matters that I am considering in the light of the report of the Layfield Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance. The Government's conclusions will be announced in due course.
    Mr. Arnold: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given our continuing high rate of inflation and the considerable redistribution of income that has been brought about in recent years, the time is now right to move to a system that is more geared to people's ability to pay?
    Mr. Shore: I am very much aware of the criticisms that have been made in all parts of the House about the domestic rating system. If I understood the hon. Member's remark correctly, this matter was very exhaustively considered in the Layfield Report, and the conclusions drawn by Layfield were that, whatever changes were made, the domestic rating system could not be, as it were, abolished. That view is shared by people throughout the country, except Members on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reform of local government finance should have taken place before the reform of boundaries? Does he feel that the time is now opportune to give back to the towns and cities the powers that they lost as a result of the reorganisation?
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend raised a very important question, but it is separate from the question of the reform of local government finance. The question of the structure of local government and the distribution of powers between the two tiers is one that should have, and deserves to have, continued study.
    Mr. David Hunt: Is the Secretary of State aware that the present rating system is causing tremendous hardship to a large proportion of ratepayers—particularly elderly persons—and to small businesses? We seem to have been discussing reform for a long time. Will he expedite some proposals and let us know when he is coming forward with them?
    Mr. Shore: I hope to report to the House in the next few weeks the conclusions that the Government have reached. Then the House will have ample time to discuss what we are proposing. However, I must point out that, in spite of the harshness with which the rates bear on people, it is true that about one-third of the ratepayers—certainly very many retired people—are in receipt of rate rebates, which are a great help.
    Mr. Ward: It is right that we should take time to get the rating system right, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are some grievous anomalies in the way in which the rate support grant works? Has my right hon. Friend reviewed the working of the rate support grant this year, and can he offer help to counties like Cambridgeshire, which suffered badly in the last round?
    Mr. Shore: Always, under any system, there are anomalies. To some extent these result from the unpredictable effects of the particular rate support grant formula adopted. We are now considering the proper formula for 1978–79 and I am trying to take account of the many difficulties and criticisms that have been expressed in all parts of the House during the last 12 months.

    Derelict Land
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will order an inquiry into vacant or derelict land held by local authorities.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I could not justify asking authorities to carry out such a costly inquiry at this stage.
    Mr. Latham: Is it not in the interests of the inner cities that rehabilitation of such spoiled sites should be developed first rather than that we should follow the deplorable advice contained in the circular to local authorities on the Community Land Act just before Christmas? This advice encouraged the taking of more green field sites and the losing of more good agricultural land.
    Mr. Barnett: I agree that it is very much in the interests of inner cities that local authorities should deal with spoiled sites, and the Government are always encouraging them to do just that under the provisions of the Community Land Act. I would not interpret the advice given about the Community Land Act in the circular as encouraging local authorities to use green field sites. We have encouraged them, when they acquire land under the Act, to do so only in circumstances in which it can be quickly and reasonably disposed of.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be an inquiry into the location of areas such as used quarries and mines, which can receive waste from derelict sites? There is an urgent need to locate these areas.
    Mr. Barnett: I shall bear that point in mind, but it is primarily a matter for the county authorities.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of the concern that has been expressed about the loss of agricultural land by reason of its use for non-agricultural purposes? Will he assure the House that the Government see it as a priority that derelict sites should be used first for industrial purposes, rather than that good agricultural land should be used?
    Mr. Barnett: I take the point. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" deals with that precise point.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the Minister aware that his first reply was most unsatisfactory because in Liverpool, for example, 800 acres of land are in public ownership and cannot be used for the purposes originally specified, and that Manchester has some 230 acres and Newcastle 150 acres as the start of a catalogue of land in that category? Is it not a fact that this information should be collated and also that authorities should be encouraged to dispose of unused assets at residual value to ensure needed development and the release of capital from such resources which could be brought back into the public kitty?
    Mr. Barnett: I shall not attempt to deal with the hon. Gentleman's catalogue of complaints. He may believe that it is desirable to collate this information. I certainly agree that there is a need to deal with land holdings. Local authorities have had some difficulty, because in some cases, as a result of reorganisation, they have inherited inadequate records. We have encouraged them to get ahead with that task as far as possible, but on the question of collating information I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we are unwilling to put local authorities to considerable expense. I recognise the importance of derelict sites in inner cities, and we shall address ourselves to that subject in a White Paper, which will shortly be published. Indeed, this matter was also one of the subjects of my right hon. Friend's recent statement.

    Essex County Council (Expenditure and Rates)
    Mr. Newtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with the Essex County Council the effect of Government policies on local government expenditure and rates.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: I am aware of the problems facing the county as a result of discussions at official level. However, decisions about priorities for expenditure are for the county council to take.
    Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that, apart from a continuing sense of grievance by many at being penalised for heeding the Government's call for economies last year, there is a strong feeling that not enough account has been taken of the problems created by an expanding

    175
    population, and one that is still expanding? Will he assure the House that these factors will be taken into account in considering the formula for next year's settlement?
    Mr. Barnett: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that Essex has been penalised in this respect. This matter has nothing to do with the assessment of the rate support grant needs element; it is a question of the degree to which authorities keep within certain guidelines. It has a great deal to do with the assessment of spending need rather than with the question of spending alone. We shall take into account any points that the hon. Gentleman or the county wishes to raise. There is little evidence to suggest that the growing population and its needs necessarily implies a requirement to spend more per head of population. That, perhaps, is one reason why Essex may feel a sense of grievance.
    Mr. Newens: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Labour Government do not support all the vicious cuts imposed by the Essex County Council, particularly in education, where capitation allowances, the heating of swimming pools and the staffing in schools examinations, fees, and all the rest of it have suffered? Is he aware that the Labour group of the Essex County Council has been voted down in efforts to try to maintain some of these services for the public?
    Mr. Barnett: It would be wrong of me to comment on the points that my hon. Friend has rightly put to the House—[Interruption.] It is right that the electors in Essex should make their comments in the elections.

    Inner City Development (London)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his plans for inner city development in London.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further plans he has for new development in dockland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Macfarlaneasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will
    176
    make a further statement on his plans for inner city development in London.
    Mr. Shore: Following my statement on 6th April, I shall be consulting the GLC, the Docklands Joint Committee and other authorities concerned in London with a view to setting up partnership arrangements as early as possible.
    Mr. Dykes: I welcome part of that statement by the Minister, but will he clarify further his philosophy? Does he agree that relief in inner areas of excessively bad housing and multiple deprivation should not be given at the expense of outer urban areas and areas that, in total numbers of units, are above average in terms of bad housing in any case?
    Mr. Shore: Because of the unity of London as a housing area and because the area faces great housing problems, we made the whole of London a housing stress area so that we should not interfere with London's building programme. However, there are in London an enormous variety of conditions. In particular inner areas we have identified multiple problems of a kind familiar to most hon. Members who know these areas well. They require special arrangements, and we hope that much good will arise from partnership agreements.
    Mr. Jessel: To relieve the housing shortage in inner London areas, what action does the Minister intend to take to put pressure on the Greater London Council to build a substantial quantity of new housing in dockland, which, so far, it has dismally failed to do?
    Mr. Shore: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should make those comments. There are substantial proposals for house building in the dockland areas, and I am glad to say that some are now going forward. The GLC, as a strategic housing authority, has tried to deal with the needs of London as a whole. It is right that the commuter boroughs as well as the inner boroughs should make arrangements to help deal with London's pressing housing problems.
    Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite what has been said by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), the Dockland Joint Committee has said that over 1,000 houses are now being built in the dockland statutory

    177
    area? What proportion of the allocation announced before the recess will be available to dockland?
    Mr. Shore: I cannot give an answer on the second part of my hon. Friend's question, but I hope to be able to make the allocation plain in the White Paper—not only dockland's share of the additional expenditure of £83 million announced by my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, but also the share of other partnership areas. We may be able to indicate also the allocations among the different partnership areas in the longer-term programme, to which my statement of 6th April was directed. I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the number of houses that have already been built in dockland by local authorities. There is evidence of considerable encouragement in terms of progress made.
    Mr. William Shelton: Will the Minister turn his attention to the subject of unemployment in inner London? May I ask whether he is aware that in the borough of Lambeth more than 11,000 people were unemployed in October last year—an increase of 44 per cent. compared to the same month of the previous year? Of this total, 681 comprised young persons, and of these does he not appreciate that over half are school leavers who left school some five months before? What are the right hon. Gentleman's plans to remedy the situation?
    Mr. Shore: I am sure that the House will welcome the expression of concern about unemployment in the inner areas. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, Lambeth is one of the areas that we have identified for partnership arrangements. I can conclude from what the hon. Gentleman has said that my proposals are welcome to him and to the borough of Lambeth.
    Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the necessity of trying to get the building societies to co-operate in the regeneration of inner areas such as Lambeth? Is he aware, for example, that the building societies have refused a staggering 59 per cent. of council nominees in Lambeth compared with much lower figures in outer areas?
    Mr. Shore: I am sure that the societies have an important part to play in helping
    178
    the revival of the inner areas. As my hon. Friend will know, we are now commencing the new arrangements with the building societies—they having begun in April of this year—under which sums of building society replacement lending moneys have been allocated to the major local authorities. It is my intention to watch closely how the arrangements work out.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman postpone his discussions on partnership plans until after 5th May, as he may find that any deals that he does with a dying administration may turn out in the end to be just as bad as the Lib-Lab deal that is keeping him in power at the moment?
    Mr. Shore: I wondered when the imminence of the county council elections would be reflected in contributions from the Opposition Front Bench. Although I am not an avid student of Conservative Party literature, I have on the whole been rather encouraged by the expressions of concern for the inner areas, including the partnership areas, that have come from the Opposition benches in County Hall. I hope that I may proceed in the knowledge that whatever I do will have the full backing of all the parties concerned.

    Camden
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will visit Camden for the purpose of discussing local government expenditure.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): He has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Finsberg: When the right hon. Gentleman or his ministerial colleagues visit the People's Republic of Camden, will they tell the local authority that to build 42 houses at a cost rent of £160 each per week is financial lunacy and of no help to the ratepayers or taxpayers?
    Mr. Freeson: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and his predecessors, with their long association with the authority, have made their views well known. As for high costs generally, and without particular reference to the scheme that the hon. Gentleman probably has in mind, it must be fairly stated that there are special problems in Camden and

    179
    a number of other inner city areas. There are special problems involving the high cost of land and the high cost of servicing land. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House—I have made this clear to Camden and other authorities—that we shall be closely watching the unit cost of housing construction, housing conversions and modernisations. These matters must be treated with fairness. We need the dwellings that are provided. In some areas costs are much higher than those elsewhere.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Having watched the costs, what will the Government do?
    Mr. Freeson: It is difficult in Question Time to give a list, chapter and verse, of all the contacts that exist between my officials and myself and local authorities with special problems of high costs. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular problem in mind, I can assure him that he may unburden himself to me either by Question or by letter.

    Empty Houses (Public Authorities)
    Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute an inquiry to determine the extent to which rented housing owned by Government Departments, nationalised industries, public authorities and local authorities is standing empty and is likely to remain empty for more than a matter of weeks.
    Mr. Freeson: I do not think that a survey of one sector would be appropriate. I am commissioning a sample survey of vacant dwellings to be undertaken later this year. This will look at causes and at the length of time dwellings remain empty.
    Mr. Dodsworth: In view of the scarcity of available resources, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be desirable to offer on advantageous terms to first-time house buyers properties that are not occupied but under some degree of public ownership, that being a better use of resources and of advantage to those who wish to purchase their own homes?
    Mr. Freeson: No, I do not accept that as a general proposition. Much more importantly, I wish to see local authorities and housing associations that are involved in the purchasing of properties on the
    180
    market and in acquisition programmes seeking to implement their programmes of modernisation and improvement more rapidly and economically—I know, for example, that many local authorities are doing so—so that the dwellings may be more quickly occupied. In that general context there may be particular situations in which dwellings can be made available to first-time buyers or other buyers down-market. I wish to encourage local authorities along those lines, and a number of them are so acting. I visited Newcastle quite recently. The authority there is one of those which are taking precisely that course. Other authorities are doing so as well.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the random sample will include houses bought up by his own Department in anticipation of the building of motorways that are subsequently cancelled? Will he consider giving instructions to those responsible in his Department that in such circumstances they should not automatically vandalise the properties at the start of these exercises but should make them safe, in case there is a change of mind later?
    Mr. Freeson: The sample to which I have referred will cover all sorts of property—for example, Government-owned property, local authority-owned property and privately-owned property. I do not accept that it is the policy of my Department, or possibly the Department of Transport—in earlier times part of the Department of the Environment—to vandalise properties that have been purchased ahead of proposed road schemes. If my hon. Friend has a particular problem in mind I shall look into it if he cares to put it to me, or I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to do so. It is the policy and practice of Government Departments to make properties that are the subject of deferred demolition available to local authorities and others for occupation as rapidly as possible. I look into complaints as much as I possibly can.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the survey will take place in midwinter? If it does not take place at that time the scandal of second homes and summer lets in Cornwall will not be shown up.
    Mr. Freeson: I cannot undertake that the survey will be pursued in the midwinter. Although I recognise that there are local problems in some parts of the country, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point is entirely relevant to empty properties. Whatever our views may be about second homes in various parts of the country, second homes are available for occupation by the owners or by tenants to whom the owners may wish to let.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 18 months ago in reply to me he said that he hoped to have information on this situation? Why does it take so long for the Department to obtain adequate information on a problem that everyone else has been aware of for a long time? Why does the right hon. Gentleman's Department seem to be the last in the line to react to a situation that has been of concern to so many people for such a long time?
    Mr. Freeson: I do not know to which Question the hon. Gentleman refers but I am aware that we undertake an annual relet survey of local authority properties and receive sample information. That information is statistical and does not give the reasons, which is what the survey that I have announced will do. The returns from the relet survey provide basic information. They do not provide the reasons, but make known the existence of unlet properties. The unlet property in the local authority sector is proportionally much smaller than in the private sector.

    Urban Problems
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement explaining the criteria by which Government funds are available for combating urban malaise.
    Mr. Eyreasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's policy towards alleviating urban problems in major conurbations.
    Mr. Shore: We are proposing to give a large measure of priority in the next few years to the regeneration of the inner areas of the major cities. Other cities and towns will have access to urban grants, I hope on an increasing scale, in
    182
    later years. It is our intention to offer partnerships to five areas initially. We will consider proposals from other authorities with major inner area problems.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that references to the question of criteria seem to have been missed out in the answer? Is he aware that community development requires community involvement? Will the right hon. Gentleman make one criterion for specific spending plans the involvement and participation of the local community?
    Mr. Shore: I am very much in favour of community involvement, but how, in each case, the community, in all its many different forms of activity and representation, can best be drawn in depends upon the discussions that we have with the partnership authorities. The particular arrangements must depend upon the views of community representation and our discussions. As for the answer not dealing with the criteria, I referred, of course, to areas that have a particular and special degree and scale of problem. It is to those areas that we are, as it were, giving our first attention. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in the areas that we have already identified there is a mixture of problems—high unemployment, rapid loss of population, an unbalanced residual population, and large-scale environmental dereliction all being present.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the Secretary of State aware that following the expectations raised by his speech at Bristol his recent statement to the House, though welcomed as a recognition of the problems, came as a disappointment to hon. Members on both sides of the House because of its many inadequacies? Will he tell us precisely when the White Paper will be published, in order that these matters may be debated in more detail?
    Mr. Shore: This is a matter of subjective impression. I was not aware of the universal disappointment to which the hon. Gentleman referred, other than as expressed by him from the Opposition Front Bench. I welcome the Opposition's view that I am not spending enough on the problems of the inner areas. If they are to go on encouraging me to increase the resources available to help solve the problems of our inner areas,

    183
    they will find me a most attentive listener and very easy to persuade.
    I hope to publish the White Paper within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep resentment felt in Newcastle upon Tyne at the exclusion of Newcastle from his inner city partnerships? Is he further aware that on any reasonable set of criteria Newcastle surely must come up to scratch compared with areas which were offered partnerships? Will he, as a matter of urgency, meet a deputation from the Newcastle City Council to talk to him about it and the possibility of including Newcastle in the partnership arrangements?
    Mr. Shore: I am aware of the feelings in Newcastle and, indeed, other cities which have not so far been identified as partnership cities. I have not excluded Newcastle, because I have announced a provisional list. I assure my hon. Friend that I am willing to receive representatives of the Newcastle City Council to consider its case.
    Mr. Hordern: Is not the principal urban malaise in this question the fact that over 100,000 people are leaving London every year? Would it not be better to encourage industry to return to London than to encourage three of the London boroughs to persuade some of their residents to move to Crawley in my constituency, where there is an expanding population and the housing programme has been cut?
    Mr. Shore: I am anxious to encourage appropriate industry to return to London and, in particular, to prevent the continued erosion and job loss in the central and inner areas of our capital city. Indeed, a number of the comments that I made in my statement were designed to bring that about.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Secretary of State tell the Chancellor, whose deficit is £2½ billion less than we were told four months ago, that one vital way to help would be to restore the cuts in the amounts that local authorities can spend on buying and improving old houses and in the amounts that they can lend to would-be house purchasers who will not be comforted by building society mortgages?
    Mr. Shore: I assure my hon. Friend that as and when additional resources come forward we shall consider very carefully the priorities for additional expenditure.
    Mr. Rossi: In view of the Secretary of State's jibe concerning public expenditure and the finding of resources to resuscitate inner city areas, may I ask why it is that, for the third or fourth time of asking, he has not answered the question that I have put to him previously, namely, the disposal of commercial and industrial properties in new towns in order to release public capital, which has done its job, for reinvestment in inner city areas?
    Mr. Shore: The answer is perfectly simple. I am giving the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of actually considering what he said. It is one of a number of suggestions that are certainly worth study, and I am studying them. I am concerned to find resources to increase public expenditure in areas of greatest need. I welcome this new universal, across-the-Floor approach to the priorities of public expenditure.

    Merseyside
    Mr. Steenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment for what purposes the Government are planning to make available extra resources to combat urban blight in Liverpool.
    Mr. David Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on what special steps the Government plan to take to combat urban decline on Merseyside.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: As my right hon. Friend announced on 6th April, the Government intend to offer a special partnership to the local authorities for Liverpool. This will involve the joint preparation of an inner area programme. Urban grants will be related to the new programmes and will extend to economic, environmental and social projects. Merseyside generally should benefit from the new priority given to inner areas in the main policies and programmes of Government and from steps taken to strengthen the economies of these areas.
    Mr. Steen: Will the Minister tell the House what is the point of withdrawing many millions of pounds from Liverpool

    185
    in the shape of improvement grants, home loans, urban aid programmes and community development projects and making such a song and dance about it now that he is returning a bit of it?
    Mr. Barnett: I believe that the hon. Gentleman made this point when my right hon. Friend made his statement. I do not recognise the figure that he then quoted or the many millions of pounds about which he talks now. House building in Liverpool has not been cut, Section 105 has not been cut, and virement is possible between different programmes at present. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me explaining the details that he has in mind, I shall look into them.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister considering the representations of the metropolitan borough of Wirral about the serious problems of inner area deprivation in Birkenhead and Wallasey? Will he give them serious and sympathetic consideration? Will he also explain whether the comprehensive community programme will do anything to help the serious problems in Wirral?
    Mr. Barnett: I have not yet seen the representations made from that part of the country, but I shall look at them with great interest when they come. I shall certainly consider them sympathetically. I repeat what my right hon. Friend said about partnership arrangements. The money available has to be concentrated on areas of highest priority. That does not mean that the urban programme, which is being transferred from the Home Office to my Department, will not be made available to other authorities throughout the country. In fact, the money available is being enhanced. Furthermore, we shall want to see comprehensive community programmes more carefully worked out in allocating money from the urban programme.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Whilst in no way wishing to deprecate the problems of places such as Liverpool, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he accepts that other urban areas, such as Kirkby, have employment and housing problems which are just as serious? Following the visit of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, will the Minister consider sympathetically and
    186
    carefully the housing problems of Kirkby, which, although a matter for the local authority, cannot be solved without a massive injection of Government money?
    Mr. Barnett: I know that my right lion Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is actively considering Kirkby's housing problems. The fact that the Government have identified the priorities of the partnership cities does not mean that they have ignored or neglected the problems of other areas. Large sums of money go to other authorities through normal programmes. We hope that the country generally and local authorities will begin to recognise, as the Government have, the priorities of inner city problems, including dereliction.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend indicate when there will be a meeting between his Department and the local authorities? Is he aware that among all intelligent people on Merseyside there is general support for and acceptance of what the Government are doing in relation to this matter, but that the policy must now be translated into action? Does my hon. Friend realise that the quicker a meeting is held between the Government and local authorities to work out plans and to get something done, the more that will be warmly welcomed on Merseyside?
    Mr. Barnett: Obviously, I cannot give a date for a meeting, but I can give the assurance that a meeting will be held as soon as possible. The Government recognise the degree of urgency to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Mr. Loyden: Is my hon. Friend aware of the obvious relationship between public building and unemployment among construction workers? Does he realise that 50 per cent. of the total of unemployed construction workers in the North-West Region are in the Merseyside and Liverpool travel-to-work area? In that sense, do the Government not feel the urgency of getting moving on this matter and of dealing with the dual problems of the housing stock and unemployment on Merseyside?
    Mr. Barnett: I accept the point readily. I know that my hon. Friend has made repeated representations in the House on

    187
    this topic. Some of the money that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made available for the construction industry will be made available in my hon. Friend's part of the world.

    Urban Growth (Essex and Kent)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans Her Majesty's Government have for urban growth in South Essex and Kent as part of any dispersal of population from central London.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: In South Essex Her Majesty's Government have a direct responsibility for the development programme for Basildon New Town which was not modified in the review that my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 5th April. The Government's more general view on the requirements of the South-East will appear in the response to the 1976 review of the Strategic Plan for the South-East, which we hope to issue later this year.
    Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that The Guardian of 20th April reported that the South-East Joint Planning Team was recommending the continuance of no fewer than 11 growth areas in South-East England and that the provisional report on the South-East—as the Minister indicated—also advocated continued growth of green field sites? Would it not be better to develop areas such as dockland than green field sites that might be more useful for agriculture?
    Mr. Barnett: I have seen the report to which my hon. Friend referred. He will understand that I obviously cannot make any comment on that. Such comment as we shall make officially will be made in response to the review of the Strategic Plan for the South-East.
    I think that my hon. Friend will accept that it would be wrong to assume that as a consequence of the change in the direction of the Government's policy there will be no development in green field sites. There will obviously need to be some such development, especially in view of the smaller size of households now. That is why there may need to be some green field development. But I accept my hon. Friend's general point.
    Mr. Newens: While my hon. Friend is considering urban development in South Essex and the laudable plans to rejuvenate inner London, will he also consider the problems created in North-West Essex, particularly for the second generation in Harlow? Is he aware that the decision not to go ahead with expansion in Harlow threatens to create a severe shortage of homes for all those in need—particularly for the second generation—during the next 15 years?
    Mr. Barnett: I am well aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred. I certainly undertake to consider those issues carefully.
    Mr. Hordern: Following the questions that have been put on this matter by hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches, will the Minister consider whether it would be better if the Government took a fresh look at the development of London itself, particularly dockland? Could not dockland be part of the New Towns Commission, so that proper development could take place? Would that not relieve the extra burden at present placed on the new towns?
    Mr. Barnett: I cannot accept the suggestion that dockland should form part of the New Towns Commission, because so much of what needs to be done in inner city development is bound to involve programmes that are already the responsibility of local authorities and of central Government. That is the reason why, after much careful thought, it was decided that the right way to tackle inner city problems was primarily in co-operation with local authorities and by bringing together the programmes of the various Government Departments rather than through the kind of corporations to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Rate Support Grant (Berkshire)
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage increase in the rate support grant payable to Berkshire over the last three years.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: Berkshire's entitlement to needs element under the main RSG Orders for 1975–76 and 1976–77 showed increases of 35 per cent. and 19

    189
    per cent., respectively, over the corresponding payments for the preceding year. The initial entitlement for 1977–78 shows a reduction of 3 per cent. from the 1976–77 total.
    Mr. Durant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a cut of £5 million in the grant aid to Berkshire? Is it not crazy that my constituency of Reading should be made a housing stress area while, at the same time, the grant is cut so that we cannot provide the facilities needed—particularly in areas of high-rise flats and housing stress?
    Mr. Barnett: We do recognise the problems of Reading but, as I think the hon. Gentleman recognises, Reading is only a part of Berkshire. The assessment of the needs element covers the county as a whole. Out of that grant and out of the assessment of need—which, of course, includes the specific problems of Reading—one hopes that Berkshire will see that the resources are diverted to where they are most needed.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Has the hon. Gentleman given any thought to allocating certain sums out of the rate support grant for special categories of expenditure?
    Mr. Barnett: Some thought is being given to the topic of specific grants but I am not in a position to say anything on that point now.

    Inner City Areas (Grants)
    Mr. Hodgsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums were made available by Government to relieve inner city depression in 1975–76 and 1976–77; and what expenditure forecast he has for Walsall for 1977–78.
    Mr. Guy Barnett: The Government provide a great deal of assistance to local authorities through rate support grant, housing subsidies, and in other ways. I cannot say how much of these grants is spent in relieving inner city conditions, since this is a matter for local authority decision. Walsall forecasts that its total expenditure for 1977–78 will be about £51·6 million.
    Mr. Hodgson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by his answer he has confirmed the feeling in the Black Country that the Government are neglecting the
    190
    problems there? Does he realise that people there feel badly let down by this? Will the hon. Gentleman do something to remedy this defect when he publishes the White Paper?
    Mr. Barnett: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman said. For example, I draw his attention to the fact that in terms of the rate support grant needs element Walsall's share of the English grant as a whole has risen from 0·57 per cent. in 1974–75 to 0·62 per cent. in 1977–78. That does not demonstrate that on the matter of the rate support grant the Government have neglected the Black Country as a whole.
    I repeat that the priorities have had to be identified in terms of the major areas of dereliction and inner city problems. In the West Midlands, Birmingham has been identified in that way, but that does not mean that the Government are unaware of other needs. For example, Walsall should receive grants of £610,000 under the urban programme during 1977–78.
    Mr. George: Walsall is indeed an area of considerable urban deprivation. Will the Minister prevail on the local Conservative-controlled council to make an application for urban aid? Does my hon. Friend realise that the previous local authority made no application in 1975 for urban aid and that it has not even spent the money allocated to it in 1974?
    Mr. Barnett: I hope that my hon. Friend will make that point clear to the electors of Walsall, who may have an important comment to make on that matter in the coming elections.

    Building Societies Association
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the Council of the Building Societies Association.
    Mr. Shore: My Department is in continuing contact with the Building Societies Association, and I hope to see its chairman shortly.
    Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend request the Building Societies Association to explain better to savers in building societies and to those who have mortgages why building societies need to accumulate such large surpluses, which seem to the ordinary citizen to be spent

    191
    on strings of offices in High Streets? There seems to be no reason why this money could not be channelled into extra mortgages.
    Mr. Shore: There has been a longstanding criticism of the number of building societies, but this is not the right occasion on which to debate that. On the broader question of surpluses, there is a balance to be struck. We have all been anxious to avoid the sort of famine in money for lending on mortgages that occurred in 1973–74, and to do so it is necessary for building societies to have a cushion of reserves. Otherwise their ability to lend will be seriously impaired and may be subject to wild variations of the sort that we had in 1973–74.
    Mr. McCrindle: Have the Government not been bringing disproportionate political pressure on building societies to reduce interest rates? If they desist from the stampede against the societies until the level of inflow of funds becomes clearer, is it not likely that the rate of lending to mortgagees will settle down and that we shall avoid the ups and downs of rates that we have seen in recent years?
    Mr. Shore: That is a strange comment. I am not aware of any political pressure. I am aware and I am glad that we have continuing contact with the building societies. The purport of the hon. Gentleman's remarks seems to be that he believes that the recent reduction in mortgage interest rates was either premature or too large, and I do not necessarily share that view.
    There is a balance to be struck. We are all in favour of low mortgage interest rates—that wish is shared throughout the county—but we do not want to pay the price of violent swings in the availability of mortgages or have famines of the sort I described earlier.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware how reluctant many building societies are to lend on older and cheaper properties? Is he aware that in Salford, six of the nine leading building societies insisted on houses having front and back gardens and possessing—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant so far in allowing hon. Members to give information, and the House
    192
    can see how slowly we are going. If the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) will put his remarks in the form of a question I shall be able to call more hon. Members in the next seven minutes.
    Mr. Allaun: I have asked my question, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has drawn attention, not for the first time, to the reluctance of societies in certain areas to lend on older properties—the red lining problem to which reference has frequently been made in the House. I am aware of the problem. We have a new relationship with building societies and I intend to take up this matter with them, not just in the general sense, but in terms of monitoring progress and taking account of evidence of specific acts of red lining so that I can take them up with the societies.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remarks have a different tone from those of the Prime Minister on this subject yesterday? Is he also aware that although we all want lower mortgage rates—especially those of us with mortgages—we welcome what he has said rather more than we welcomed the tone of the Prime Minister's remarks?
    Mr. Shore: I should not wish to be described as tone deaf, but I was not aware of any marked difference of emphasis between what the Prime Minister said and what I have said. As always, we are in perfect harmony.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if there is a change in plan there should be no change in emphasis, and that we hope that building societies will bring down their rates to borrowers? Is it not disturbing that when the minimum lending rate has been reduced by 6 per cent. the building societies' rates to borrowers have been reduced by only 1 per cent.? Is he aware that the Government have a right to ask the societies to look at this again in the near future and to bring down rates further?
    Mr. Shore: I am sure that a lowering of the mortgage lending rate is the wish of the whole country and it is also the wish of the building societies to adjust their rates as soon as they can, consistent with

    193
    the major problems to which I referred earlier.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the level of interest rates chargeable by the building societies essentially depends on Government policy? In the context of the repeated rise and fall of interest rates in the last 12 months and the cost to building societies of such changes, what criteria would the right hon. Gentleman use in giving advice to the societies?
    Mr. Shore: This is inevitably a matter of judgment, which refers to two matters. First, there is the view that one takes of the structure of competitive interest rates for any period ahead. This has been particularly difficult to judge in the past year. Secondly, there is the inflow of money to the societies. We all have an interest in seeing that sufficient money comes in so that building societies are able to lend on the scale and with the consistency that the building industry requires.

    Housing Loans (Bolsover District Council)
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will reconsider the allocation of money to Bolsover District Council for housing loan purposes, in view of the district council's policy of encouraging improvement grants for sub-standard properties.
    Mr. Freeson: The arrangements announced on 6th April to provide greater flexibility in housing capital expenditure for 1977–78 will help the council to link its home loans and improvement grants policies more clearly together.
    Mr. Skinner: That is a bit Irish. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it really means that last year the council received £238,000 for housing loans and that this year it will get exactly the same amount, not only for housing loans but for improvement grants? Will he tell his right hon. Friend, who described himself earlier as an attentive listener to calls for more public expenditure, that some of the £2½ billion that we have suddenly found we should not have cut from public expenditure ought to be used on housing in inner city areas, urban malaise areas, and urban stress areas—and some in Bolsover?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough to be getting on with.
    Mr. Freeson: I always hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend but I am afraid that his facts are wrong. The allocation for home loans to Bolsover this year is higher than last year's figure of a little over £200,000. This year it will be £238,000, and in addition there will be an allocation of about £300,000—I am sorry, £30,000—for improvement grants. The total will be about £260,000.
    I was not speaking Irish or any other language; I was making the point that if local authorities are enabled to switch from one Vote head to another during the year they will better be able to link improvement policy with home loans on older properties. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must remember that this is the Mother of Parliaments, where some dignity should be preserved.

    Council House Costs (London)
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of of State for the Environment what is the average cost of a new council house in London.
    Mr. Freeson: The average cost of a new council house in London in 1975 was about £17,000.
    Mr. Forman: As we now have a partially renovated Government, would it not be a good idea if they paid more attention to the renovation of existing properties in London—which, according to national average figures, costs about £6,000 per dwelling—than to the expensive building of new council houses. which the nation can ill afford?
    Mr. Freeson: The national average unit cost figure for improvements would not be applicable to London, though many excellent conversions have been achieved at that sort of cost. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's general point. We need to provide more new dwellings where they are required as well as providing modernised homes that will not be demolished.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is it possible that the housing report that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have sat on for so long will point out the appalling unit cost of housing, which means

    195
    that, including interest over 60 years, some new GLC dwellings cost about £250,000 each? This cannot go on. Is it not time the report was published, so that the country can decide what sort of housing policies it wants to see?
    Mr. Freeson: No report has been sat upon. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts. I suggest that he takes his remarks, which are rather exaggerated and a little gross, to the hustings.

  BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS (HEADQUARTERS)
  Mr. David Hunt: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
  "The decision of the Secretary of State for Industry annouced today that the headquarters of British Shipbuilders are to be located in the North-East of England instead of on Merseyside as had been anticipated."
  This matter is clearly specific. It is of vital importance not just to the country but in particular to Merseyside, with its enormously high rate of unemployment. We had felt quite strongly that Merseyside fulfilled all the criteria of the Organising Committee. It has come as a body blow to all those concerned with shipping on Merseyside that Merseyside has been overlooked. The situation requires urgent consideration because unless this House has an opportunity of debating this decision it will be too late. I therefore ask, Mr. Speaker, that you allow me to move the Adjournment of the House on these three conditions—that it is specific, important and requires urgent consideration.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) asks leave under Standing Order No. 9 to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and import-and that was a private Act of 1958 by urgent consideration, namely,
  "The decision of the Secretary of State for Industry announced today that the headquarters of British Shipbuilders are to be located in the North-East of England instead of on Merseyside as had been anticipated."
  I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows that I am not judging the importance of the issue but
  196
  whether it must take priority over the business of the day. I am afraid I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

DOMESTIC PREMISES (LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS)
3.33 p.m.
Mr. Cyril Smith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to require the installation of artificial lighting by means of gas or electricity in all habitable rooms within their area to require the maintenance in good repair of such installation; to enable improvement grants to be paid for the removal and replacement of defective electrical installations in domestic premises; and for connected purposes.
This Bill, which I can assure the House will be printed—assuming that I receive the leave of the House—is meant to make a contribution to home safety in this country. It is not in itself the complete answer to the problem that I shall outline, but at least it will be a start.
In fact, in my view this is a question which the Government ought seriously to look at and to concern themselves with. The longer they delay, the worse the problem becomes, and lives could be lost while the Government do nothing. The present position is that where an owner, or an owner-occupier, wishes to renew defective electric wiring in a house but cannot afford to do so, he can seek an improvement grant. But, as the law stands, such a grant for rewiring repair would be classified as a repair rather than improvement. Therefore, the grant can be given only if improvements to the same value as the repair are carried out in the house. In other words, if the rewiring were to cost £200, the occupier would be required to do other work, to be classified as improvements, to a further value of £200—making £400 worth of work altogether.
If the local authority then made a grant towards that work, the maximum grant it could give would be £200 or 50 per cent. of the cost. In practical terms it is not possible to get a grant merely for the purpose of rewiring a

197
house. The grant system is therefore discouraging rather than encouraging with regard to the rewiring of property in this country. In fact, the applicant, as my example shows, receives no grant.
The second aspect of the problem is that there is no specific regulation in this country which enables a local authority to require a reluctant landlord to renew defective wiring. It may be argued, and could be said, that either Section 9(1) or Section 9(1)(a) of the 1957 Housing Act takes care of that situation. But those powers can be used only if the local authority takes note of, and requires, the carrying out of work to remedy other defects found in the dwelling. In other words, on a complaint about defective wiring an inspector may, in order to get the wiring repaired, have to require all kinds of other work to be carried out and thus defeat the immediate and most urgent task, namely, the rewiring of the property.
The present powers are at best clumsy. In a letter to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Callaghan), dated 30th November 1976, the Minister admitted that
"There is none"
—that is, no power—
"which specifically provides for the repair of electrical wiring".
It will be of interest to the House to hear that in a recent survey of 21 local authorities—members of the North-Western Home Safety Council—it was found that between them they used no fewer than nine sections of seven different Acts to try to effect repairs to wiring. Of those nine sections, only one Act was specifically designed to effect such repairs and that was a Private Act of 1958 by Manchester Corporation.
In that survey many authorities indicated that they risk only informal notices. In other words, because of the weakness of the existing law they are not prepared to have their notices requiring rewiring tested in a court of law. Local authorities have a duty placed on them to ensure home safety. What my Bill attempts to do is help them in that task.
The whole matter has been raised with the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich and myself by the Rochdale
198
Metropolitan District Council. It surely is a fact that all houses built prior to 1940 which have not been rewired must be suspect and, hence, a potential safety hazard to the inhabitants. The Central Electricity Board recommends a check every five years while the Institution of Electrical Engineers has stated publicly that the insulation of all electrical installations done over 25 years ago must be regarded as suspect.
In a letter to Rochdale Council on 29th September 1976 the Department of the Environment
"accepts the importance on grounds of safety for the replacement of worn-out wiring."
Yet the cost of rewiring is usually well over £200 and nearer £300. Since, in order to attract grant, one has to spend double that amount, more and more houses which require to be rewired are not being done. The irony, I understand, is that under Section 13 of the 1961 Housing Act, houses in multiple occupation can be compelled to have installations of gas or electricity in proper working order. Is it therefore not strange that councils do not have similar powers in respect of private or council-owned dwellings which are occupied by one family? Indeed, local authorities have no specific powers whatever to request an owner to provide artificial lighting in any room of a dwelling-house.
I had hoped that my Bill would have removed all these serious weaknesses and gaps in the existing law. The draftsman of the Bill, a Mr. Alistair Webster, to whom I am indebted, has found, however, that to cover them all would require a major Bill, and a Ten Minutes Rule Bill is inadequate. Therefore, my Bill is confined to granting local authorities the right to allow grant for the purposes of rewiring and wiring maintenance, not-withstanding that no other work is to be done in a property.
If the Bill were to become law, it would be a considerable step forward. I hope that the Government will find time for the Bill, which surely must be non-controversial and certainly is in the interests of the safety of people. It is a modest step forward. I want to see the Government tackle this problem realistically and in a wider sense. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will this afternoon help the Government to take a faltering step towards that absolute

199
necessity by allowing me the Bill. I now seek the House to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cyril Smith and Mr. Jim Callaghan.

DOMESTIC PREMISES (LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS)
Mr. Cyril Smith accordingly presented a Bill to enable local authorities to require the installation of artificial lighting by means of gas or electricity in all habitable rooms within their area; to require the maintenance in good repair of such installation; to enable improvement grants to be paid for the removal and replacement of defective electrical installations in domestic premises; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13th May and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (DIRECTELECTIONS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may tell the House that this is one of those occasions when there is an enormous interest in the subject. I have a very long list of hon. Members who have indicated that they hope to catch my eye. I want to warn the House that even with short speeches it will be quite impossible for them all to be called. Those of us who are in the Chair will do our best.
3.42 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): It was in March of last year that we held a full two-day debate on direct elections. We are now approaching the stage at which decisions must be taken on the questions discussed in the White Paper, Cmnd. 6768, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have laid before the House. The views expressed in the debate today and on 25th April will be of great importance to the Government in considering what form of electoral process to recommend to the House.
In our debate last March we were particularly concerned with the questions which had to be discussed and decided at the Community level. During the debate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the setting up of a Select Committee to study the issues. We are all indebted to the Select Committee for the speed and thoroughness of its work. It produced a First Report in June 1976 and the Government were guided largely by that report and by the views expressed on it in the debate of 12th July in the negotiations that led to the 20th September agreement on procedures in the Community for direct elections. The Select Committee subsequently produced two further reports dealing with arrangements for direct elections in the United Kingdom and a great deal of its work has been reflected in the White Paper.
Hon. Members will know that the Government are not announcing decisions at this stage. We shall want to listen and note all the arguments made in the

201
course of debate. In the light of these the Government will immediately thereafter reconsider the issues raised in the White Paper on direct elections. The Cabinet's conclusions—both on the electoral system to be used for direct elections and on the related issues—will then be brought forward by the Government as proposals to the House. My purpose is to set out as clearly as I can the background to direct elections, which is too often misunderstood, and to explain how I see the rôle of the Assembly in the European Community and the way it is likely to develop.
In my first speech to the House as Foreign Secretary I said:
"The Community needs, if it is to command greater public support, to become more relevant to people's daily lives."—[Official Report, 1st March 1977; Vol. 927, c. 200.]
I believe that one of the ways in which this can be done is to involve people in European matters directly through democratic elections.
The principle of a directly elected Parliament was incorporated in the Treaty of Rome 20 years ago as a necessary eventual part of the Community. The arrangement under which delegates were designated by national Parliaments was adopted in the interim but the goal of direct elections was clear and explicit. Participation in an eventual electoral system was one of the goals which we, too, assumed when we joined the Community.
But of course here, as in other member countries, participation is possible only on a basis agreed by our own Parliament. The renegotiation White Paper of March 1975 made this perfectly plain when it said that, if British membership of the Community were confirmed by the referendum, any scheme for direct elections would require an Act of Parliament. That remains the position. When the Government, in honouring their treaty obligation, come to introduce their Bill, it will be for Parliament to decide. But I do not believe that this Parliament, which has championed democratic involvement for centuries, will block the democratic objective which all the member States have set for themselves in the EEC Treaty and which is now close to realisation.
The target which has been set is, as hon. Members know, to hold the first elections in May or in June next year. This date
202
was set in the course of successive meetings of Heads of Government in December 1974 in Paris and a year later in Rome, and was reaffirmed in the agreement signed on 20th September last.
Mr. John Mendelson: If my right hon. Friend was announcing a couple of minutes ago that it is for the free wish of this Parliament to decide whether the United Kingdom should be committed to and hold direct elections, why does he say a couple of minutes later, in emotive terms, that he hopes that the House will not block it? Surely that is not the language that should precede a free decision of the House of Commons.
Dr. Owen: That was my view. It is what Parliament decides. I respect my hon. Friend's views on this matter. I am giving my interpretation of it. My words were "I do not believe". I do not think that that was very emotive.
Mr. John Mendelson: It is.
Dr. Owen: I am very conscious that almost anything that is said in this debate will be considered emotive on one side of the argument or the other, and I am also conscious that sides of the argument go right across party lines. I am trying to give an intepretation of how I see both the agreement and the future.
This agreement is a statement of political intent to which the Government have subscribed. Textually, what the agreement says is that member States intend
"to give effect to the conclusions of the European Council … that the election should be held … within the period May/June 1978".
The precise date will be fixed by the common agreement of the member States. It is clearly intended that this should cover a single four-day period for all member States, not a series of different dates. Indeed, the constitutional requirements of at least one member State may prevent its holding the elections unless all the member States agreed to do so together. The Government's political commitment is to use their best endeavours to avoid a situation in which delays in the United Kingdom put the target date out of reach for the whole Community.
Mr. Michael Alison: Perhaps we may clarify one point. The White Paper commitment seems to me to be quite clear and explicit in terms of the

203
commitment to the principle of a directly elected European Assembly and some flexibility on methodology. The question of methodology is for a Bill and the House to determine. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that the Government are committed to the principle of a directly elected Assembly.
Dr. Owen: Yes. I have made the Government's position quite clear. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) says, this is a question, as I have also made clear, for Parliament to decide. I have made clear that a Bill has to be got through this Parliament.
It might help the House if I tried to make clear to what we are committing ourselves. The treaties provided for an Assembly which was to exercise its advisory and supervisory powers in collaboration with the other Community institutions. While the founding fathers of the Community saw the Commission undoubtedly as the embryo of a future Government of Europe, no British Government have ever been committed to such a federal solution. While the founding fathers therefore intended the Assembly to exercise a power of democratic control, principally over the Commission, no British Government have ever accepted that the Commission should ever have such extensive powers. The Assembly was given the power, often known as "the unusable sledge-hammer", to dismiss the Commission.
What has happened, as in other areas of Community life, is that many of the Community's institutions have evolved in ways unforeseen by the founding fathers. In the event a very different balance, and in my view a much more realistic balance, has evolved between the Community's three main institutions, the Council, the Commission and the Assembly. According to the Treaty of Rome, the Assembly's opinion must be obtained on Commission proposals over a wide range of subjects before the Council can take a decision. This scrutiny is not a mere formality, as many hon. Members will know. The 14 specialised parliamentary committees can call on considerable sources of expertise and have done much effective work.
Perhaps the most important rôle that the European Parliament plays now is in
204
the budgetary sphere, where to some extent it shares responsibility with the Council for the Community budget. It is formally the Parliament which adopts the Community budget, although the size and distribution of that budget is determined primarily by decisions of the Council. The Community's budget procedures are extremely complex. But I think it is true to say that the gradual evolution of these procedures and the establishment in particular of the conciliation procedure to try to concert views between the Council and the Parliament on new proposals with major financial implications are leading towards a more effective rôle for the Parliament in the field of Community expenditure.
The development of the conciliation procedure is also an important example of the welcome and, in my view, growing dialogue between the Parliament and the Council. This is in addition to the dialogue which has existed for some time between the Parliament and the Commission. The Parliament, for its part, has widened its horizons to take in the work of the Council of Ministers and the newly developed political co-operation machinery. Since the arrival of British Members at the Assembly this has taken on a new dimension, particularly in the Question Hour, which is in direct line of descent from our own Question Time in the House.
Many of the desirable reforms in the working of the Assembly have come about because of the work of hon. Members from both sides of the House, but I single out the work of the late hon. Member who sat for the constituency of Saffron Walden. I believe that all Members, wherever they sit, will join me in paying tribute to his work as a convinced and effective European. We all extend our sympathy to his family in their tragic loss.
So, while member States have been willing to permit a gradual extension of Parliament's influence in some quite specific areas, its powers are, by the standards of democratically elected Parliaments, very limited indeed. I have just returned from Strasbourg, where I reported this morning on behalf of the presidency on the Rome summit. I must tell right hon. and hon. Members who see grave threats to the power and position of this House that, having observed that

205
Parliament, I can see no such threat, either at the moment or in the future. The development of the Assembly will depend on the future shape and organisation of Europe. In the last analysis, a clear vision of the Assembly's future presupposes the existence of a clear vision of the future of the Community. I am not sure that any of us has such a clear vision.
That the founding fathers had such a vision there can be no doubt. Their aim was a centralised Community in which the Commission would ultimately evolve into the Government of a united Europe. They believed that a federal structure should one day emerge from the Community. Inevitably, the Treaty's institutional structure had a natural centripetal bias.
In fact, events have shown that even if it were desirable, which I doubt, one cannot dissolve within 20 years national interests and traditions which in some cases, like our own, have had more than a thousand years of uninterrupted development. Running against any federalist aspirations are the continuing power of national sentiment, varying national interests and national perceptions and, regrettably, economic divergence within the Community.
If we compare the history of Western Europe with the history of the United States we can, I think, appreciate just how far we should have to go, even if we wanted a federal Europe. The United States developed a federal system in a society that was relatively homogeneous, both culturally and socially. The 13 original states had a common language and a common cultural, historical and judicial background. They came together against a common enemy and continued together in the face of a common challenge—that of the vast and largely empty continent which they came to occupy. It took a devastating civil war nearly a century after the founding of the republic to confirm the federation, which developed geographically and demographically, in slow and measured steps. Of course I understand the deep feelings which motivated the founding fathers in the late 1940s and 1950s to dream of a Community which might weaken the nationalisms which had brought Europe in this century to its own two disastrous
206
civil wars. It is a measure of the Community's success that no one today believes that Europe is likely to face a third civil war.
But I think we must face facts and I should like to be blunt. It is scarcely conceivable that Europe, with its much greater national, regional, linguistic, cultural and historical diversity, could become a federal State akin to that of the United States within my children's lifetime, or even one's grandchildren's, still less our own lifetime. [Interruption.] Well, it is open to doubt and analysis. I can only give the House—
Mr. Martin Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend not see that in America there were not completely separate nations and nation States as there are in Europe and that the position was fundamentally different from what it is in Europe?
Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend makes very much the case that I have been attempting to make. I realise that there are many different views on this issue, but if we were to analyse a lot of the emotion and a lot of the anxieties about the whole subject of a European Parliament, we should find lying behind them the issue of federalism, and it is worth discussing it. It was never really fully discussed at the time of going into the European Community. It is quite right to say that there will be very many different views expressed in the House. I can only give my own best analysis of how I see the future development of Europe. But I am well aware that in 10 years' time events may have confounded any analysis that I make. The way that Europe has evolved has been extremely hard to predict.
In my view it is time that we all recognised how unreal the debate about federalism has become. The plain fact is that this House, with the national parliaments of other member States, will define the future shape of the Community. Without the agreement of this House, there can be no major change in the structure of the Community.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has just said that he is not sure about his prognostications being confirmed. But when he says that the Assembly shows no signs of becoming

207
a federal threat at the moment, has he forgotten that it would have three times as many full-time Members and that the powers and ambit of responsibilities would be directly competitive with national Parliaments, particularly this House?
Dr. Owen: I am going on to analyse some of these issues, if the House will bear with me for a moment. I have just said that in my view at this moment the debate about federalism is pretty unreal.
Of course, we recognise that the Community is a unique structure, and what I have said about its development under federalism is not meant to detract from what I believe and have long believed to be a very important influence on the future of this country and of Europe. It is an economic institution, but with a developing political personality. It is an institution that combines elements of domestic and external policy. It is an institution with an inbuilt dynamism which has no parallel in other international organisation.
The pace and scope of the Community's development are determined by the play between national and collective interests. Certainly membership of it entails some limited pooling of sovereignty in those defined areas where there is agreement to develop common policies. But the development of the Community over the last decade has seen the balance between the Commission and the Council shift decisively in favour of the Council. This shift has found its visible expression in the creation of the European Council of Heads of Government. As the supreme guiding force of the Community, the European Council ensures that the ultimate political control of all major Community activities is retained by national governments.
This is the context in which we must view the future of the Assembly and the development of its powers. Direct elections will not of themselves increase these powers. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out last July that the European Parliament will be elected on the powers it has at present. The Members will certainly demand more powers—many of them do so now. They will perhaps put their claims more vociferously as a result of direct elections.
208
How far national Governments and national parliaments agree to these demands will be for them alone to decide. The European Assembly cannot seize powers; it can only take those given to it by the member Governments with the approval of their national parliaments. The current debate in France shows the extent to which that is recognised in countries other than our own.
There is no inherent reason why a European Parliament should be federally inclined. A directly elected Assembly will, or should, reflect public opinion in the nine member States on the rôle of the Community and on the powers of its institutions, as on other things. Matters of this kind will be legitimate issues in elections to the Parliament. People will stake out their claims in such elections.
If there is a federal sentiment in the member States—and I would expect to see less federalist sentiment in Britain, France and Denmark and perhaps more in the Benelux countries, Germany and Italy—this will be reflected in the Members sent to the Parliament and the views which they then express.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that throughout his speech he has used the terms "Assembly" and "Parliament" interchangeably? Does he realise that the choice of term can have a significant effect on the public's attitude to the proper rôle of such an institution?
Dr. Owen: Strictly speaking, it should be referred to as an Assembly. On a strictly juridical basis I should use the term "Assembly", but the terms are interchangeable.
Mr. Jim Craigen: Does my right hon. Friend foresee a situation in which the balance of power will move from the Council to the Commission with the introduction of direct elections? Does he not agree that thereby one of the things that the founding fathers of the Community foresaw will have been created, with the Commission becoming the supranational body within the Community?
Dr. Owen: Not if I have anything to do with it. There has been a growth in the power and influence of the Community and I cited the European Council, which is a wholly new development, as an example of that.

209
It follows that if there is no federal sentiment in the United Kingdom, those who fight elections on that plank are unlikely to succeed. But if federal sentiment were to develop in the United Kingdom surely it would be right, democratically, that it should be represented by candidates chosen for the European Parliament. All we have to ensure, as I emphasised to the House on 1st March, is that members elected in this country are genuinely representative. It would be damaging to British democracy, to the standing of the members themselves and to the protection of British interests in the Community if the elections produced unrepresentative members after a low and unrepresentative poll.
I turn to a major practical problem which will be a foremost concern of a directly elected Assembly—the enlargement of the Community. Enlargement reflects the arguments about deepening or broadening the Community when looking to the future. This will be a severe test not only for the European Parliament, but for all the Community institutions, individually and collectively.
Nine member States and six Community languages already make it hard enough for the Parliament to act coherently, still less spontaneously. Those right hon. and hon. Members who make up the British delegation will know this from practical experience. I saw it vividly demonstrated to me today. It is absolutely right and normal that the elected representatives should, if they wish, speak and work in their own tongue. I do not think that anyone in this House can argue that we should add linguistic proficiency to the qualifications for election. Apart from the complications arising from the differences in national viewpoint and political alignment, the possible enlargement of the Community to include three Mediterranean countries—and who knows how many other States in due course?—could in the end add four or five further languages.
Some member States will query enlargement without institutional reform and argue for majority voting. But this has been firmly resisted by Britain and France in the past without some safeguard for their national interest, such as the Luxembourg compromise. This will
210
continue to be this Government's position, although we are prepared to rally to the majority unless important national interests are at stake. In my view enlargement, for linguistic and institutional reasons, is bound to work against federalism.
The yardstick by which we shall judge the real worth and validity of the Parliament in the years to come will be its ability to reconcile national differences through effective co-operation within coherent and democratically responsive political groups. In this way the Parliament can contribute to the strengthening of European democracy and cohesion. This aspiration lies after all at the basis of the 'Treaty of Rome, the preamble of which speaks of laying
"the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"
and working
"to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe".
This is a challenge which the European Parliament shares with us all. The formidable difficulties which it presents should in no way diminish the force of our commitment to overcome it.
Edmund Burke once defined Parliament as
"not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates"
but, he said:
"parliament is a deliberate assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole …"
If his words were a rebuke to Westminster in the eighteenth century, he might not notice a great deal of progress were he to return today. But if this is the case in Britain after a millenium of representative government, to fear that the European Assembly will become tomorrow a deliberate assembly of one nation—which is what the fear of federalism amounts to—is a fear which I hope I have shown has no foundations.
Our commitment to building a united Europe and a strong and prosperous Community, to which I hold strongly, is a commitment to participate constructively and positively in a long-term historical process. A directly elected European Parliament will be an indispensable and practical step in the construction of a more cohesive and democratic Europe.
4.8 p.m.
Mr. John Davies: Today's debate and that which will follow on Monday are of an unusual character. We are debating the motion for the Adjournment, and that has allowed the Foreign Secretary to range widely over the arguments about the principle of directly electing a European Parliament, whereas the White Paper addresses itself more closely to the practicalities of the electoral systems that might be devised. I have no dispute with the Foreign Secretary's approach, but I shall not follow him precisely, although I may touch on some of the issues.
We are not debating the principle of direct elections. I draw the attention of Labour Members to the fact that their own Prime Minister has repeatedly said that this matter is now beyond recall and that the principle is past. The Prime Minister said that yesterday in response to his hon. Friends.
Mr. John Mendelson: I hope that the right hon. Member is not advancing the doctrine that the Prime Minister, however eminent, decides whether Parliament debates a principle.
Mr. Davies: I would not have any such thing. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I attach such great importance to the position of Parliament in these matters that my integrity can hardly be disputed. The thought has never been even remotely in my mind that we could proceed to direct elections without the statutory authority of Parliament. That is an essential part of the process on which we are now engaged.
I make the important analogy that in what is generally the treaty-making process, whereby a Government proceed along treaty lines, there may be, in regard to the most exceptionally important matters affecting the fate of the country, a treaty subsequently presented to Parliament, and Parliament can reject it. Parliament has, on rare occasions, rejected it, because it was on a serious matter. But on this occasion, the Prime Minister has made the point, with which I agree, that Parliament has been fully consulted on the process to be used under the treaty-making procedure agreement. We have had repeated opportunities to discuss the matter. The result which was finally achieved in the concordat talks of 25th
212
September was the end of a long process, not the beginning of one.
I believe that the purpose today must be to address ourselves more to the specifics of the White Paper than to the question of rehearsing once again the many arguments which are involved. That is what we are asked to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Labour Members should consult the Order Paper. After all, they are such keen parliamentarians. I see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is gesticulating as usual. He is one of the keenest parliamentarians I know. He is concerned with the contents of the Order Paper.
We are required to discuss a series of issues contained in the White Paper. The object of the debate is to look into the factors involved in the White Paper. It is largely concerned with the electoral method and secondarily with the vexatious question of the dual mandate. These are the two issues which the White Paper draws to our attention.
The provisions of the debate are difficult to handle in relation to the decision which must be reached. We are debating the motion for the Adjournment. Goodness knows what means, if any, there will be of debating the issue on Monday. As we are debating the motion for the Adjournment, we have no means as a House of doing what we are expected to do—namely, to reach a conclusive decision on the issues presented as options in the White Paper. We have no such opportunity.
In the light of further consideration by the Government we may find ourselves in a different situation next Monday but at present we have no means of reaching decisions on the options which the Government's White Paper presents. This is a somewhat anomalous situation.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Since I shall be winding up the debate on Monday night, may I ask whether we shall hear the Opposition's view on what options they will support?
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will feel assured by my remarks, which will conform to Mr. Speaker's injunction to be brief and in which I shall try to deal with some of the issues concerned.

213
I return to the proposal which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, (Mr. Channon) made yesterday to the Prime Minister—that there needs to be an opportunity, perhaps between the debate on the White Paper and the presentation of a Bill for Second Reading, for decisions to be taken on the issues rehearsed in the White Paper. If that were not so, if the first we knew of firm proposals, as opposed to the options presented, was within the framework of the Bill, we might allow ourselves to be drawn into a cul-de-sac.
I hope that the sensible suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, will be seriously considered. This has been put to the Leader of the House before, or at least something of the kind was put to him, and he has always taken careful note of it; but, characteristically, he has never done much about it. On this occasion I hope he will. It is essential that when we reach the point of having a Bill before us to which we must give a Second Reading and which thereafter must go through the remaining processes, we should have before us something which represents the conclusions of the House on the vexatious and difficult issues with which the White Paper presents us.
Mr. Paul Channon: Would my right hon. Friend agree that we shall face great problems if the Government adopt the alternative course of publishing a Bill with one system or other in it? The Government are to allow a free vote on the issue and every hon. Member will wish to express his view in a free way. If the House rejects the Government's proposition it will be astonishingly difficult for the House to amend the Bill adequately to fulfil the conclusions which the House will have reached. That is why I hope my right hon. Friend's suggestion will succeed.
Mr. Davies: I wholly agree with that observation. I can even foresee a ridiculous situation in which a Bill was passed to become an Act without an electoral system being incorporated in it. That would plumb the depths of absurdity. I realise, of course, that some hon. Members would welcome such a situation, but I have a strong feeling that the majority of hon. Members would not.
214
I also believe that a conclusion which gave rise to a totally frustrated piece of legislation in one form or another—whether frustrated in the course of its passage through the House or frustrated in its final courses—could hardly be considered to concur with the Prime Minister's repeated assurances that he is committed to bring about the intention to which he was a party last year and to which his late right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary was also a party. I speak of the conclusion of 25th September.
It would be remarkable if such a conclusion as I have outlined could be reconciled with the clear assurances which have been given. If that were so, it would result in the Government becoming regarded not just as a dangerous element within the Community, which I think they have been by virtue of some of their activities recently, but also as a laughing stock. That would be a great pity for the country.
Mr. Eric S. Helfer: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to elucidate this point about the Government being a dangerous element? Is he suggesting that the fight they put up in relation the CAP in trying to keep down prices for the benefit of the British people was acting like a dangerous element in the Community?
Mr. Davies: Yes, but I do not think that it is appropriate to go too deeply into that matter. The actions of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been specifically counter-productive to the interests of the housewife. There is no doubt about that.
But I revert to our primary consideration. It is now clear that all of the other eight member States will certainly be proceeding to the necessary legislative provisions to enable elections to take place early next summer.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the Government are showing signs of getting themselves into the same position as that into which they got with the devolution Bill, when it appeared that there might well have been a majority in the House for devolution, but, because the Government did not take the trouble to find out on what terms, the Bill went to

215
the wall? Would they not be wise first to find out, on a vote, what sort of electoral system would be acceptable to the House, lest this Bill goes to the wall in the same way?
Mr. Davies: I strongly believe that my hon. Friend is correct. I fear that the Government may be doing that, at least by default. Equally, there could be great shame in such an action. There is a majority in the House for direct elections to the European Parliament, and on a determined electoral system, and for us to fail to achieve that would be an act of ineptitude for which there is no excuse.
I return to the question of the dangers involved in being the sole failing country in the Community. Until recently, there were doubts about the ability or wish of other member countries to carry through the necessary legislative process to ensure direct elections. But those have been dissipated. At one time, there was some doubt whether Denmark was able or willing to do so, but it is clear that it is both able and willing to do so.
I was in France on Monday to try to clarify in my own mind the position there. There had been some doubt, but there is no doubt now that the Gaullists, the RPR, and the Communists, will not seek to obstruct the enactment which is necessary for France to proceed to elections to a European Parliament in May or June next year.
That being so, if we fail, we shall be the only member of the Community to do so, and if we are the only one, we shall stop the rest—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There will be no forgiving and no forgetting the fact that we shall have done so. Therefore, unless steps are now urgently taken to clarify the process of what decision we take on the electoral system, we are in danger, by intent or by malintent, of failing to do so.
I turn now to the specific issues of substance within the White Paper. The first is the dual mandate. All the evidence leads one to the conclusion that it would prove virtually impossible effectively to discharge a dual mandate of membership both of this House and of the European Parliament at the same time. The parliamentary demands in Westminster are certainly much heavier
216
than those of any equivalent Parliament in the Community. Adding to that what seems to me inevitably the growing weight of work in the European Parliament itself makes the combination of the two virtually unthinkable in the generality.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the greatly lamented death of Sir Peter Kirk, whom we all knew both as a very stout colleague and as a great friend. Undoubtedly, his death owed something to the extraordinary burdens put on people in discharging the dual duties involved.
I willingly accept that there may be exceptional cases in which, for specific reasons, there would be a need for an individual perhaps to fulfil a dual mandate, but that the generality of the 81 Members of the European Parliament could at the same time be Members of this House is unthinkable. Therefore, our conclusions should go towards making a dual mandate not impossible but at least unlikely. It should not be excluded, but it should certainly not be obligatory.
I take the view that the electoral method which is decided upon is of secondary importance to the attainment of direct elections themselves in line with the other eight countries. For my part, I am content to abide by the majority decision of the House on the electoral system that it desires. Whatever the House wishes—provided that it gets an opportunity clearly to declare which electoral system it favours—I am content to abide by it.
Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman has no alternative.
Mr. Davies: Labour Members would be hard-pressed indeed—[Interruption.] I wonder what the Foreign Secretary finds so curious about that. I should have thought that he among others would have been attuned to the thought that the will of the House should prevail on the electoral method involved.
Dr. Owen: I think that the right hon. Gentleman missed the crack which came from behind me, which was to the effect that he had no alternative—that is, that the House had no alternative. Whatever view one may take, eventually it is the House which will decide the system.
Mr. Davies: Of course it will. All the more reason, therefore, to ensure that the opportunity is provided for the House clearly to declare its will on the matter. This has not yet become clear from the Government side. The Government have not made it clear how they propose to deal with the matter.
Mr. Neville Sandelson: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear from his side specifically what electoral system he would propose on behalf of himself and his colleagues?
Mr. Davies: I will certainly do so, but I shall do so when the opportunity is afforded me to vote. That is what I seek.
Mr. Sandelson: Will there not be a free vote on the Opposition side?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Member mistakes the point. Am I not right in saying that the Prime Minister declared to the House that he would subject this matter to a free vote? Surely that means that when that opportunity is offered, I shall vote as I freely wish.
Mr. Sandelson rose
Mr. Davies: May I respond to the point? I have no reason personally to declare at this stage, until I have that opportunity, what I shall vote for.
Mr. Sandelson: But the right hon. Gentleman is the spokesman for the Opposition. I take the point that he has made, but would he nevertheless inform the House where he personally stands on the matter? Let us at the very least hear his personal approach to the question of which electoral system he would support.
Mr. Davies: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should put that question to me. Incidentally, he did not put it to his right hon. Friend. We have yet to have a full debate on this White Paper. It might be reasonable for us all to make it clear that we intend to listen to that debate, as I propose to do.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: No, on the whole—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Very well.
Mr. Rees: What we have said from this side is that, on the method, there will be a free vote. The right hon.
218
Gentleman is quite right, that we are listening to the debate and that then, in the terms stated by the Prime Minister, we shall come back to the House. But am I correct in inferring from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the official Opposition will have a free vote on the method as well?
Mr. Davies: Certainly.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Davies: Certainly.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is customary, when a right hon. Member has been asked a question, for him to answer that question before he deals with the next one. We might as well stay in order.
Mr. Thorpe: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had answered it most satisfactorily, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, I apologise. Mr. Thorpe.
Mr. Davies: May I clarify the situation, Sir? The answer is, yes, the Opposition will do so.
Mr. Thorpe: I am very grateful. There is one part of the White Paper in which the Government have declared their position on the electoral system—that is, paragraph 24, in which they say that, because of particular reasons in Northern Ireland, whatever reasons the rest of the United Kingdom has, there should be a system of proportional representation in that Province. Does the right hon. Gentleman at least agree with that recommendation and, if so, why does he think that a first-past-the-post system has defects which make it inapplicable in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Davies: I have it very much in mind to come to that question in a moment, so the right hon. Gentleman will get his reply. I repeat what I have said, that I personally consider—I do so against the background of an entitlement to a free vote on this matter—that in the event the electoral system to me is less important than the election itself.
I am convinced that it is necessary to proceed to these elections. I therefore judge my view as one Member exercising a free vote in relation to the situation I then find at the end of this debate.

219
I hope that that adequately answers those who have probed these matters.
However, I should not be happy with an arbitrary assessment by the Government of the will of the House based simply upon the discussions within this debate. It will be unsatisfactory if the Government come back to the House with a Bill, saying that they have inserted such-and-such an electoral system because they judged from the debate held on this White Paper that that was the system preferred by the House. That would be inadequate in the absence of any vote at all. There must be a vote in this House to signify agreement with any electoral system. Surely that must appeal to Labour Members below the Gangway as much as it does to those above.
The electoral system chosen is of secondary importance for a number of reasons. First, it is probable that the election next year will be one operation which will be followed by subsequent operations, expectantly on an agreed common basis of voting throughout the Community. Therefore, we are not prejudicing future voting for a European Parliament by adopting any single electoral system next year.
Second, I doubt whether any major precedents will be set for our domestic elections. The nature of the election for the European Parliament will itself be very different from that of our domestic elections. We shall not be electing a majority party to construct an Executive or a Government. We shall be electing people to participate in a joint Parliament of many countries, where there is no purpose to elect an Executive or a Government. That is therefore sharply different from the case of a domestic election.
I now revert to the question of Northern Ireland, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). I note that the Government have said that whatever electoral system is agreed elsewhere, there needs to be a particular system in Northern Ireland because of the peculiar circumstances that obtain there. I understand that comment, but I must say to the right hon. Member for Devon, North that I would find it a very unhappy situation if two different electoral methods applied in the United Kingdom. It seems very desirable that there should be only a
220
single electoral method applied for these purposes throughout the United Kingdom.
Proceeding to elections is of paramount importance, whereas the nature of the electoral method itself is of secondary importance—first, because I believe that the European Parliament, when directly elected, will bring a kind of searching wind of true representative democracy into the council chambers of the Community, which it has hitherto lacked. That is very necessary.
Secondly, I believe that direct elections will buttress the capacity of Westminster to scrutinise and influence the activities of the Community. I speak with some experience of this matter, as I have been Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee for some considerable time. Despite all the arduous work that the Committee performs, and all its endeavours, it is still failing to scrutinise the totality of Community activities because of the inherent difficulties attendant on a Select Committee. It cannot call into discussion matters which are of primary importance for this country and this House in relation to Community activities.
I speak of commercial treaty making for instance, amongst other things. The Scrutiny Committee has no capacity to draw such matters into discussion and to present them to the House in a timely way. It is evident to me that the European Parliament, which has such capabilities, and is not impeded by the rules of this House—as I believe I was impeded as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee—could act as a very worthy support to the House's activities.
Thirdly, I believe that a directly elected Parliament will bring the whole Community process much closer to the people. So far it is clear that the Community has seemed very distant. I do not entirely exonerate the Government from blame for this. The Community's performance has often been presented in a hostile fashion, and reports of its achievements have been adulterated by those who have no friendliness for the Community and who therefore present its activities in an unfavourable light. A directly elected Parliament will be a powerful force for avoiding those dangers. I see no danger of the European Parliament becoming a kind of power-hungry monster, and even it it were, its ambitions would soon be thwarted by the constitutional rules of the

221
Community itself. I was not happy with the remarks of the Foreign Secretary on this matter. He was rather brushing aside the European Parliament as being of secondary importance in his remarks about his recent visit to Strasbourg. That is not my view. My view is that it has a major rôle of great importance to perform, because it has an extremely influential rôle, which will be the more so when it is directly elected.
I know that it is the habit of all executives—I do not exclude myself—broadly speaking to maintain that they alone are the people who decide everything and who make decisions in the light of pressures exercised upon them. It would be very unwise of the Foreign Secretary to try to diminish the potential importance of the European Parliament when it is directly elected.
I therefore firmly call on the Government not just to listen to the debate that will take place today and on Monday but to do what is necessary to ensure that when they present the Bill to the House they present it in a form which will allow it to proceed reasonably to its statutory conclusion. By that I mean that it should be preceded by a proper reference to the House on the question of the electoral method that would be employed and presented in the Bill. Without that, it will prove to be a frustrated and a frustrating Bill.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) made a very curious speech. First, he implied that the principle of the matter was virtually decided and did not require much further debate from the House. But when he came to the details of the electoral system he failed to tell us either what the Opposition or he himself was recommending.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a much more reasonable speech today than did the right hon. Member for Knutsford. My right hon. Friend made no attempt to pretend, as the Prime Minister has done on earlier occasions, that this country or the House is under a legal obligation from the Treaty of Rome to accept direct elections. I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend took that line
222
today, for there is really no doubt about the hard facts.
Under the Treaty of Rome there is no obligation on this country to embark on direct elections, and there is no mandate from the electorate to do so, either from a General Election or the referendum results. Until there is, I am wholly opposed to any such far-reaching constitutional change of this kind. It is worth looking at what Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome actually says on direct elections:
"The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States."
That is a legal obligation on the Assembly, not on member States. Article 138 then states:
"The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
That is an obligation on the Council, not on the member States. Therefore, in the treaty, there is no obligation whatever on member States or on their Parliaments, which are perfectly free to do what they think right on the merits of the case. A recommendation from the Council is not, of course, binding.
Thirdly, no date is mentioned in the treaty by which direct elections have to be held. The White Paper quite rightly points out that the Community has carried on for 19 years without direct elections, and, as far as treaty obligations are concerned it could continue to do so as long as it wishes.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will agree that even the agreement that Ministers reached in the Council in September 1976 to name the date of May 1978 for direct elections was not a formal decision with legal effect but was simply a political commitment of the Ministers represented there. That, in effect, is what he told us today. But Article 138 says clearly that the elections to be held are to be by
"direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member States."
What is now proposed is not a uniform procedure at all. Therefore, far from being asked to carry out an obligation of the treaty, we are in fact being asked to act in a way that is contrary to the treaty.

223
I have the valuable testimony of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to that effect, when I asked him in the House on 22nd December, when he was Minister of State, whether the Government's proposals would honour the conditions of a uniform procedure. He gave this illuminating answer:
"It will not be the first case, or the last, I suspect, when the literal interpretation of the Treaty of Rome is not followed."—[Official Report, 22nd December 1976; Vol. 923, c. 667.]
Since my right hon. Friend said that he has been made Foreign Secretary, so I suppose that he must have been right.
So do not let us have any dishonest pretence that we are bound to these proposals by the treaty, when the truth is that on any fair interpretation it is very doubtful whether they are in accordance with the treaty at all.
Next, there is no mandate for direct elections from the referendum. The electorate plainly voted in the referendum on the understanding that these further proposals would be a matter for Parliament to decide. I think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agreed with that today, and if he did I welcome it. Before the referendum the Government published, in March 1975, a White Paper on the results of renegotiation. It said of direct elections only this:
"If British membership is confirmed, any scheme for direct elections to the European Assembly would require an Act of Parliament."
That clearly must mean that Parliament has the right to say "Yes" or "No" when the time comes.
Then, in the referendum itself, the Government's own referendum manifesto, which was pushed through every door in the country at public expense, made no mention whatever of direct elections. I am sure that the members of the Government are all honourable men. If they thought that the referendum authorised us to proceed to direct elections, they would clearly have said so in the prospectus that was distributed to the country at the time of the referendum. They did not do so, however. In that manifesto they said, in the section on the powers of Parliament:
"No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament … Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament".
224
That again means that this Parliament is perfectly free to say what it thinks right one way or the other.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking on this theme on 7th February he also referred to this aspect and to Article 138. Does he agree that since he stated then, from the quotation, that any proposal must ultimately be acceptable to the Parliaments of all the States, if there is a majority in the House for the direct elections Bill he will enthusiastically support it?
Mr. Jay: I shall do what I hope the hon. Gentleman does, and that is to accept the decisions of the House about Bills even if I do not agree with them. I should have thought that that was clear.
I have quoted the assurance that was given to the electorate at the time of the referendum. Any pretence now that direct elections were authorised by the referendum would be just another manoeuvre in this long and rather murky story. The record surely proves that Parliament is now perfectly free to decide what is right on the merits of the case. Parliament has the duty to do that. It is worth considering, therefore, what those merits are.
Sir Anthony Royle: I am a little puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's last remark. If my memory serves me correctly, the anti-Marketeers circulated several leaflets during the referendum campaign saying that the campaign was related to the question of a directly elected European Parliament. If the anti-Marketeers said that, it surely implies that the decision by the country by an overwhelming majority to stay in Europe should decide this matter.
Mr. Jay: The hon. Member is both incorrect and irrelevant. The important fact is the manifesto that the Government put before the electorate.
I come now to the merits of the case. I believe that we are now being faced with the fundamental dilemma that arises with a supranational, as opposed to an international, institution, a dilemma that has underlain this whole controversy. It is this: that a supranational body must be either undemocratic or it must be

225
federal. If the legislative body is unelected, it is undemocratic. But if it is elected it is, of course, a federal system.
Direct elections are being urged upon us by those who support them precisely because they are a big step towards a federal system. It is no good anyone pretending that they are not. We have the authority of a publication called "Facts". It is one of the many glossy mouthpieces of the European Movement, which is the holy of holies in this whole operation. In the July and August issue of this paper last year the European Movement said:
"In 2 years' time member countries of the Community will elect their first European Parliament. This historic decision represents the first step towards the creation of the United States of Europe."
Of course, direct elections represent such a step, but that is not what the electorate voted for. Even my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, agreed in this House after the referendum that it was not a vote for merging this country in a federation.
It is also worth remembering now that the whole purport of Hugh Gaitskell's memorable speech in October 1962 was that, if the merging of this country into a federation was proposed, the explicit assent of the electorate was essential.
Let us then consider the real practical consequences of direct elections. If they meant anything at all, it would be to diminish the power and authority of this House, and therefore of the British electorate, over legislation and decisions, which affect their daily lives. At present nobody disputes that Ministers are responsible to this House for what they do and for what they accept in Brussels, just as they are for what they do and accept anywhere else.
We often argue that this House has not as much control and influence over the Executive as we should wish, but at least it has some control. Ministerial responsibility here is a reality. The last six months have proved that by its decisions this House can control to a very great extent what the Government are doing, both in terms of some of the legislation we have had, and of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in Brussels in the last few weeks.
226
But what if we set up a rival elected Parliament elsewhere? Ministers will say that we may not like certain things, but that the Strasbourg Assembly has approved them, and that therefore Ministers do not care what we at Westminster may say. Does anybody really think that the British electorate will have comparable control over what happens in Strasbourg? Do we really think that a group of British Assembly men, each representing about half a million voters and totalling a minority of about one-fifth of the Strasbourg Assembly, can really exercise decisive control over what the Council and the Commission do? If ever there was a case of abandoning the substance for the shadow, this is it.
If, therefore, we are to remain members of the EEC, true democratic control is control at Westminster of British Ministers and what they do at the Council in Brussels. That is the heart of the matter.
Then there is the question of timing. At present Greece, Spain and Portugal are all seeking membership. As long as they are democratic countries, the EEC has no right to refuse their membership. Do we want to pass legislation setting up an elaborate system of constituencies, members, and national quotas. and then find that we have to unravel it again in a year or two because of the admission of a number of new member States?
On top of all this it is being suggested by the right hon. Member for Knutsford that we should rush into a new electoral system. If I understood him correctly, he said that we should introduce, half-heartedly and by the back door, some form of proportional representation into these elections. But whichever system of proportional representation is selected, it means that more power and patronage is given to the party machines. In this case it will involve offering people jobs with salaries of £25,000 a year, or something like that. That means that the public will be voting increasingly for parties rather than individuals. I am wholly opposed to moving any further down that road. I should have thought that we had enough examples recently in some of the Honours Lists, of what nomination and patronage can mean, even without the £25,000-a-year jobs being involved. Hon. Members may think that that is unfair, and an argument ad

227
hominem or perhaps ad feminam. But I seriously do not believe that this is an attractive prospect to introduce by the back door.
Whether one looks dispassionately at the grievous damage done to our whole economy by the CAP and the common fisheries policy, or at the danger that these present to the possibility of a pay agreement at present, the fact is that this has all happened because we joined the EEC. Do not let us, therefore, walk gratuitously further into this quagmire, until at least we know that the CAP has been drastically reformed, until the new member countries have joined, and, above all, until the British electorate has explicitly said "Yes" or "No".
4.54 p.m.
Mr. Edward Heath: I welcome the fact that the Government have published this White Paper. It is absolutely right that they should set out the options. Also, I am glad that we are having this debate on the motion for the Adjournment. I hope that when the debate ends on Monday there is no possibility of the Government putting down a motion on which we can vote. It would not be right for the House to take a vote on this matter at this time.
I think that the Government are absolutely right about coming to a firm conclusion on Northern Ireland. For the rest, I know what a heavy burden the Foreign Secretary has carried since he took up his office, particularly in the last 10 days. But I do wish that he had taken a more positive and forward-looking view rather than appearing to fight a long rearguard action on the question of federalism. I have long believed that whether we have a federal organisation or con-federalism, this is not the argument here.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we shall develop our own institutions to meet our own needs. That is what is happening now. I do not think that when the founding fathers began the EEC they thought that the Commission would become a Government. They could not have believed that Europe would accept a non-elected body as a Government. But they though that the Commission could provide proposals on which elected Ministers could take decisions, and amend or reject them. They set up a machinery by which the system could be made to work.
228
If we look at how the system has developed over the last five years, we see that in 1972 the Heads of Government came together for the first time and planned to meet the second time in 1976. However, they had to meet in 1973 because of the oil crisis, and then they agreed to have meetings every six months. Now the meetings are held every four months. This is an example of the organisation developing in a way that was not allowed for in the Treaty. But it is functioning and it would be impossible for the Community to work without it.
After this debate speedy action is required. Those who are trying to delay and procrastinate are wrong. I am reminded of 1973 when this House wanted to make a change in Northern Ireland. A major White Paper was published on 20th March, the legislation was law by the end of May and the elections took place on 13th June. That included a change to an electoral system of proportional representation. When this House makes up its mind to achieve something it can be done, and done quickly. I hope that the Government will give a lead from now on.
I have great sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), who spoke of the technical problems facing us in deciding on the system by which the elections will be pursued. It is due to the limitations of the House's procedure that if there are four main options open to us on which the House wants to take a decision, there is a problem how we can vote on them. This is a reflection on the procedures of the House. There is no device by which we can take decisions on alternative proposals. We can have one vote on an alternative and if it is carried a substantive motion is overruled. If it is defeated the substantive motion is then carried or defeated. There are two options only. The Government should devote their mind fairly speedily to the question how the House can be given an opportunity of taking decisions on up to four options on the electoral system required.
We shall not be excused for delaying. Other countries have been cited as possible members who are not prepared to take part, but that excuse is no longer open to us. Mention has been made of France, the Republic of Ireland and Belgium, but they are all prepared to take

229
part, even if they delay. In my view, in this case we should give a lead. One of the fields in which Europe expected us to give a lead was in parliamentary affairs. Our European partners recognise that in our financial and economic difficulties we cannot come forward with proposals other than those that are in our own interests, but in parliamentary affairs we have much to give Europe.
The Community must be made democratic. I respect the views of those who thought that we should not go into the EEC, and I am glad to hear the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) say that he has accepted the verdict of the House and the referendum. We are in the Community and we are there to stay. However, I fail completely to comprehend those who accept that we are in the EEC but refuse to make that organisation more democratic by holding direct elections. One allegation of those who opposed our entry was the fact that the EEC was an undemocratic organisation. Now that it is proposed to make it more democratic these very same people are doing their utmost to stop further development.
Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question. The answer is that it cannot become fully democratic unless the Assembly becomes a Parliament of a new federal State with all the powers that go with it. That is the answer we would give. Will the right hon. Gentleman say why in the 1971 White Paper issued by his Government he did not refer to the obligation which he claims to direct elections?
Mr. Heath: With great respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks with his usual care. I did not say that there was the obligation of direct elections. I said that I believed the House should give a lead to make the Community more democratic and that other countries in the Community expected us to do so.
Where I differ from the hon. Gentleman and from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, is that I do not agree that the existence of a directly elected Assembly will create a federal organisation. I do not think that any constitutional lawyer or historian in this country or in Europe would say that to have a
230
directly elected Assembly makes it a federal organisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish to deal later with the other argument—namely, whether this will automatically lead to a federal Assembly.
It is right that legislation is required to bring in direct elections. I do not understand why the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is making such a fuss. He will get his legislation and can express his view. I believe that we should deal with the matter on its merits. Let us not say that this will create federalism, because it will not. Let us deal with the merits of the case. It will create elected Members who will have more democratic control over the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House is not bound or committed by the treaty but is free to act on the main issue of the holding of direct elections?
Mr. Heath: The Council of Ministers, yes, and I have the extract from the treaty.
Mr. Jay: No. I am referring to this House.
Mr. Heath: I have the treaty with me. The Council makes a recommendation. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that this has not been an official recommendation by the Council of Ministers, but is an agreement by the Heads of Government. I repeat that I do not understand what he is complaining about. The fact that it is a recommendation by the Heads of Government means that it is not bound up with Article 138, which is the other part of the treaty which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted. If and when the Council of Ministers makes an official recommendation, the question of uniformity will come into play, but the matter has been handled in a different way. Therefore, in many ways the situation is much more satisfactory. It gives flexibility to member Parliaments to decide how they will have their own elections. Since the right hon. Gentleman is always complaining about rigidity within the Community, I am sure that he welcomes this additional flexibility which is being put into effect.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whether the procedure in Article 138 has been followed, this House is still free to take a decision on the principle whether to hold direct elections?
Mr. Heath: Yes, of course. What I have not been clear about when Labour Members have been shouting loudly on these aspects is why they wish to reopen the whole principle whether we should remain members of the Community. That is not the point. What we are now seeking to settle is the principle whether to have direct elections.
I believe that some of the problems that beset Labour Members, and indeed some of my hon. Friends, arise from a misunderstanding—the belief that direct elections will transfer power to the European Community. Some interventions in this debate by Labour Members have confirmed that impression. I must tell those hon. Gentlemen that direct elections do not transfer any power to the Community. The sovereignty pooled was transferred by the Treaty of Accession and was confirmed by this House through legislation, and the country through the referendum also confirmed the situation. We must decide whether to have a directly elected Assembly, and whether it is to have greater power and support to help it in the Community with the sovereignty that has already been pooled. That is the issue with which we are dealing.
I do not see how anybody with any experience of our democratic parliamentary background can doubt that we should have directly elected Members who can deal in the Community with that pooled sovereignty. It has not affected the way in which this House deals with sovereignty through the Council of Ministers and through ministerial committees.
I sum up this part of the matter by saying that direct elections, in my judgment, will change the balance of power within the Community but will not change the balance between the Community and member countries. I believe that there is a change which should be brought about in the balance within the Community. If power were to be changed, it could come about only by a change in the traditions and it can be ratified
232
only by every member Parliament of the nine countries. Nor will direct elections in any way decrease the power of this House in overseeing instructions issued by the Commission, nor will they change the machinery, because that is entirely within our influence.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman said that direct elections would change the balance of power within the Community institutions by increasing the relative power of the Assembly. Will he indicate which of the institutions will relatively lose power? Will it be the Commission or the Council of Ministers, or both?
Mr. Heath: I believe that it will be the Commission. I believe that an elected Assembly will bring much more influence to bear in the way in which we carry out our rôle in this House through challenge, debate and questions. That process can be directed at the Commission. I also believe that it will bring influence to bear on the Council of Ministers. In many ways this is desirable because it will be supplemental to the influence which national Parliaments bring to bear on their own Ministers. [Interruption.] I hear the babble among Labour Members, but there are many matters that are of common interest to all members of the Community. Community life is not just a question of nine constant battles between members. The one thing that a European Assembly can do is to influence the Council of Ministers in matters which are of common concern to all countries.
Mr. Spearing: Federalism.
Mr. Heath: With great respect, it is not federalism, and it is a loose use of language to suggest that it is.
I have been dealing with the negative arguments, and I shall now attempt to put the positive arguments on direct elections. I shall briefly add one further negative argument. In regard to this Parliament, I do not believe that the system of indirect elections is workable. The combination of trying to serve in Westminster and in the European Assembly is not bearable, and I wish to add my tribute to Peter Kirk, who gave everything he had to the services of the Assembly, this House and Europe.

233
The first thing that direct elections will do is to give the Assembly greater status within the Community. That is desirable. Europeans want to see that they have directly-elected Members with proper status. Secondly, it will give greater influence over the Commission. Thirdly, it will afford greater influence over the Council of Ministers. Fourthly—and this is a most important matter—it will give the opportunity to constituents to lobby their European Assembly men, and constituents will be able to write to their representatives demanding that they should attend meetings, in exactly the same way as they demand such attendance from local councillors or Members of Parliament. That, too, is desirable. It will certainly be welcomed by industry and agriculture. They feel that this is a gap in the contacts which they have with representatives in Europe.
Fifthly, it will give the Community greater status and distinction in the eyes of the rest of the Western world and in the eyes of developing countries. That also is desirable. The Community already has agreements with 47 developing countries, and it is desirable that they should see the Assembly as represented by those who are directly elected.
I turn to the subject of systems, and I propose to declare my own views. The first-past-the-post system would produce constituencies of half a million people. That is in no way out of the question. There are other countries, including Commonwealth countries, that have constituencies much larger than that. But what I do not find acceptable is that with a constituency of 500,000 people the matter should be settled by one vote first past the post. We have a large number of constituencies—there are 630—and we have accepted that on the whole matters will average themselves out. However, with 81 constituencies the public will not take that view. The public have an instinct in these matters and I do not believe they will be prepared to accept a situation in which a considerable proportion of the 81 constituencies of half a million people may be settled by a very small majority on a first-past-the-post basis.
Secondly, I think that such a system would prevent smaller parties from being represented. I cannot believe that that is in the long-term interests of democracy.
234
Such a system might appeal to the two major parties at any particular time but it cannot be in the long-term interests of parliamentary democracy.
I have heard the argument that if we allow the smaller parties a chance the National Front will come forward. I find that a contemptible argument. In any case, it is a matter that can be dealt with, as it is in the Federal Republic and in many other countries, by having a percentage limitation that has to be jumped before a party can go forward.
I do not wish to deal with the National Front in that way. The way to deal with the National Front is the way of dealing with all things that are objectionable in politics—namely, to out-argue it, out-manoeuvre it and beat it at the polls. That is what I want to do. It is a contemptible argument to say that we should not give small parties a chance because of the National Front.
The third reason is that with constituencies of half a million people the system will be open to widespread distortion, taking the country as a whole. It is said that we might get wide swings from election to election. Some of us have had experience of such swings since the creation of the GLC and the metropolitan boroughs. Originally the elections were every three years. They are now every four years. Instead of getting gradual changes and policies accepted we are getting wide swings. It means that in the term available policy cannot be created and implemented before there is a wide swing in the opposite direction. Policy is not implemented because the system produces wide swings. I am not arguing about who introduced the system. It is sometimes suggested that I should learn one or two lessons. This is one lesson that I have learned. I believe that we should not take this risk in respect of European elections.
My fourth reason for thinking that the first-past-the-post system is not acceptable is that in the rest of the Community, and in the rest of the Western world, it will be thought to be an unrepresentative system. That cannot be healthy for us, or for our standing in Europe or in the Western world.
My fifth reason is that I think there will probably be a change to a unified system in the next round of elections. No one can conceive that other countries in

235
Europe will move to the first-past-the-post system. Therefore, it is better for us to make a move towards what will be a more representative system for 81 constituencies rather than saying, that we must do what we have always done in the past.
Sir John Eden: My right hon. Friend has indicated that there might be a change later towards a unified system in Europe which will not be a first-past-the-post system. To avoid confusion, would it not be better to keep to one system this first time and to change to the agreed unified system when that comes about? If we do not follow that course, there will have to be two changes.
Mr. Heath: I appreciate the importance of my right hon. Friend's point but I do not agree with him. First, I think that the other arguments I have advanced far outweigh the one that he has quoted—namely, the undesirability of making a change twice. Secondly, if we make a change which proves acceptable, we have a far greater chance of persuading the rest of the Community to move towards it than we shall ever have of influencing them if we continue to operate the first-past-the-post system. In future it is important that we should be able to influence the Community in that way.
My sixth argument is against those who say that the people will not be able to understand it, which is the argument at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford hinted. I cannot accept that. When we changed the system in Ireland it was only three months from White Paper to election. Northern Ireland had first-past-the-post elections and then there was a change. The people of Northern Ireland were able to understand it in the short time of three months. I do not understand why it is argued that the rest of the electorate in the British Isles will not be able to understand a change of system.
The other argument that is put forward is that if we do anything different from that which we do at this moment we shall have to change the electoral system at Westminster. I understand that argument when it is put forward by those who may be particularly interested, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for
236
Knutsford has said, here at Westminster we have a different purpose. We are here to see that a Government are created and supported. We are also here to legislate. That is not the case at the European Assembly. Those are two major functions that the European Assembly does not have to carry out. Whatever system we have for the European Assembly, it does not mean that it has to be adopted here. If by any chance it was thought to be a better system than the one we have at present, I do not see any problem. If it does not turn out to be so good, we can keep our present system.
There are alternative systems and I do not wish to be dogmatic. I am prepared to be influenced by argument, but the argument will have to be specific. My own view is that a regional list is better than a first-past-the-post system or a national list. I believe that a regional list would be more representative than the first-past-the-post system. I believe it would be preferable to a national list because the list would be shorter and more manageable. Those are two powerful reasons for giving serious consideration to a regional list.
A regional list is closer to the systems adopted by other countries, with the one exception of Eire. I understand that what will happen in some of the other Community countries is that when the election has taken place the Members in each party elected will agree among themselves as to the part of the area for which they will have responsibility. Surely that is a natural course to follow from the point of view of a party organisation once Members have been elected. If a Member does not represent a party when elected, he can announce whether he will look after the whole region or make an arrangement with someone else. This system gives the opportunity of having a type of constituency representation on a regional basis.
There is the additional member system, in which the Member's constituency would be very much larger than half a million. It would probably be 1 million. After the election it could be topped up from the list to give a proportional effect. There is the drawback that the constituency will be very much larger. I do not think it has any advantage over the regional list system. There will still have to be a list

237
for topping-up purposes. I do not see that it has any advantage over a straightforward regional list election in which everyone can see for whom they are voting and the subsequent result.
Reference has been made to the danger of party influence. Of course this is a danger. It is one that we already recognise. We have seen it recently on both sides of the House—namely, the dangers in a constituency system of party choice. The way to deal with the danger is to ensure that we have an active democracy in terms of the people who are choosing. If we are to combine constituency representatives to make a choice for the region, that can be just as representative and democratic as constituency selection may or may not be.
The argument is not about the fact that there will be party influence but how it is handled, either in a constituency or from the centre. We should devote our attention to ensuring that there is a democratic way of dealing with these affairs. This is a matter that has been under discussion recently.
Many people have been discussing whether we should have primaries in elections. That is something that can be discussed further. In exactly the same way, the Foreign Secretary did not seem to realise that a great debate is now taking place throughout the country about federalism. That has been brought about by devolution and the problems that that has caused. It has also been brought about by those who believe that we should have a Bill of Rights inscribed into a federal system to maintain the liberties of individual citizens. The debate will continue. The debate about whether we can ensure democratic choice in terms of the list will continue as well. We must face the fact that other democracies do it extremely successfully. We ought to adopt some of the flexibility that we find elsewhere.
I want to deal with two other points. The first is the dual mandate. It clearly cannot be compulsory. On the other hand, I hope that the option can be kept open. It is possible that from time to time people will be members of both Westminster and the Assembly. That option will be kept open in the rest of the Community. Of course, other member States' representatives will have fewer
238
problems, because the distances involved are smaller and often they are close at hand. It is up to them if they are prepared to do it. However, I hope that we shall keep that option open.
The second point concerns the importance of contact between Westminster and the Assembly. The Select Committee suggested that our Members of the European Assembly could meet Members of the House in a Grand Committee or that they could have seats automatically in the House of Lords for the period for which they were elected to the Assembly.
I do not regard that as sufficient. As this House is concerned with most of the matters dealt with by the Commission and the Council of Ministers, it is not satisfactory to have European representatives from the Assembly in the House of Lords. Nor do I think that a Grand Committee meeting is adequate for today's circumstances. Therefore, I make what is probably the most controversial proposal of all, which will produce an even greater outcry from below the Gangway—that those directly elected to the European Assembly should have the right to sit and speak in this House, but not the right to vote. I believe that would be an effective way of ensuring that they know the views of this House and that on European questions they would have the opportunity of explaining—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heath: Perhaps I could finish the sentence first. On European questions they would have the opportunity of explaining here what action they had been taking in the European Assembly. Because of the nature of the task, it is unlikely that they will be able to attend this House, except on important European matters. I believe that will be more effective than having them sitting in the House of Lords or in a Grand Committee.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I believe that he has made an interesting suggestion. However, in practical terms, if we had 81 Members of the European Parliament sitting in this House, with our present system of Mr. Speaker calling Front-Bench speakers, then Privy Councillors by tradition of right, ex-Ministers

239
and leaders of minority parties, when would an ordinary Back Bencher get into a debate at all?
Mr. Heath: I shall not be led down that path by my hon. Friend. That point has been made repeatedly since I came into the House in 1950 and it is still being made. It is a question for Mr. Speaker. We must recognise that a proportion has to be kept between all these matters. I think that my hon. Friend was hinting that I should draw my remarks to a close as soon as possible, and I shall immediately do so.
This matter has proved a challenge to Parliaments throughout the Community, and they are dealing with it flexibly. They look to us to do the same. We ought to try to discuss and work out among ourselves the best form of representation possible. The Government should then find a means by which we can express our views in concrete terms through the procedure of the House.
If we do not carry a Bill for direct elections now, if we prevent the rest of the Community from having the form of democracy that it wants, we shall be failing not only ourselves but the Community.
5.24 p.m.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: I listened with great interest to the speech by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should add to the burdens of this House by allowing the 81 Members who will represent us in the European Parliament to sit here. One of the difficulties that are often put forward is that Members who go to the European Parliament now do not have sufficient time to devote to their Westminster and European duties. I do not know whether they would have time to be in this House, and of course, they would not be accountable as Members are today.
The right hon. Gentleman said that elected Members at Strasbourg would take some power away from the Commission and would, therefore, have some effect on the Council of Ministers. If they have some effect on the Council of Ministers will that not lessen the effect that this House has on the Council of Ministers? We should be faced with the situation outlined by my right hon. Friend
240
the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) in a very thoughtful speech—namely, that when we debate European matters we should be told by the Minister that a decision had already been arrived at in Strasbourg. However it is dressed up and however attractive the package is made—the right hon. Member for Sidcup tried to make the package attractive from his point of view—it means that we shall lose some democracy from this House. That is what we are debating today.
Whatever was said prior to the referendum, either in the White Paper or in the pamphlet that was issued, what was not discussed was a federal political union. Whichever way pro-Europeans may put it, this is a step along that road. It would be better for such Members to be honest with this House. If they said that it would be a step towards a federal Europe, that would be honest. Some pro-Europeans—I fully understand their argument, but it is not as strong as it was a few years ago—still deny that this is a step towards a federal Europe, but at the same time try to take us gradually in that direction. The White Paper on renegotiation stated that the Government did not accept any commitment to any kind of federal structure in Europe.
The pre-referendum pamphlet on Britain's new deal in Europe made no mention of direct elections. Indeed, it made great play of the right of veto on the Council of Ministers and the continued assent of Parliament as a condition of our continued membership of the EEC. At the time of the referendum, those opposed to the Common Market tried to point out that this could be one of the dangers which would result from membership. On the other side there was a complete denial of that assertion, or the argument was not pursued. That is the position in which we now find ourselves.
I accept that the British people overwhelmingly agreed to go into the Common Market. However, I find that, not only in my constituency, but in contacts with people in all parts of the country, people are completely disillusioned with the Common Market. They are absolutely fed up with it. They question—they have the right to question—what benefits we get from membership. Indeed, as far as I can see, direct elections represent a dead issue. People just do

241
not want to know about them. Many who devoted a great deal of time and effort to the referendum campaign are now saying that our entry was the worst step that we ever took. Far from wishing to tie themselves closer to Europe they want to know whether they will ever have another opportunity to pull out of the EEC.
I agree that the right hon. Member for Sidcup was trying to overcome the problems. I understand what he meant when he talked about the 81 European Members also being Members of this House without voting rights, but that would mean that we would be setting up two types of elected representatives. I foresee that there will be all sorts of strains and difficulties between those Members and those of us with constituency responsibilities and with constituents to look after, and that frustrations will arise if there is an elected Assembly in Strasbourg. We shall have less power over decisions taken in Strasbourg.
I can see problems arising because European Members will have salaries of £25,000 a year, and they will be elected from a regional list, or they will have constituencies of 500,000 people. They will have little contact with the people who have elected them. The contact would be even less as a result of a list system than as a result of election on a regional basis. I do not know how a European Member would try to look after those who had elected him, but I cannot see that he would have many dealings with them. The people who would be seeking out these European Members and attempting to be in constant touch with them would be the powerful vested interests who would be setting up lobbies. There would be an industrial lobby, a fanning lobby and, no doubt, an oil lobby with its eyes on North Sea oil. Those are the people who would be interested in the Members of the European Parliament—not the ordinary people, who would find such Members remote, and the decisions taken in Strasbourg even more remote.
There is another danger. Many of us said during the referendum debate that we could see our powers at Westminster passing to Strasbourg and that the powers remaining here would be gradually taken away. In the end we would be left with not many more powers than those of an
242
ordinary county council. I still think that that could be a danger that might arise through what is happening now. Some of us believe that this could happen as a result of a wrong decision. If it happened the public would wake up and there would be a backlash from the British people. They would want no part of it, and they would say that they wanted to be in control of their own destiny. Those views were put at the time of the referendum and they were thought by some to be extreme, but, because of steps that we have taken, we can now see that it could come about.
At the time of the referendum the Labour Party machine did not play a substantial r—le either regionally or nationally. I am not too sure about the Conservative Party machine, although I think that did the same. Despite that, there was a substantial poll. However, if European Members were elected through regional lists or large constituencies I doubt that people would turn out to vote. There would not be enough interest in those elections. We all know that there is not enough interest at present, and that people feel remote from the decisions taken by county councils. There are usually low polls in county council elections.
The situation would be worse if elections were extended to large constituencies or regional lists and if electors were asked to vote for a representative to have consultative powers in Europe. People would show little interest. Yet these Members would be powerful, and responsible to nobody. I cannot for the life of me see how this can be a step towards a democratic Europe. Taking away powers from this House is a step away from democracy, and the people of this country know it.
I understand the commitment that some people have to Europe, and I admire their enthusiasm, but I cannot understand how they can show enthusiasm for a body that has been shown to fail on every occasion. The right hon. Member for Sidcup said that Heads of Government met regularly, nearly every four months, but he did not go on to talk about the results of those meetings. They hardly agree on anything or on any policies. I have never understood the point of having meetings if they do not achieve anything. So we see a Europe in

243
disarray. Although I understand the enthusiasm that some people have for Europe I do not understand why they want to rush us into the next stage of direct elections so soon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North rightly pointed out that other nations now want to join the EEC—Spain, Portugal and Greece. Would it not be better to stand back and to wait to see whether they are accepted? I can see no reason why they should not join. They are all moving towards being democratic countries. If they joined the EEC we should then have to start all over again with the distribution of seats at Strasbourg.
This is far too important a constitutional decision to be rushed. I begin to wonder what activates those who want to move us towards direct elections so quickly and why they should say "Whatever the result, let us get it done and done quickly". Whenever something is done so quickly, it is usually a bodged job. This would certainly be far from perfect. Why can we not stand back, take our time, look at the matter carefully, hear all the arguments and work out the best possible system, instead of going headlong into this and setting a date? Why should we be rushing to meet a timetable?
I say to those in favour of direct elections that that is not the way that they should work things out if they want the backing of the British people. That is the way to create hostility to direct elections. All this is being proceeded with far too quickly. I doubt that we are committed to direct elections, and there are many hon. Members on both sides who feel the same. Instead of rushing towards direct elections we should think carefully before taking such a step. We should think not only of the immediate consequences for this House, but of the long-term consequences of a shift of power from Westminster and the first step towards a federal Europe. I do not believe that the British people are prepared to accept that.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the remuneration of members of the Assembly. Does he not feel that the differential between the salary of hon. Members
244
and the pay proposed for Assembly Members will cause considerable conflict and that those who go to Europe will have the grandeur, the glory and the gravy train while hon. Members here will have to do all the work and receive a pittance for doing it?
Mr. Hoyle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a good trade unionist, I have noticed this aspect, and, if pay is to be related to work load, I shall put in a claim, when we return shortly to free collective bargaining, for double the salary paid to Members of the Assembly. If they are worth £25,000, any hon. Member is worth double. We shall be taking all the responsibilities, while they will be responsible to no one, except the powerful lobbies which will be pursuing them. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall do all I can to see that we get the right salary level in comparison with the people who go to Europe.
It will not be opportune to have direct elections in 1978, however they are organised. The British people would not thank us for them.
Rather than tying us more closely to Europe, the Prime Minister—if he wants to win the next General Election—should be thinking of ways to get us out of Europe. We have received no benefits from the EEC, and I cannot see how we ever shall derive any benefit.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I strongly suspect that even if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) were given all the time in the world for contemplation of this proposal, he would still come out against it. He is rather like the sinner who said "Cure me of sin, O Lord, but not yet". The hon. Gentleman's argument that we should have more time to consider the matter—during which time he would breach phase 3 and put in an equalisation grant for himself and his colleagues—carries rather less conviction than the arguments that we usually hear from him.
Our last debate on this issue was on 25th March and those who were here will remember poignantly the speech by Peter Kirk. I was privileged to be an undergraduate at the same college with Peter Kirk and I was up at the same time as his wife Elizabeth. I have known them for 30 years. Peter Kirk has always been

245
one of my closest friends and colleagues in the House. I pay a very warm tribute to the selfless way in which he helped to maintain a British presence in Europe and to the part he played to restore the balance in Europe in which the British voice could be heard. I extend very deep sympathy to his wife and sons.
I shall leave the Government to convince their own supporters on the juridical argument. It goes without saying that there can be no direct elections without the necessary legislation being passed by the House, but to those who disagree with the Government I say that although Article 138 and the treaty are not strictly binding in law unless confirmed by this House, it has been customary for the past two or three centuries for treaties entered into by Governments to be more often confirmed than rejected by the House. It is extremely unlikely that the House would ever reject a treaty solemnly entered into by the Government of the day.
At no stage when the Labour Party was in opposition was there a suggestion that we should repeal the Treaty of Accession by which we adhere to the Treaty of Rome. Labour spokesmen merely said that they would renegotiate the treaty to see whether better terms could be obtained. Nor was there any suggestion in Labour manifestos that the treaty would be repealed.
I wish to concentrate on the dual mandate and the electoral system. In our debate last month, Peter Kirk referred to the obligatory consultations that have to take place with the European Assembly. There are certain matters on which the Assembly has to express an opinion before the Council of Ministers can act. Peter Kirk instanced the case of our two-day agriculture debate before the Copenhagen meeting of the Council of Ministers on agriculture. Because of the vicissitudes of this House and the fact that we were having a major debate here, it was difficult for the debate to take place in the Assembly, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that it was spatchcocked into the Assembly. If it had not been, the Council of Ministers would not have been able to take a decision.
The second example was that on 1st January funds might be levied by the Community. That would require a
246
quorum of half the Members to be present with at least two-thirds voting in favour. That means that a high turn-out of members would be needed at the Assembly. It is not for us to say whether dual membership of this House and the Assembly shortened Peter Kirk's life or was the main cause of his death, but we can say that if the Assembly is to have ever greater control over the Community and the Commission, the civil servants of the Community, it will be increasingly difficult for Members to serve in both Houses.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that we should leave open the possibility of dual membership, but it would be disastrous to make it mandatory and I do not believe that we could have two classes of Members in this House—one European and the other non-European.
I found the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) a little coy about the electoral system. He suggested that he wanted a debate and a vote first and enunciated what we may in future call Davies's Doctrine, namely "No vote, no views". Remembering the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished predecessor, I must say that it was never like that in Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport's day and I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that if this coyness continues, I shall be making strong efforts to see that Sir Walter is brought back at the next General Election, even if he has to stand as an independent.
The House may be surprised to hear that I shall be saying slightly more than the right hon. Member for Knutsford about the electoral system. The White Paper sets out the options with complete frankness and fairness and it details the defects of all the systems, because none of them is perfect.
I hope that the House will agree that there are certain criteria which we should seek to achieve in whatever system is used. The first is fairness of outcome. I cannot see that it is a merit of a system to be unfair, and therefore fairness should be one of the factors borne in mind. Secondly, we should consider the ease and speed with which a system can be introduced. This is not the only test, but it is a factor in favour of any system. Thirdly, there should be some guarantee

247
that the system we use does not artificially distort the balance between the different party groups in the European Assembly. To do that would do grave damage to the democratic reputation of this country.
I say straight away that by these three tests the first-past-the-post system for the European elections is, in my view, condemned out of hand. It would produce a perfectly ludicrous result in the European Parliament, on the assumption, which I do not concede, that we could even be ready in time to hold elections under that system. I propose to say why.
The Government gave away the game in paragraph 24 of the White Paper. It was the one point on which I tried to get the right hon. Member for Knutsford committed, and even on that he was not very forthcoming. Paragraph 24 states
"Whatever electoral system is used in the rest of the United Kingdom for direct elections to the European Assembly, the Government considers that the special circumstances of Northern Ireland would make it appropriate for direct elections there to be conducted by a system of proportional representation."
Of course, in saying that they were merely giving expression to the actions of the previous Conservative Government in 1973 when they reintroduced the system of PR in Northern Ireland. Why? What is wrong with the first-past-the-post system which, to quote the White Paper,
"has stood the test of time."?
It is as English as roast beef, cricket and hanging, and is equally good for the character. The Government and the Opposition know why the first-past-the-post system had to go, and go very rapidly—because it could not guarantee fair representation for the Roman Catholic minority. That is the first point. The second reason is that there were constant allegations of gerrymandering, many of which were wholly true. Thirdly, without question it caused a polarisation between extremes.
When the summit conference took place, Mr. Cosgrove indicated that he hoped that, since there would be an increase in seats all round, enabling Britain to have 81 seats, there would be three seats for Northern Ireland. The obvious expectation was that the Catholic minority, which represents two-fifths of
248
the community, would be entitled to at least one of those three seats. But, of course, under the first-past-the-post system this is very unlikely to happen.
There are 12 Westminster seats and if we group them into three groups of four, which is what we shall probably have to do under the first-past-the-post system, there is no contiguous group of four where the Catholic-based parties can win. The closest would be Fermanagh, South Tyrone, Londonderry and Mid-Ulster. But even in that area, where there are the most concentrated numbers of Catholic-based votes, in nine General Elections the total Catholic vote has been smaller than the Protestant vote. I therefore do not believe that under the first-past-the-post system the Roman Catholic minority would be fairly represented.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman is jumping to a lot of hasty conclusions in putting forward those statistics. In fact a lot of Catholics support Unionist candidates.
Mr. Thorpe: If that be the case it is extraordinary that there has never been a Catholic candidate fighting for the Unionists or a Catholic Minister represented among the Unionists. Of course some Catholics may have voted Unionist. It is a very strange world and I accept that that might have happened.
The basic fact is that the Tory Government in 1973 reintroduced the system of PR because it was the only way to stop the polarisation between extreme Unionists and extreme nationalists, and it was the only hope of getting the moderate centre. It was because of PR—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It did not work.
Mr. Thorpe: It did. That is the whole point. It was because of PR that we were able to get the power-sharing Executive elected. But six weeks after it was formed there was the February 1974 election to this House, under the first-past-the-post system, and 51 per cent. of those who voted were against power sharing. One would have thought that because of that they would have won six out of 12 of those seats but, in fact, they got 11 out of 12 seats. The power-sharing experiment was defeated by the

249
distortion of the first-past-the-post system, which gave 11 out of those 12 seats to a group which received only 51 per cent. of the votes. That is why the power-sharing experiment failed, and that it why power sharing was never given an opportunity.
I believe this will be the first time that there will be all-Ireland elections. There will be an enormous benefit if the same system can operate north and south of the border. What I want to say to the Government is that I do not believe that the regional list system, although better than the first-past-the-post system—almost anything is—will achieve the desired effect in Northern Ireland, for the reason that under the regional list system two or more parties competing for the same vote—let us say the moderate centre—could split the vote one against the other and could contribute to their mutual defeat.
It would be ironic if the strengthening of the centre meant that that vote was split and the effect was to strengthen the extreme of the Right or the Left, the coalition of the UUUC or the nationalists. That is what the regional list system could do. There is no possibility of expressing a preference. One just has an X. One could, in fact, have a regional list system under which one does vote one, two, or three. But one could find that two parties competing for the same middle ground will cancel each other out and cause a split vote, as can happen under the first-past-the-post system.
The other factor is that if we have one member who has an enormous number of Xs, it may be that at the end of the day the regional list system ensures that we have a proportion of seats to the total entitled to vote; that is to say, in a seven-member constituency if a party gets three-sevenths of the votes, it gets three-sevenths of the seats. But the three who are elected are not necessarily the three whom that particular party wants most, because the man who gets most Xs may have an enormous surplus, which cannot be redistributed between the second preferences expressed on the voting paper.
Therefore, very often a minority view within a party will do better by putting up very few candidates than by putting up a lot. That is why the second person who gets in, although the next with the
250
most Xs, may not necessarily reflect the views of the party as a whole.
The Foreign Secretary is right to rule out the first-past-the-post system in Northern Ireland. But if he has the regional list system, for the two reasons I have given, it might well defeat the objective we all have, namely, to see that there is a guarantee of fair representation for all shades of opinion not only between parties but within parties as well. We all know that even in our politics the differences are not merely between parties but within parties, for example, whether one is a Faulknerite or a Brookeboroughite.
There are the same manifestations in the politics of this country as well. It would be very odd if STV were used in Northern Ireland or that the best system was provided only when the gunman intervened first and a minority that is suppressed is one that will turn to violence: otherwise it does not matter. That would be the logic.
The first-past-the-post system, we are told, has
"stood the test of time"—
whatever that means. It certainly has not stood the test of time when the Leader of the Opposition gets up and criticises this Government for having only 38 per cent. of the votes behind it but, when asked whether she would change the system, says "No". The first-past-the-post system is also linked to the Boundary Commission recommendations, with
"the careful and objective drawing of constituency boundaries … the right of electors to challenge proposed boundaries and with the necessity for subsequent approval by Parliament."
That is in paragraph 10 of the White Paper.
The Government know that this is a very lengthy process. That is why they suggest to us—as did the Select Committee—that we truncate proceedings on this matter. They reluctantly say "We do not think that we can have no representations and no inquiries"—three cheers for democracy breaking out—"but we think that one round of representations and no local inquiries will be sufficient." I want to tell the House that that procedure does not have a hope in hell of getting through by 1978, even on the

251
basis of the figures of the Boundary Commissioners themselves.
The Minutes of Evidence set out on page 164 the 18 weeks that it will take, plus the seven weeks it will take for preliminary consideration and preparation of papers. That means, assuming that we cannot start before Royal Assent, that we are therefore left, on the representations made to the Government, with a six-and-a-half month period that is required, which means that if the reports are to be ready by the end of this year—December—they must be in a position to start in July. We have got to get all the legislation through by July and start.
However, what that also assumes is that the analysis of the representations and the consideration of the Boundary Commissioners will be done in double quick time. There, again, I think that the Government are in for a shock. I am delighted to see the Minister of State on the Government Front Bench. In a reply to me yesterday he said that the Boundary Commissioners received representations on the last round for Westminster in respect of 350 constituencies in England which led to 78 local inquiries, and a period of three years and 11 months elapsed, using the full Boundary Commission procedure, for the delineation of the first-past-the-post constituencies.
The suggestions are that the analysis of all the representations from the 81 seats can be examined in two weeks, that they can, furthermore, be considered by the Boundary Commission in two weeks and that the Boundary Commission can draft its report in another two weeks. All that I can say is that I have never known civil servants work so fast in their lives. I do not believe that it will happen, and I will explain the reason. It is suggested that seven, eight or 10 seats should be bunched together to make one single-Member constituency. If one accepts what the Government say in paragraph 14—that under the first-past-the-post system differences are magnified, and
"one of these characteristics is the tendency for swings in electoral opinion to be magnified in terms of seats won or lost"—
and there are hon. Members who think that anything providing a result is a virtue of our system—if it is magnified in the present constituencies that we have of 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000, it will be
252
magnified seven, eight, nine and 10 times over if we have 81 vast first-past-the-post constituencies.
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there will be representations from political parties and local authorities objecting to the particular carve-up that is suggested by the Boundary Commission. If it is suggested that all that can be done in one month and considered in two weeks by the secretariat and that the Commission will give its views in a further two weeks, that is moonshine.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on why he thinks that large constituencies necessarily provide wider swings? In the United States most of the large industrial States produce Senators to represent 500,000 or 750,000 people, or even more, but one of the remarkable features of the United States Senate is not the wide swings but the stability that is shown over long periods.
Mr. Thorpe: First, the Senators do not pretend to be proportional to the electorate, unlike the House of Representatives. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are dealing simply with an arbitrary two Senators to be elected, the junior and senior Senators, for each State. They are practically always straight fights. If the hon. Gentleman is saying to me that there is much more stability in the United States political system than there is in ours, I agree. However, the fact is that in this country there is not that stability, and it normally needs only a 3 per cent. swing in a very few constituencies to change the whole Government. That is what is so crazy about this system.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why?
Mr. Thorpe: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. We have a Government in power for whom only 29 per cent. of those entitled to vote voted. They now have the respectability of having a mandate of a majority of the electorate. [Interruption.] Perhaps I may deal with one Babel at a time. Of course the Americans' political scene is much more stable than ours. I wish that ours were as stable as is theirs. This is not caused by their electoral system, but our instability is caused, in part, by our electoral system.

253
What I find fascinating about those who are in favour of the first-past-the-post system is the touching concern that they have—I think that the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) has it—that in the five-year period in which the first-past-the-post system will be operating a Member will be able to have this close community of interest with the 500,000 people whom he represents, a closely-knit relationship with the 500,000 in his constituency. In order to do that and to get this close proximity they are prepared to have the whole rigmarole of the Boundary Commission, the 81 suggested carve-ups, the bunching together of seats and all the possibilities of objection, representation and delay. They are prepared to risk that for the touching spectacle of the European Assembly Member having this close relationship with 500,000 people when they know perfectly well that five years later the system will be swept away—unless a temporary fit of madness overwhelms the European Community and the Europeans see a virtue in our system which they have never seen fit to adopt.
Whatever system we have will need the Boundary Commissions. Therefore, there is a new system, so the idea that we are having the good old English system and that therefore everyone will find it easy is nonsense. But with STV or the regional list we can use the ready made economic planning regions which are already there.
Mr. Channon: Clearly, from the course of the debate it is clear that some of us who are in favour of direct elections to the Assembly will be forced to accept a voting position in an electoral situation that we do not like, whether it be the first-past-the-post system, the regional list, or the single transferable vote. There will be those who are in favour of direct elections who will not get the electoral system that they want. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the system adopted, it is still more important to have direct elections than not to have them?
Mr. Thorpe: No, I do not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members wish to express surprise, I must say that I happen to be, I hope, as good a European as anyone in the House. I voted quite consistently when the whole of the Tory Party and the Labour Party went in against us. I think that my credentials on Europe are clear. I should have a
254
very troubled conscience in voting for an electoral system that I believed would produce a totally distorted representation in the European Parliament, which would make a farce of democracy, and which would, for example, possibly mean that the Scottish National Party, because it was concentrated, would have more seats than the official Labour Government. That is quite possible.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has asked me the question. I should have to look at it carefully, and I would find it very difficult—[Interruption.] I like the way that hon. Members scoff when their own Front Bench would not even indicate their line. I say to the hon. Member for Southend, West that I believe that it would make a mockery of this country if we had a first-past-the-post system because it would totally distort opinion in the country, and it would distort the balance of the political parties in Europe.
I also believe that the other reason is that we would not get through these elections in time, because the Boundary Commission must report by the end of the year if the Select Committee's recommendation is to be followed and on that I would not dissent. Therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to stick to the first-past-the-post system and vote for a system which may defeat the possibilities of getting legislation through. That is the question I ask the Tory Party, and I hope it will be answered in due course. We are not getting an answer from the Tory Front Bench.
Mr. Channon: If the right hon. Gentleman asks me that question, I personally take the view that the importance of direct elections is such that I would accept whatever system the House in the end decides to adopt. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would take a similar position.
Mr. Thorpe: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, following good Front Bench practice, has not told us where he stands now. He is a first-past-the-post man and is prepared to take the risk of the measure not getting through.
I happen to believe that the problems which are being tackled in Europe are basically regional problems and not

255
individual constituency problems, and I therefore see no objection at all to having a regional form of election. I think that a regional list system is a possibility, but I think that the single transferable vote system is the best possible system that could be devised.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will realise that we must have a system that is fair, logical and simple. I say to the Tories that they must ask themselves the question that Lord Chelwood asked them in his letter in The Times of 18th April. Do they adhere to their own preconceived views? Under the present system is the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as far as they are concerned, to take precedence over fairness and their determination to be good Europeans at the end of the day?
If the Government are to apply a proportional system in Ireland, to be logical they should apply it to the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom. The Tory Party had better be dragged into the twentieth century. Its own experiments in electoral matters have not been very impressive. It abolished proportional representation in Northern Ireland in the 1920s for very narrow party reasons, and had to reintroduce the system in 1973.
Sir Nigel Fisher: A fairly considerable number of Conservative Members are as passionately in favour of proportional representation for Europe as is the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) quite rightly reprimands me. There is a large and growing body of opinion on both sides of the House which believes that the electoral system can be improved. If my ire was aroused by the hon. Member for Southend, West—and indeed, by the neutral position of the right hon. Member for Knutsford—I stand convicted of having overlooked the more admirable, sensible, intelligent and forward-looking Members of the Tory Party represented by the hon. Member for Surbiton and many others like him.
6.14 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), in speaking for the official Opposition, tried to suggest that
256
the debate should confine itself to the various proposals put forward in the White Paper as to the methods to be adopted in relation to the voting system. Many of us believe that before we get to that stage the first matter to be decided is whether we are in favour of direct elections at all. It seems to me that this is the first question that we must think about.
The Prime Minister and many other hon. Members have said a number of times that the issue of direct elections was settled by the referendum decision. I beg to differ. In my view, the people of this country, when they voted in the referendum, voted on whether we should stay in or come out of the European Economic Community. This point was constantly stressed by the pro-Marketeers throughout the entire campaign.
It is true that in opposing our continuation in the Common Market some hon. Members pointed out their fear that if the vote went in favour of staying in, there would then be a move towards direct elections and ultimately towards some type of federal system. Some of us warned that this could happen, but it was not a central argument in the campaign. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members. may say "Oh" as much as they like. It can hardly be suggested that I am mealy mouthed, particularly on this question, for I got rid of half my pay in one day as a result of the stand I took on the Common Market. I do not want lessons from anybody about the attitude I have taken on the Common Market.
I know that it might be pointed out that I once supported the Common Market. That is absolutely true. But I opposed the Common Market from the day I realised how great and how unbearable the burden placed on the shoulders of the British people would be if we went in. That was why I then decided to oppose the Common Market.
Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I agree that my hon. Friend had the courage of his convictions, but will he agree that the anti-Common Market people said that the intention was to have direct elections by 1978? Was that view rejected three to one by the electorate or not?
Mr. Heffer: I am interested in this suggestion about the campaign against

257
the Common Market. I recall that two pamphlets were issued. There was one issued by the official pro-Common Market grouping and there was a second pro-Market pamphlet issued by the Government. There were two pamphlets in support of the Common Market but neither stressed that if we remained in the Common Market, we would be moving towards direct elections and so on. I reiterate that in my view the people, when they voted to remain in the Common Market, were not voting to institute a system of direct elections. That was not a central issue of the campaign at the time of the referendum. Had it been a central issue, it would have been right for hon. Members who supported our continuation in the Common Market to say that it was a central issue. But it was not a central issue.
As I go around the country and around my own constituency, talking to all sorts of people, I find, usually in casual conversation, that very many people who supported our entry into the Common Market and our continuance within it, are now bitterly regretting that they voted for the Common Market. On Sunday, on my way back from speaking at a miners' weekend school in South Wales, I went into a hostelry in Ross-on-Wye for something to eat and a drink. The landlord, who had recognised me from my appearances on television, told me "I voted for the Common Market, Mr. Heffer, and I want to tell you that I bitterly regret it. I wish I had never voted for it."
Many people say this to me wherever I go. In fact, rather than talking about a Bill to introduce direct elections to the European Assembly, it would be better if the Government were saying to the EEC "If you do not end the CAP and do not radically change within three or six months the policies which are badly affecting our people, we shall leave the Common Market." If the Government were to do that they would be far more popular than they are at the moment and more in line with the thinking of the people in this country on this question. That would be far better than dealing with any proposals or discussions concerning any Bill on the Common Market that we are likely to have in the near future.
258
Why are we rushing this matter? Hon. Members may laugh, but let us examine the White Paper, which states:
"However, for the past 19 years, members of the European Assembly have been nominated by national Parliaments from among their members in accordance with Article 133(1)."
We have been in the European Community for four years. If one deducts those four years from the total of 19 years, we find that for 15 years the other members of the Common Market have not considered it important to go ahead with a scheme for direct elections. But, within three years of our joining we find that we must make up our minds quickly, at a time when the Portuguese, the Spanish and the Greeks, who now have democratic Governments, are talking about joining the Common Market. Before they enter and before they have a voice, direct elections are to take place.
Why are we rushing? The situation is interesting because this morning an hon. Friend said that it was only a minor matter of no importance but that direct elections would improve the situation. Since it is not an important matter, why are we to go ahead with it?
On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that direct elections would enhance the position and improve the status of the Cornmon Market. The right hon. Member put forward five arguments. First, he said that the directly elected Assembly would give the Community greater status. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If a directly elected Assembly gives the Community greater status, and therefore more power and influence, it cannot be a minor matter but one of some importance.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup said that an elected Assembly would have greater influence over the Commission and the Council of Ministers. Where does greater influence—and that means more power and control over the Council of Ministers—leave us? The right hon. Gentleman talked about the pooling of sovereignty in the Common Market countries.
Dr. Colin Phipps: I want to merge my sovereignty.
Mr. Helfer: My hon. Friend may say that. but what would happen if he put such a proposition to the electorate?

259
Do the British people want to see the power, responsibility and control of the House of Commons diminished? I ask my hon. Friend to contrast that with what has happened since we joined the Common Market. I ask him to convince the British people that we should further reduce our power over prices, fishing, and so on.
Already the British people are asking what is happening. They ask why we cannot influence events, why prices are increasing, and what is happening to fishing and transport. Occasionally, we have taken a courageous stand, but we are then criticised by the right hon. Member for Knutsford for standing out. He says that we are letting down the Market and that we are not fighting hard enough for the common cause. Contrary to what hon. Members may believe, that is why I originally believed in the idea of some form of united Europe. But I do not put internationalism above the interests of the people whom I represent. I do not want them to be pushed down at the expense of others. That is what I fear has happened.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I understand the hon. Member and I am following his argument. Does he accept that there are certain interests that are common to Europe as a whole where the whole is larger than the part? Does he not accept that within the European Parliament there should be greater powers over the issues that touch the whole of the Community and that that does not necessarily—although it may sometimes—diminish the powers of the parts within that Community?
Mr. Heffer: That is an interesting argument. The hon. Member is saying that there must be a fundamental change in the character of the Community, but even if we accepted the position as it is now, and that Members will be directly elected, we are told that they will have no more powers.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup says that he wants the Parliament to have more power because that is the right direction. The difference is that instead of being appointed, Members of the European Parliament will be elected by the people. When that happens, they will want more powers and it will be difficult
260
to prevent them from taking more powers. Once an Assembly is created on an elected basis, the Members, whether one likes it or not, will be more power hungry and will insist on more power.
Where would we go from there? We would move stage by stage to a federal system or some type of European Government. That might sound marvellous in theory. If it were to be a Socialist United States of Europe, I might be more sympathetic to the idea, but I cannot see that happening at present.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup said that constituents would have the opportunity of lobbying Members of the European Parliament. That is an interesting idea, because it is part of the argument about the power and influence of such a European Assembly.
The right hon. Member's last point was that the Community would have greater status in the eyes of the world. The right hon. Member made a powerful case, but it is one which, in the circumstances and the experience that we have had in the Common Market, we can do without. We are always being told that if we would only take certain action, the situation would be better. Then we take that action and we discover that the situation is no better, but worse for our people, and the powers of our institutions are gradually diminished.
I turn now to the question of the methods of election and in particular to the list system. I am distrustful of the list system. I have suggested to some of my hon. Friends that perhaps the National Executive of the Labour Party should draw up the list—as long as I am on the National Executive I shall have a good voice as to who shall be on the list—but they do not seem to be very enthusiastic about it. I wonder why. They do not want to put too much power in the hands of the central body of the Labour Party, and quite rightly. The same applies whether the system is a regional or a national system. Again, it would put enormous power in the hands of regional committees.
I have a horrible feeling that blokes like me will never get on any list—not that I particularly want to get on that sort of list, but if we are to apply it to this House and to British elections, I can see a dismal future for many hon.

261
Members. I do not want to see that sort of power put into operation.
We ought not to have a list system. If we are finally forced into a first-past. the-post system, that would be much more acceptable. But I trust that we shall not be forced into it. Even if we have a first-past-the-post system, it will not matter, because, as the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said, it will last for only five years.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) give the whole game away. He said that it did not matter which voting system we had as long as we had the vote and direct elections. From his point of view it is most important to get any system, because in five years the whole matter could probably be brought together with one system operating in every part of the Community. We would have to be brought into line, and that is the key question: should we or should we not have direct elections? In my opinion the answer is "No".
The right hon. Member for Devon, North dealt with Northern Ireland at great length. I do not disagree with a great deal of what he said, because of the minority position of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland. We cannot and should not translate to the whole of the United Kingdom a system brought about by the unfortunate but special circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland. We cannot say because we had to take certain action because of those conditions that we have to apply that to the whole of the United Kingdom. That would be a serious mistake and I hope that the House will not accept it.
The question was raised about France and the position of the Gaullists and the Communists. It amuses me that some of us are always being accused of being wicked Marxists trying to bring in revolutionary politics, but that as soon as certain hon. Members want to advance their own arguments, they are happy to refer to what the Communists in France or Italy are doing. It is remarkable and It is not confined to the Opposition; it also applies to some of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the "Iron Lady", the Leader of the
262
Opposition, is now a well-known Marxist-Leninist of the Chinese version?
Mr. Heffer: That may be so, but the right hon. Lady will have to work that out herself.
Mr. John Davies: The hon. Gentleman seems to be in some sense disputing that it is useful simply to refer to a matter of fact. I should have thought that that would be useful to the House. Is the hon. Gentleman not of that opinion?
Mr. Heffer: That is right, but I was going to point out that what the right hon. Gentleman said was factual was not factual; it was a slight distortion of the position. One can read what The Times said about this matter. I have not been to Paris recently. The article in The Times makes it clear that the Gaullists, together with the Communists, insist
"that the powers of the European Parliament should be limited strictly to those laid down in the Rome Treaty."
The article says that M. Marchais, whilst he is prepared to go part of the way because of the alliance with the French Socialist Party, nevertheless criticised the President because he felt that the President was going too far in suggesting what the direct elections should be. In other words, he was giving qualified and conditional support; that is not quite what is being bandied around by the Opposition.
Mr. John Davies: The hon. Gentleman was here during my speech. He should know that I said that I understood that both those parties would not present an obstacle to the statutory provisions necessary to bring about direct elections. I should have hardly thought that that was in conflict with what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Heffer: We shall obviously have to agree to disagree on the emphasis and the conditions being placed on it.
It is not true that everyone in Europe is waiting and straining at the leash to, have direct elections. In my experience, there is just as much opposition, particularly in Denmark and other parts. of Europe. to the idea of settling once and for all on direct elections as there is in this country. I hope that the House,

263
before it allows itself to be quickly manoeuvred into supporting direct elections, will think not once, not twice, but over and over again.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: This is the first time that I have been as high in the batting order to follow the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I would rather model my speech on that of the right hon. Member for Devon, North than that of the hon. Member for Walton. I am not here to talk about the Treaty of Rome and Article 138 that stands part of it, or to say that we signed this treaty and that the referendum confirmed it. We are here to discuss the method of direct elections, and I shall try to do so to the best of my ability.
Before I discuss the Government's White Paper I should like to refer to two associated matters—the questions of the dual mandate and Scotland's representation in Europe. We must recognise that it is just not possible physically or mentally to do full justice at both Westminster and Strasbourg. The strain is too much and this has been brought home again to us all too sadly at the weekend by the untimely death of Sir Peter Kirk, who had already given so much and who had so much more to give to this country and to Europe.
Since last century we have had to work out this liaison problem between local government representation and those representing the same electorate at Westminster. We can operate similarly after the establishment of a directly elected European Assembly. Our political parties can ensure that their own elected representatives at all levels maintain close contact on all procedures, policies and plans for all the tiers of administration and government.
When it comes to the representation of Scotland in Europe no one can deny that its allocation of eight seats is fair when Scotland is to enter Europe as an integral part of the United Kingdom, which will give it considerable advantages. We shall possess the same "clout" as Germany, France and Italy through being part of a 50 million-plus Power. The years of the European Assembly show that the smaller nations cannot extract
264
or expect the same conditions as the larger ones. The history of the veto shows this.
However, for Scotland—and, for that matter for Wales and Ulster—a minor departure could have been made. For the purpose of the argument I shall stick to Scotland. Scotland is a nation, not a region of another country. That is recognised in the fact that we give Scotland a slightly higher representation here than it is entitled to on a purely per capita basis. Similarly, for Europe, while, in order to maintain the full United Kingdom "clout", it is impractical and unfair that we should have the same representation—16 seats—as Denmark, which has a similar population, there is a case for treating Scotland in Europe in the same way as it is treated at Westminster.
Rather than the eight seats which are mathematically correctly proposed for Scotland, compared with the 16 allocated to Denmark, Scotland should have 10 or 12 seats in Europe. That would only be carrying the Westminster policy and principles into Europe. Geographically, Scotland has a third of the United Kingdom land mass and around her shores are the main energy and fishing reserves of Europe.
But there is a practical way out of this difficulty. At the moment, Scotland is technically over-represented here, but, as I have said, there are sound traditional reasons of distances, geography and population spread for that fact. In those circumstances, it is difficult to expect to receive more than our mathematically correct share of eight places. But the sensible and obvious solution, on the assumption that Scotland will have a meaningful directly elected Assembly, would probably have to include a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster. In those circumstances, there would be a clear case for raising Scottish representation at Strasbourg. The increase in Europe would be somewhat less than the reduction here.
The best description of the White Paper was that given by one of the political correspondents of The Scotsman, who referred to its approach as "negative neutrality". That is what the White Paper offers—no leadership, no view, nothing but negative neutrality. The reason is the same as we saw in regard

265
to devolution—this Government continue to play party politics with vital issues. The devolution Bill failed because it was based not on principle or conviction but upon the forlorn hope of preserving Labour seats in Scotland.
Similarly, the machinations, delays and equivocal statements over Europe are taking place only because a substantial part of the Labour Party is against the European ideal anyway. They are merely opposing and obstructing direct elections as a part of their Marxist-oriented plans to weaken Western Europe in every possible way.
However, reverting to the White Paper let us consider the style of the constituency and the method of election that we should adopt. First, on the constituency, if we are to adopt the Westminster style, that would mean combining the present Westminster constituencies in bundles of about eight to form Euro-constituencies. That has the advantage which we all understand, of single-Member representation, accountable to the electorate concerned.
But it has three disadvantages. First, those bundles of eight would have no common bonds or distinct entity within themselves and would be difficult for the electorates to recognise as obvious units. Second, there is just not time now for the Boundary Commissions to go through all their correct procedures of recommendations, representations and inquiries before the first election is due in May or June of next year. Third, no other country in Europe intends to operate such a system. That in itself should give us cause to ponder awhile and wonder why.
So we come to the list system. Objections are sometimes made to that system because it breaks the single-Member constituency principle of responsibility and representation between Member and constituent. On the other hand, apart from its use generally in Europe, we have used it over the years in local government. Many hon. Members must have sat as list members in local authorities. I myself was a member of a local authority for 10 years in Scotland. I was one of three representatives for one ward of a Scottish burgh. I was also on a list of 12 elected to a Scottish county council from one burgh. The system worked very well. Many would say that it worked
266
better than that which has replaced it in Scotland.
Mr. Roger Moate: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument. Is he suggesting that in the cases to which he refers there was not one vote for each elector per candidate? Were people casting one vote for a complete list of candidates?
Mr. Fairgrieve: I am saying that three members represented a whole ward. Therefore, an elector did not have to get in touch with one individual: he could contact any one or all three. There is no difficulty in a list system if the will is there. Wy may have to change again in Scotland to a list or constituency system of one-tier, all-purpose local authorities, on the assumption that a Scottish Assembly is functioning.
It is interesting to note that every other member of the Community, apart from France, uses a form of list system for elections to its own domestic Parliament.
Mr. Thorpe: Except Eire.
Mr. Fairgrieve: If we can have a list system in the United Kingdom elections to the European Parliament, the obvious areas would be Scotland, Northern Ireland—possibly, as the right hon. Member for Devon, North said, the whole of Ireland—and Wales, joined by the existing eight economic planning regions of England, which are easily recognisable and already accepted as understandable units by those living in them. Such a United Kingdom breakdown would give 11 electoral regions, ranging from three Members from Northern Ireland to 14 from South-East England, excluding Greater London, which would be a region of 10 Members.
So much for the style of constituency. What about the method of voting? How that could be on any other basis than proportional representation I find it difficult to understand. Let us consider two of the proposed English regions, each returning seven Members—West Midlands, and Yorkshire and Humberside. Let us assume that in one slightly more Conservative votes than Labour are cast and that the picture is the other way around in the other. If we stick to our first-past-the-post system, one of those regions will be represented by seven

267
Tories and the other by seven Socialists. No Liberal or member of any other party would be returned. That is patently ridiculous.
In the case of Europe, every member country, including France, intends to use a system of PR for the European Parliament. Anyway, the second lot of European elections are meant to be held by a uniform method in all member countries, so we might just as well start by trying to get it about right the first time. The Mother of Parliaments is in danger of becoming like the admiring Scottish mother who was proudly watching her recently joined-up son marching down the street with his kilted platoon and was heard to exclaim, "Look! a' body's oot o' step except oor Jock."
It has been suggested that the British electorate might have difficulty in understanding or adapting to new electoral systems for the European Parliament. Apart from the fact that we made such a change in Northern Ireland, it is somewhat damaging to assume that the British electorate will be unable to understand or to operate systems used successfully by our European partners.
I cannot accept the argument that a different method for Europe would cause infection at Westminster. Plainly this House operates a two-party system of Government and this is absolutely not the case in Europe, where we are dealing with a multitude of parties and alliances with totally different responsibilities and functions. Similarly, because of the different situation in Scotland, where three parties currently command similar electoral support, the Kilbrandon Committee came down unanimously in favour of proportional representation for the Scottish Assembly, without disagreeing with "first-past-the-post" system at Westminster.
Let us not be dogmatic in these matters. Let us use the system that is in the best interests of those whom we represent in Scotland, the United Kingdom or in Europe.
I turn finally to by-elections, where there are notorious mid-term swings in this and some other countries. As the European Parliament would be elected for a fixed four-year term, any vacancies in the elected Parliament should be filled
268
from the party that held the vacant seat.
Let us stop being the brake in Europe and become an engine. Let us proceed to direct elections by proportional representation or a list system and take our place in Europe as leaders and not as laggards. I shall continue to work, campaign and to vote to this end.
6.51 p.m.
Dr. Colin Phipps: I honestly believe that no hon. Member in the House would possibly object if faced with the purely formal question of whether there should be elections to the European Assembly and whether those elections should be democratic. There is no formal objection to having democratic elections. Everything that we have been brought up to believe in this country is dependent on the democratic principle. The European elections are no different from any other elections that we have held.
The argument today is not about whether we should have democratic elections, but whether we should have elections at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and other of my hon. Friends have put the case clearly that they recognise that democratic elections to the European Parliament are likely to lead to that Parliament having more power, and when that Parliament has more power, it is likely to produce a form of united Europe. Whether that will be a federal form or a system something like the one we have in the United Kingdom, and whether it comes sooner or later, that is what it will lead to.
My hon. Friends have recognised this, and it seems perfectly proper that they should recognise it and argue against direct elections not on democratic grounds but because, if we have direct elections they will bring about what they do not desire, namely, a united Europe. I admit that I was fairly disappointed by the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. When discussing the possibility of a federal Europe, he used the words "fear" and "the threat of a federal Europe". It is important that the House realises that many Labour Members do not view a federal Europe with fear or see it as a threat, but as a hope and a promise. That is precisely

269
what we are arguing for. It is exactly what we want.
I take a position directly opposite to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, but based on exactly the same grounds. The very things that my hon. Friend fears will happen are the things that I wish to happen. I wish to merge the sovereignty of this country into the sovereignty of Europe. I wish to see this country becoming an integral part of a greater whole.
I do not believe that at this stage in the evolution of a democratic Europe we shall gallop willy-nilly into the position that I wish to see, but I certainly believe—apparently against the belief of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that his grandchildren would see some form of united Europe—that we are on the way. I sincerely hope that we shall see it, otherwise I and many other people will feel that all the effort that we have put in in recent years will have been wasted. I do not intend that that effort should be wasted, and I do not believe that a majority of hon. Members wish to see it wasted.
Another argument that we have heard is that no mandate for direct elections was given in the referendum. I am prepared to accept that. One of the major arguments used by the anti-Marketeers was this very fear that there would be direct elections, and that from that would follow greater powers for the European Parliament, and that from this greater power would flow a federal systme. Even so, I am prepared to accept that that is not what people voted for in the referendum.
I did not want a referendum. I believe that it was for this House to decide whether we should enter Europe. Equally, I believe that it is for this House to decide whether we should have direct elections. I leave it to the House to decide whether we should have direct elections and what form they should take.
We are wasting a great deal of debating time considering the possibility of a dual mandate. It seems to me of no importance whatever that the House should pass an Act providing that there should be a dual mandate. The fact is that there will not be a dual mandate. There is no way in which anyone can effectively be a
270
Member of this House and of the European Parliament. We can do what we like, but it will not make any difference. In the first six months it will be clear that no dual mandate can exist. There is no point in passing a large and complex piece of legislation saying that it will exist or does exist, because in practice it cannot do so.
However, in practice I believe that there can be some advantage for the House, and for a directly elected European Parliament, in retaining contact between the two Parliaments. It should not be beyond the wit of Westminster parliamentarians to devise what form of contact this should be. I do not believe it is of great significance whether United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament should have some non-voting membership of this House or whether they should be made temporary Members of the House of Lords during their term of office. If it is considered beneficial that there should be contact between Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament, this could quite easily be devised, and we ought to set our minds to doing it.
A much more important question arises over the form of election. The great majority of speakers have recognised that the first-past-the-post system for European elections could hardly be described as fair. The fewer the number of scats in a first-past-the-post system, by definition the less fair that system becomes. We should have 81 Members in the European Parliament, but there woud not be a single Liberal representative. It does not matter whether the Liberal vote is 1 million or 5 million. Either way, it would be indefensible if there were not a single Liberal representative in the European Parliament. The first-past-the-post system falls absolutely on the ground of fairness.
If we look at the reasons for having a first-past-the-post system at Westminster, we see that these also fall rapidly. There seem to be only two reasons why we have a first-past-the-post system here. The first is that we have the much lauded constituency contact between hon. Members and their constituents. It does not seem to be something that we could not manage by other means.
The only other legitimate reason for having a first-past-the-post system is that it produces majority Governments, but

271
that argument falls when the system fails to produce a majority Government, as at present. The one great claim that people could make in the past was that the system produced majority Governments, but it also gave Governments untold power over Back-Bench Members, and I should be delighted to see those powers taken away.
In fact there is no relation whatever between the Westminster model and the European model. We are not talking with the European model about the possibility of constituency representation, and nor yet are we talking about a situation of majority Governments. The Westminster model as such does not exist in the same form in a purely legislative body. Equally, the purely United Kingdom membership does not constitute a majority of one kind or another in Europe.
On grounds of practicality, therefore, the only way to approach the question of elections to the European Parliament is by some form of proportional representation. We have to decide in this House which method we should use for these elections. It may turn out that the system we choose for the direct elections is not the system we should choose for Westminster elections. But I believe that some form of PR is essential.
There are three models to consider. There is the straightforward region list system. The difficulties with such a system appear to be for independent candidates who wish to stand, and for the electorate in having any element of choice in the people who represent it. An elector may wish to vote Labour, but he may not wish to vote for the Labour candidate at the top of the list. In areas which are traditionally Conservative the top man on the Labour list is almost certain to be elected. Of course, the same applies in strong Labour areas with the top Conservative candidate. In the South-East of England the top Labour man is much more likely to be elected than the bottom Labour man on the West Midlands list when the regional list system is used.
It will be most difficult to decide how to give the electorate an element of choice among those members of the party it favours most. I do not see that problem being solved by the single transferable
272
vote. The finest STV system run in Europe is operated by the French, because they have two elections. That gets rid of the element of the STV which I know appeals to the Liberal Party but which does not appeal to the Labour or Conservative Parties. That element is that the STV would naturally favour a minority party. France gets rid of the minority parties before the second election.
Mr. Thorpe: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am listening with intense interest. May I suggest, however, that there is no automatic moving to the centre or to the minority parties? All that happens is that the opinions that exist are fairly reflected. That is the experience of the Republic of Ireland. That is what democracy should be about.
Dr. Phipps: I accept that, but equally I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that opinion, when polarised between two extremes and when given an opportunity to be expressed a second time, is unlikely to move to either extreme. It is much more likely to move to the nearest position in the centre. That is the inevitable consequence of the STV, and the French system manages to avoid that.
There is one system which I would commend strongly to my Front Bench for examination. It is the system which is used in Finland, where there seems to be at least some attempt to overcome the difficulty of a party list system and the preference for an individual candidate of an individual elector. That is where a vote is cast either for a party or for an individual member of that party on the panel. Only one vote is cast, but it enables an effective vote to be cast. That vote goes into the overall PR pot, as it were, but the individual vote for one particular candidate expresses a preference on the part of that elector. These preferences can then be summed and an order of preference is provided among the candidates of the party chosen by the electors.
Mr. John Roper: I was interested in my hon. Friend's comment about the Finnish system. I am not clear how it differs from the system which the Government put forward in paragraph 11 of Annex B. There appear to be considerable similarities.
Dr. Phipps: As I understand it, the system put forward by the Government only allows a particular listing of the members from an individual party, and does not give the option of only voting for the party. I accept what my hon. Friend said, but I have not understood the Government's proposal in the same terms. If that is the system proposed, it has merit, but the difficulty is that it gives only an indication of what may be the overwhelming first preference of voters for a particular party.
One can imagine a Labour Party list on which there was an extremely prominent figure. He would naturally attract the great majority of the votes cast. I cannot think who that might be in the West Midlands, but this seems to be one of the major problems to be faced with any kind of list system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, it puts enormous power into small and local groups of people.
There is already sufficient criticism of the machinations within the general management committees of the Labour Party. I have no doubt that the same is true of the management committees of other parties. These committees are drawn from just one constituency, but if we reach the situation in which perhaps no more than 25 or 30 people on a regional council out of an entire region of 4 million electors are deciding not only who will be the candidates but in what order they will appear, I imagine that there will be some feeling on the part of the electorate that it is being completely bypassed on the question of who will represent it in Europe.
That would be the central problem of this system, although the list system, of the systems put forward, is the only one which satisfies the criteria we have to meet of getting everything ready rapidly in order to have the elections in 1978, of being fair and of being seen to be fair, and of producing a proper representation of this country in a European Parliament.
I believe that European Members are much more likely to operate on a regional basis than are Members of this Parliament. We in Westminster tend to regard ourselves much more as Members of a national Parliament representing the nation and to do our constituency work as another factor of our existence here.
274
The Member who is elected to the European Parliament is much more likely to regard his rôle as being a representative of his region. Regional representation will therefore become extremely important, and that is a factor which must be taken into account.
I return to my original remark that I accept that a vote for direct elections is a vote eventually—I hope sooner rather than later—for some form of United Europe. I accept the right of other hon. Members who are opposed to Europe to oppose these forms of democratic elections. I believe, however, that this is, the first and probably the most fundamentally important step towards a United Europe. It is something I fundamentally believe in and desire to bring about. I believe that it is one of the greatest movements of the twentieth century, and I hope that my party will be involved in it.
Mr. Alison: May I ask the hon. Member a question for clarification? He has given his views on the need for some sort of PR system in preference to the first-past-the-post system. Does he think that the first-past-the-post system is so objectionable that the principle of direct elections should be cast aside were we to be landed with the first-past-the-post system?
Dr. Phipps: I am sorry that I have not made my position absolutely clear. I believe that direct elections to the European Assembly are absolutely essential and are a commitment by the Government and, I hope as well, by the official Opposition. As for my particular preference for the method of election, I believe that a proportional representation system is essential, but that this is secondary to the absolutely essential factor, which is holding direct elections. Without direct elections we cannot move towards a united Europe and I am committed to that.
7.11 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wood: I notice two very strange things about this debate. First of all, on the rare occasions on which the Government ask us for practical advice—in this case on the conduct of the elections—a great many hon. Members seem extraordinarily reluctant to give it. I am not often sympathetic towards the Government. but my heart bleeds for

275
them on this occasion. I do not know what they will make of this debate. They have brought it on themselves by not giving us the opportunity to express our voting opinions. We can give only our views.
Secondly, whenever hon. Members have spoken today on the principle of direct elections there has been a good deal of noise, but whenever they have spoken on electoral methods there has been an attentive silence which is generally more constructive. Therefore, I intend to talk more of method than of principle, and I shall presume rashly to give advice to the Government in order to fill any void that there may be in the advice that they have received so far.
Those of us who are convinced that these elections must take place at the appointed time must be guided by certain obvious priorities. Strong views will be expressed on the most desirable method of electing members to the European Parliament, but I believe it would be tragic to allow arguments about the means to delay or frustrate the attainment of the end.
Whatever electoral system is chosen, there are other decisions of importance that are required, for example on the matters expressed in paragraphs 32–42 of the White Paper, and on the compulsory dual mandate on which I have heard nothing favourable this afternoon, and to which I shall add nothing favourable.
The choice between the first-past-the post system and some form of proportional representation is by far the most important issue on which we are now asked to give some kind of lead to the Government. I hope that we shall be guided by the principle of ensuring that 40 million electors should be able to make as effective a choice as possible of the 81 men or women who are to represent them and Britain in the European Assembly.
I hope that we can dismiss the thin-end-of-the-wedge argument, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—that if we have PR in Europe we shall soon have it in Westminster. The Government have never fallen over themselves to introduce electoral change for Westminster, but they have pointed out in the White Paper that
276
"a different form of institution might warrant a different system."
It is important to look at the overall picture and try to see what such elections might be like. I cannot imagine that, for the first election anyway, there will be enthusiasm for electing European Members in any way comparable with the enthusiasm for electing us; or conversely, with the wholly misguided determination of some of our constituents to see that we do not get here at all.
This is an argument for making the system as simple as possible. That is why some people favour the continuation of the system that is familiar to us—a simple majority in single-Member constituencies. That is not the preference expressed by a clear majority in a recent opinion poll in which more than half of those questioned said they would prefer a system of proportional representation for the European elections. I believe, with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), that the first-past-the-post system will not look so familiar when applied to the European elections with constituencies of half a million people. Electorates of this kind exist elsewhere, and I am not suggesting that this kind of giant constituency is unworkable, but if we are discussing the first-past-the-post system in relation to Europe, we have a wholly new phenomenon very different from the traditional elections that we have always known in this country.
The first-past-the-post system for Europe, apart from being less familiar than its supporters claim, is open to other criticisms. There was an interesting analysis in the Economist last October based on the figures for the October 1974 General Election in 81 possible single-Member constituencies. Not surprisingly, the results were somewhat similar to those of the General Election. Yet even on this analysis, these figures, when applied to 81 rather than 635 constituencies, contain some features that nearly all political parties in this House would think wholly undesirable.
The Labour Party, apart from London, would have won only one seat south of a line drawn between the Severn and the Wash. My own party would have won no seats at all in Wales or Scotland. The Liberal Party, with nearly one-fifth of the

277
votes, would have been not only underrepresented; it would not have been represented at all. Some of my more headstrong hon. Friends might think that that was not a bad thing, but I cannot feel that it is wise, whatever happens in the future, that a party supported by several million votes should be entirely voiceless in the European Assembly. That would be thought strange in this country and it would be thought to be very strange in Europe.
The results of a European election which did not coincide with a General Election here—and such coincidence is most unlikely—would be infinitely more haphazard. On the assumptions about likely voting patterns today—exactly two and a half years after the General Election, and theoretically halfway through the life of this Parliament—we should face up to the possibility that all 70 seats in England and Wales would be divided between the Labour and Conservative Parties, with the Labour total being counted on one hand, possibly excluding the thumb and one finger. The Scottish National Party would win all eight seats in Scotland and the Ulster Unionists all three in Northern Ireland, unless the Government's recognition of the special circumstances there, which are mentioned in the White Paper, led us to adopt a special electoral system there. But if in Ulster, why not elsewhere?
Some of my hon. Friends might be overjoyed by this vast Conservative majority in the British delegation. I beg them to exercise a little caution and to stare with me into the cloudy crystal ball. Some people say that when the present green leaves of spring have fallen from the trees there will be a General Election here, and most people think that the Leader of the Opposition will then move gracefully across the Floor of the House and sit opposite the other Dispatch Box. I welcome that, but I am aware that life on the Treasury Bench would not be a bed of roses for my right hon. and hon. Friends. If my right hon. Friends do what they should do when they are in office, they will not be universal pin-ups in 15 months' time. In those circumstances, the prospect of the first elected British component of the European Assembly consisting overwhelmingly of Members of the Labour Party is as
278
uncongenial to me as it is to my hon. Friends.
Whatever the circumstances, I think it wholly undesirable that the overwhelming majority of the British representatives elected to the European Parliament should be diametrically opposed to the contemporary activities in Whitehall. It is wrong that the total Scottish representation should be based on a minority of the Scottish vote, and it is also wrong that any party with substantial public support should be entirely unrepresented. The limited enthusiasm which British voters are likely to feel for these elections will evaporate if they lead to those ridiculous results.
What is the alternative? The White Paper says that there are three. They include the single transferable vote, which I am ready to admit would produce the most equitable results. It is an insult to the intelligence of the voters to suggest that they would be unable to express up to 10 or 15 preferences on the voting paper by putting "1", "2", "3" and so on against several candidates' names. In my view, it is not the voting on STV that is complicated, but the counting. This is what makes me doubtful about the operation of STV in constituencies of 2 million or 3 million. I shall need a long course of instruction from the right hon. Member for Devon, North and other experts before I am convinced that there would not be in several cases under STV an agonising and intolerable wait between polling and the declaration of votes, especially if the result in any of the large regional constituencies were close.
One of the main arguments against one of the other alternatives, either the national or regional list, is the power they would put in the hands of the party organisation, an aspect which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. That is undeniable, but I myself doubt whether this accretion of power would be significantly greater than that wielded by the party organisation in constituencies comprising half a million voters under the first-past-the-post system.
Members of the European Assembly are, I am told, not going to serve in the European Parliament wholly unrewarded. For that reason alone we could expect a fairly keen competition for the single-Member seats. The choice of one candidate out of, say, 50 or 100 applicants—

279
which would not be unreasonable in these giant constituencies—would not be markedly more democratic than the compilation of regional lists, particularly if the choice of the caucus in a single-Member constituency could not be effectively presented for approval by party members, as is the case, at least in theory in our existing national constituencies.
My point is that under any possible system of direct elections, including the first-past-the-post system, party patronage is likely to be increased but by little more under the regional list system than under the first-past-the-post system in a large constituency.
Apart from their more equitable results, lust because the necessary constituencies are already there, either STV or the system based on regional lists could be introduced more speedily than the first-past-the-post alternative. Even under the so-called Option B, which the Government have reluctantly recommended, the time schedule looks uncomfortably tight if candidates are to be in position by the beginning of next year.
Most of us would agree that it would be necessary for a candidate in one of these large constituencies at least to know the way round his constituency. It looks to me as though elections in the summer of 1978 will be botched jobs if both the legislative process and the drawing of the constituencies are not completed by the end of this year. It is possible that time alone will rule out that alternative. We shall see.
I should therefore greatly prefer to see the system of regional lists, or the single transferable vote if it were not for the Herculean task of counting the votes after the election. None the less, in my view it is far preferable to hold the elections next year under what I believe to be a defective system than to frustrate them entirely by insisting on a better one.
I hope that the Government will introduce a Bill without delay. I shall do all I can to hasten its passage. This is one pledge made by the Government in the last few years which I am determined to see honoured. It could be of far greater importance to us and for future generations than all the vacuous legislation with which the Government have so far wasted the time of Parliament.
7.26 p.m.
Mr. Jim Craigen: It is evident that something of a trench warfare still continues between pro- and anti-Marketeers on the subject of direct elections. However, we must accept the fact that we are in the Community—and not only has that been approved by this House but approved by the referendum. That still leaves it open to us to determine the kind of Community institutions we should have. This is made evident in the White Paper—namely, that it is important that we should consider the implications for our own governmental institutions and for those of the Community.
We talk a great deal about democracy and, as I have listened to the various contributions, I have had the uneasy impression we shall have so much democratic institutionalism that there will not be enough people to take an interest in many of those institutions.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said earlier that he did not see a directly elected European Assembly as being a power-hungry monster. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary in opening the debate left me with the impression that it will be some kind of tame lion. We have the job of supplying it with the teeth. But what will the Assembly feed on? It appears to me that it will be expected to feed on the same diet on which the existing European Assembly now feeds—namely, it will remain advisory and supervisory in its functions.
I made this point with the Secretary of State this afternoon, because I believe with a directly-elected Assembly the power of the Commission within the Community, rather than the Council of Ministers, is bound to become a more central and focal point of power. I wonder whether it is envisaged that in time the European Assembly should appoint the members of the Commission, because one of the biggest powers of patronage available to member Governments is their power to appoint their respective Commissioners—although, once appointed, those Commissioners are no longer expected to owe allegiance to the member country but to the Community as a whole.
I am concerned that the existing Community is not grappling with the problems that worry the man and woman

281
in the street. The standard of living and the question of employment, now and in the future, are the two main considerations in which the Community has not given the leadership that many people expected of it. I know that the fourfold and almost fivefold increases in oil prices which have been experienced across the board in Western Europe over the past three years or four years cannot be dismissed lightly. Obviously they have had a major impact on the housekeeping of all nine member countries. But where are we going in respect of the common agricultural policy, which is a kind of precursor—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are discussing direct elections, not policies.
Mr. Craigen: I shall bear your rebuke closely in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to say that the CAP was in existence when Britain became a member of the European Community. At that time there was no regional policy. This is one of the areas of policy that is now being actively discussed within the Community. We are talking about an evolving Community. The White Paper, in the proposals for direct elections, is seeking to give a political face to an economic Community. Is it seeking to do so a bit too quickly before the enlargement that we expect will come about within the Community?
In that context we may come up against some major problems in terms of the formula that is adopted for the distribution of seats. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) referred to the proposed allocation to Scotland. It is proposed that the United Kingdom be given 81 of the 410 seats. If distribution were on a strictly population basis, the United Kingdom would have 89 seats and Luxembourg would have one instead of six. We shall come up against some real problems of equity if we persist in the idea that we can have a Grand Duchy with six seats within the European Assembly when major powers such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France are each to have 81. Allocation should be based on population if we are seriously talking about direct elections.
282
That raises a point to which the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) referred—namely, the direct access that will result between Strasbourg and the United Kingdom with the introduction of direct elections. Westminster will become the lost chord of British politics. There will be direct access between the Assembly and the business world in respect of legislation and major global matters. There are considerable pressures building up within the trade unions over collective bargaining on a European Community basis rather than on an individual member Government basis. There are pressures in respect of agriculure and consumer proection.
The ability of the British to absorb is considerable. We have already absorbed decimalisation and metrication is coming upon us. I have no doubt that in time we shall be expected to harmonise our electoral law. Although it is proposed that there should be a one-off job in 1978, there is no question in my mind but that we shall not be allowed to go our own way in making arrangements for our own electoral law.
A matter that will show up as a great anomaly is the proposed co-existence of proportional representation for Northern Ireland alongside a first-past-the-post system for Scotland, England and Wales that appears in the White Paper. It is one thing to change our system. It is quite another matter to envisage that there can be two separate systems of electoral law existing for the one set of elections within the same member country.
It seems that the proposed Speaker's Conference will have to take into account the harmonisation that might be necessary in respect of the franchise. That is because voting law is not necessarily the same in all member countries. Belgium, which has just had its election, has a system of compulsory voting. There are many changes that will have to come about. Whether we like it or not, it seems that we shall be driven to a system of proportional representation.
I feel that the single transferable vote would be the fairest method. I was impressed with some of the more detailed practical arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) in respect of the large size of multi-Member constituencies. That makes it

283
appear increasingly likely that elections for a directly elected European Assembly will be fought within the television studio in front of the television camera and will not necessarily be especially relevant to the everyday life of our people.
I may be wrong, but I believe that no one has mentioned in this debate the Tindemans Report of 1976. That report gave the spurt to some of the energies that are now going into the concept of a directly elected European Assembly. Mr. Tindemans has had his problems lately. There has recently been a General Election in Belgium and one of the issues was the decentralisation that should take place within that somewhat unhappy land with its linguistic, cultural and economic problems.
The Tindemans Report made the point that a directly elected European Parliament will be decisive in the development of the European Union. Mr. Tindemans obviously envisages some form of federated set-up at a time when within Belgium there is a growing demand for some form of federation, although at present it cannot be decided whether there will be a federation of two areas or of three areas, bearing in mind the Brussels problem. The logical conclusion is that within Europe there will subsequently be a move towards monetary union, with all its implications.
This debate about a directly elected European Assembly should not lose sight of the fact that in the Community at present we are desperately searching for solutions to the problems that are arising for industrial societies in Western Europe. These problems are arising at a time when the Third World is becoming more vocal about its place within global affairs. In all our talk about directly elected assemblies we are becoming so constitutional in our approach that we are in danger of losing sight of the duties that will fall on the politicians to devise effective policies in respect of energy, industry, trade, agriculture and fishing.
Some Members saw devolution as a diversion at a time when this country has major industrial, economic and social problems. My fear about the White Paper is that some people will place direct elections to the European Assembly too high on the list of priorities. Direct elections may occupy the minds of politicians,
284
but we must ask whether that is true of the people who sent us here. I think that they are more concerned about living standards and employment prospects within the community at large.
The Heads of Government committed themselves to using their "best endeavours". That is a very good phrase. I should like to see the best endeavours of the Heads of Government devoted to some of the more real and pressing issues facing a community of 200 million people.
One problem which we see constantly in this House is that people place too much faith on institutions per se. We talk about democracy. If democracy is to survive—indeed, to flourish—it must take account of the results.
At times I worry about the extent to which I sense that people feel that the Government are failing to provide the results. Therefore, despite the blandishments of the right hon. Member for Devon (Mr. Thorpe) about sinners, I should like a little more time for this country to digest the full implications of what is proposed, not because we should be wriggling out of our responsibilities within the Community but because we should be diverting our energies within the Community to tackling some of the problems which are on the minds of the people of this country.
7.45 p.m.
Sir John Rodgers: Whenever we discuss the European Economic Community in this House, even at Question Time, there is always a tendency on both sides of the House for hon. Members who were disappointed with the decision taken by the British people in the referendum to raise the question whether we should stay in or come out of the Common Market. That has happened again today. I regret it, because I believe that the subject of the debate is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said, the White Paper on Direct Elections to the European Assembly.
While on that subject, I think that it is important to decide what to call that body. There will be confusion if at one time we call it the European Parliament and the next time we call it the European Assembly. I understand that in the Treaty of Rome it is described as the

285
European Assembly. Therefore, I believe that we should standardise on that description.
I am in favour of direct elections. I believe that we have a moral obligation to use our best endeavours to ensure that they take place in May or June next year. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that, although the European Assembly is not a Parliament in the sense that we are a Parliament here, in that it does not elect a government and does not have power over the whole budget, it is an influential body and would have more influence and certainly more effect on the Commission, if not on the Council of Ministers, if it were directly elected. Therefore, I hope that we shall make progress towards direct elections as quickly as possible.
I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that as politicians we must take account of the feelings of the British people. They are getting fed up with being pushed around the whole time. They have had to put up with metrication, decimalisation and new currency. They have had local boundaries mixed up with the reorganisation of local government. Even proud Yorkshiremen do not know in which county they were born. That is very sad.
We are in danger, if we are not careful, of subjecting the British people to a system of voting which is totally alien to their traditions. Proportional representation has many permutations and combinations. In essence, it destroys the personal responsibility of Members of Parliament to their constituents, and I do not like that at all.
I believe that the British people want to see their Members. Therefore, I am in favour of 81 different constituencies. That will be the simplest method for the Boundary Commission to amalgamate six, or seven, or however many contiguous constituencies produce the 81 seats. The argument on both sides of the House about the list system is that it puts a tremendous amount of patronage and power into the hands of the Government of the day, or of the party bosses of aspiring Governments of tomorrow. I do not like that and I do not think that the British people will like it either.
At the risk of being called old fashioned, I believe that we must adhere
286
to the simple majority or the first-past-the-post system to which the British people are accustomed. I say that because I am convinced that within five years the Community, under the Treaty of Rome, will decide that we must have a common system of election to the European Assembly. Therefore, I do not see why we should subject the British people to a new system now which will be changed in four years. Leaving out Northern Ireland, they would have three different voting systems within three or four years. Therefore, I am in favour of 81 constituencies with the first-past-the-post system. However, I am prepared, when the Europeans have put their own house in order and agreed a system among all the nations in the Community, to move to a proportional representation system.
I should like to mention two other aspects. The first concerns the compulsory mandate for dual membership of both the European Parliament and this House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup put forward an ingenious scheme which involved having an extra 81 Members of this House who could speak, but not vote. I do not know what they will do or where they will sit. If they speak, when will ordinary Back Benchers get a chance to speak? It is difficult enough nowadays to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. The idea is ingenious, but we have had the tragic example of what happened to Peter Kirk, who did such a marvellous job in Europe. It is folly to believe that we can have dual membership of the European Parliament and of this House.
It is right that there should be contact between the people at Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels, or wherever they are to meet, and Parliament. However, I believe that that can only be in a revised Second Chamber, and that is a long way off. I do not think that dual membership is at all feasible. Such a system will kill people one after the other overstrain. I know that myself, because, as Leader of the Conservative Group at the Council of Europe, I have to spend 100 days a year in Europe. The minimum at the European Parliament is double that—200 days a year. This is putting far too great a strain on the human frame, and therefore the Government must think again about a proper

287
system of liaison. This is not the occasion to go into discussion about joint committees or whatever, but the system advocated in the White Paper is inadequate.
Lastly, I want to deal with the franchise. I raise my voice on behalf of the thousands of British subjects who have spent years—sometimes as much as 25 years—working in Europe for such bodies as the Council of Europe, NATO, the Western European Union and so on. They have shown by their feet which way they want to vote. If we can allow the franchise to be granted to soldiers serving in Germany, as we propose in the White Paper, is it not scandalous that we cannot devise a system whereby the tens of thousands of British business men now working within the ambit of the EEC and the civil servants occupied in these various European organisations who through their efforts have made the possibility of a Community become realised, can vote? Is it not wrong for them to be disfranchised? It is not beyond the wit of civil servants in the Foreign Office or the Home Office to devise a system so that they could be registered quickly and given a vote through embassies and consulates.
Sir Anthony Royle: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee recommended that the people he has just mentioned should have the franchise in direct elections to the European Parliament? In the evidence that was received during the Select Committee's consultations, from both the Home Office and the Foreign Office, indications were given that it would be perfectly easy to organise this. Therefore, I share the views of my hon. Friend that the Government should consider this.
Sir J. Rodgers: I am most grateful. That reinforces what I have said. It is now up to the Foreign Office to get a move on, because otherwise there will be a scandalous abuse of these loyal servants who have worked so hard.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will begin at half past nine, so we have about 90 minutes left for 11 hon. Members who wish to speak. They can work out their own arithmetic.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hooley: There is some irony in this debate that those who are most concerned and, indeed, opposed to the concept of direct elections are those who are most concerned about the supremacy of the power of this House. The fact that we are having the debate at all indicates that, in vital matters in Europe, this House is still supreme and rightly has the power in its hands to decide whether there shall be in this country direct elections to the Assembly and, if so, how they should take place. Therefore, there is some sense of irony in the whole argument.
There are two reasonable and logical ways of dealing with the European Assembly. We can abolish it and say that it is not necessary in the EEC concept to have any Assembly at all. Obviously, the EEC must have a secretariat and therefore the Commission must exist. Obviously, there must be a mechanism for Heads of Governments constituting the EEC to meet, and so the Council of Ministers must exist. However, it is not self-evident that the Assembly must exist. It therefore seems to be logical that one should either get rid of it—and I should be happy about that, although it is not the proposition before us now—or, alternatively, it can be elected.
I, like many members of my party, have a great dislike of nominated bodies, whether they are nominated to run the local health service, or gas board, or nominated for some rôle within the Common Market. Nomination means patronage and, generally speaking, arbitrary selection. Elections, however faulty the system or inadequate the means, ultimately put some power, through the ballot box, into the hands of those electing the representatives concerned.
Therefore, the sensible alternatives in relation to the Assembly are to get rid of it or to elect it. Since there is no proposition to get rid of it and it seems unlikely that such a proposition will emerge over the next decade or so, it ought to be elected. However, I am bound to say that I share the views of those who do not regard this as an urgent and pressing matter. I do not see why there should be some particular magic about the year 1978 and I certainly agree with the

289
view put forward about the admission of the new members—Spain, Portugal and Greece. That is far more urgent and important than the matter of elections to the Assembly.
Indeed, it is a bit odd in a way that the Europeans should be pressing for an elected Assembly before important decisions have been taken about expanding the Community and drawing in Mediterranean members. I should much prefer the matter of the admission of democratic Spain, Portugal and Greece to have been settled before we started tinkering around with direct elections to the Assembly. That point will certainly weigh in my mind when casting a vote in the House on direct elections.
There has been a great deal of bandying of semantics regarding federalism and non-federalism and so on. The development of the EEC will be determined by the economic and political power of its members and the way that they choose to exercise it and by the impact of international events and the use of international bodies as problems of relationships grow in the world at large. I regard the institutions of the IMF, the World Bank, the North-South dialogue and the whole relationship between the developed world and the Third World as infinitely more important than fiddling questions about elections to the Assembly.
I do not regard direct elections as a fundamental matter for the development of the EEC. It is the economic power of Germany, the possible political transformations within France and Italy that we may see during the next two to five years, and our own economic problems in the world and in Europe that will determine the structure and development of the Community. Direct elections to a European Assembly are a minor matter compared with these other forces.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made an interesting aside when he pointed out that one of the most significant developments in the Community has been the more frequent meetings of not only Ministers but Heads of Governments. In other words, it has become clear that the important decisions within the Community will gravitate increasingly into the hands of those who are directly directing the destinies of the member States. The reputation of the
290
Commission will undoubtedly decline in future years, partly on account of its own absurd behaviour in certain fields.
I do not regard this as a fundamental constitutional argument. It is a stage of development of the Community, but I am not sure that it is of the greatest importance. I believe that this House will retain the control of those issues that it clearly has at present and will also retain control in any other matter that the nation considers to be vital. I am not persuaded that direct elections will undermine the authority of this House or derogate from it.
I share the view of those who regard the dual mandate as a nonsense. I have always believed that being an hon. Member is a full-time job and I do not agree with those who believe that they can pursue professions outside. There is plenty to do here and if our procedures were modernised, reformed and made more efficient, we could do even more.
It is wrong to suggest that an individual could fulfil a rôle as an active and effective Member of this House and of an Assembly on the Continent. It may be going too far to prohibit such an arrangement, but I should strongly discourage it and should certainly oppose the absurd suggestion that such an arrangement ought to be mandatory.
I am sorry that opinion in the House and the country is so rigidly conservative on the question of technique of election. A great opportunity was missed in the reform of local government for some experiments for systems of proportional representation. There has been an exception in Northern Ireland, but generally we have become a bit mesmerised with our obsession with the wonders and brilliance of the first-past-the-post system and excessively concerned about the dangers of departing from this principle.
Some system of proportional representation would be essential for elections to the European Assembly if we are to avoid grotesquely distorted results in each of the 81 constituencies. I am impressed by the argument in the White Paper which says about the single transferable vote system:
"This system gives maximum influence to the elector, who is able to express a preference between the different candidates of the

291
Party of his choice as well as between the candidates of other Parties."
I am not an expert on systems of proportional representation but I understand that this system does away with what I dislike about the lists system and would give us an opportunity to produce a reasonably fair balance of representation in the Assembly between the parties and would avoid the grotesque distortions that the first-past-the-post system would produce. I hope that when this exercise takes place we shall have an experiment along these lines.
I am attracted, perhaps a little naively or academically, by what would be a unique political experiment. I know of no other assembly where the members have been directly elected across international boundaries. There may have been such a system in ancient Greece or Rome, but I do not know of it.
I am not saying that such a body will work—it will be a weird conglomeration of 39 parties, 12 nationalities and 17 languages—but in terms of the evolution of the political development of mankind it is an experiment that should command the assent of those who are interested in different forms of international development and co-operation.
I know that this is a highly naive simplistic and un-party approach which is probably unworthy of a practising politician, but I find it intellectually fascinating and I shall be interested to see in 20 years' time how or if it has worked.
8.6 p.m.
Mr. George Reid: During the debate, some hon. Members have uttered, almost audibly, sighs of relief that direct elections, at least for the next month or so, will displace devolution as the main subject of discussion in the Chamber and the national Press. I think that they are mistaken. They fail to understand that there is a direct connection between the two and that the future links of the United Kingdom with the European Communities will be a major determinant of where Scotland is going constitutionally.
Given the United Kingdom's accession to the Communities, the great issues of centralisation, decentralisation, growth at the centre in Europe and corresponding balancing growth at the periphery are too large and complex to be decided at West-
292
minister alone. Lord Kilbrandon appreciates this. Despite his massive Royal Commission Report, he is now on the record as saying something different. He sees a new relationship emerging between Edinburgh and Brussels, with the London link gradually withering away.
The trouble is that the "ultras" in this House do not recognise that reality. As with the Scotland and Wales Bill, les extrèmes setouchent. The hardliners of the Labour Left have joined with the imperialists of the Tory Right in defence of what the SNP regards as the increasingly tattered remnants of British sovereignty.
The arguments they use against the Communities are the obverse of those used against Scotland in the devolution debate. The people who are frightened of a further diminution of sovereignty within a larger European whole are simultaneously frightened of conceding a drop of self-government to the people of Scotland or parity with Denmark for the people of Scotland within the Communities.
If the referendum result in England was the final formal abdication of sovereignty, it led in Scotland to a reawakening of a possible rôle for our country as a small North-European State in our own right.
The SNP will contest direct elections with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has said, vigour and determination. She gave two reasons. First, we are conscious of the undemocratic nature of the Community processes and of remoteness and bureaucracy. We believe that direct elections are an assertion of faith in the democratic process.
Secondly, my hon. Friend said that the SNP is prepared to fight anywhere at any time for the people of Scotland and we welcome the opportunity of a new forum within the Communities to press our case for self-government for Scotland.
That does not mean that the SNP has gone overboard about the Common Market. We are only too well aware of the adverse effect of Brussels, decisions on our fishermen, farmers and housewives, but we recognise that without an independent Scotland at the top table of the Communities, with a Scottish Commissioner, there is little we can do about that

293
—as yet—but perhaps that day too is coming.
We shall fight the direct elections in the same spirit as we fight the elections for Westminster, which we are going to leave, and the Scottish regions, which we shall dismantle. We believe that only the people of Scotland can decide our ultimate relationship with the Communities in a referendum at the time of independence when they will be offered two models—the Norwegian model of associateship or the Danish model of membership of the Community. At the end of the day the only people who will decide that are the sovereign people of Scotland at home.
In terms of the representation which Scotland is promised by the Government I have to state now that eight seats are totally unsatisfactory. The offer of eight seats, when Denmark is getting 16, is an insult to one of the oldest nations within the European communities. Luxembourg, with half the population of our capital city, Edinburgh, is to get six seats. Southern Ireland, with 2 million fewer people than Scotland, is to get 15 seats, and Denmark, with almost the same population as Scotland, is to get 16 seats.
It becomes even more noticeably adverse for Scots interests when one looks at the representation per Member within the European Assembly. One Scots MEP will represent 470,000 constituents. One Luxembourg MEP will represent 60,000. One Irish Republic MEP will represent 205,000. One Denmark MEP will represent 315,000.
I believe that my reservations are shared by hon. Members from Wales and Northern Ireland. It is perfectly obvious that the only way in which Scotland will get equity within the European Communities is by the restitution of full national sovereignty to the Scottish people.
This anger is not unique to the SNP. As a member of the Select Committee on direct elections, I was impressed by the general Scots consensus against only eight seats being awarded to our people. That consensus represented farmers, academics and politicians of other parties. The Labour Committee for Europe said:
"This gross disparity can only lead to a strong bias against individual communities in areas such as Scotland."
294
I happen to believe that that is perfectly true. If one looks at the evidence submitted by an all-party body, such as Scotland in Europe, it says:
"The view is very strongly held in all sections of the Scottish electorate that some way must be found of giving Scotland sufficient seats in the European Parliament to bring it into some sort of balance with a country like Denmark which has a similar size of population."
If not:
"… the question of Scottish seats will rumble on as a political issue for years and years."
Politicians from all parties in Scotland recognise the truth of that remark.
I do not believe that I am engaging in any special pleading. The SNP evidence to the Select Committee was based on equity throughout the European Community. I would remind hon. Members that the evidence put forward took careful note of the difficulties of ensuring adequate representation for small distinctive countries such as Scotland, as against the regions in Europe and of the big four The SNP proposed a simple formula that for elections to the European Parliament: every existing member State should have three seats and, thereafter, there should be one seat for every 650,000 voters. That would have produced something like parity throughout the Community between Denmark, the English regions and Scotland. We were prepared to go further if necessary and to allow six seats for every existing Member and 700,000 votes for every MEP. That was firmly ruled out.
The Government argued that special arrangements ought to be made for distinctive small nations. Gaston Thorn in Luxembourg ought to be accommodated. Six Members were necessary for Luxembourg because Luxembourg would otherwise not have representation for Luxembourg's six parties. If Luxembourg has to have six seats, Southern Ireland 15 and Denmark 16, there are two obvious lessons from that. First, the only way in which Scotland will get equity within the European Community is by the restitution of full self-government to the Scottish people. Secondly, if the United Kingdom Government are willing to make special arrangements for small distinctive nations within the European Communities through a special arrangement for them, it is high time that there was a

295
simultaneous arrangement or special deal for the people of Scotland.
Within the European Communities, the Scots nation is a unique case. Traditionally in this House there has been about 11 per cent. weighting for Scotland, and for good reasons. The first good reason is that we came into this House as equal partners in the United Kingdom. Secondly, we have at present some 34 per cent. of the geographical land area of the United Kingdom. If we consider the eight MPs from the North-West of England, and consider the land area, we find that the land area in the North-West is ten times smaller than the land area of Scotland. We have eight Members of Parliament for 29,000 square miles.
Mr. Roper: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the population of the North-West is greater than that of Scotland?
Mr. Reid: According to the figures given by the Labour Committee for Europe, there are about 200,000 voters difference. The areas are broadly comparable in population size.
There are, however, certain other good reasons that I should like to advance to the Treasury Bench for Scotland getting parity with Denmark. We are one of the oldest nations in Europe in our own right. We have 1,000 years of history behind us. Second, we are unique in having our own distinctive legal and administrative system based on continental models. Third, we are situated on the northernmost periphery of the European Communities. Fourth, we have energy and marine resources which the European Communities covet in their own right. Fifth, we have our own regional diversity and an extremely scattered population. Lastly, we have in Scotland a position of utmost strategic importance to the Western world. All of these are good reasons for a higher weighting of seats for Scotland.
If the Government will not concede that, let them examine what one or two of their European colleagues are doing. I understand that the Danes have come to a special arrangement which will allow one Member of the European Parliament after direct elections to represent Greenland. At the last count Greenland had
296
a population of about 40,000. In Italy, I understand that several regional lists are being produced to ensure MEP representation for such areas as the South Tyrol and Sardinia. In the South of Ireland Republic there is a weighting for areas such as Gaeltacht. It is obvious that there are already plans within the European communities for weighting towards areas of special regional or national identity. Why not on Scotland?
Lastly, I come to the "how and when" of direct elections. The SNP believes that they should be held within the same period of three or four days throughout the EEC, come May or June of next year, with elections in this country being held on the last convenient week day before the Sunday on which most of the European countries will poll. Of course, we should keep elections to Europe distinct from General Elections or from regional and district elections and from the Scottish Assembly elections.
With regard to the method of elections to the European Parliament, we find ourselves—as other speakers from other parties have indicated—on less sure ground. There are two main reasons. The first is simply the tight time scale which the Boundary Commissions would face in redrawing the constituencies between now and May or June of next year. Again, on the Select Committee, one heard quite distinctive evidence that the normal inquiry procedures would have to be severely curtailed to allow elections to take place at that time.
The second difficulty results from the fact that there will be strenuous efforts throughout the European Communities to have some uniform method of voting by the time of the second elections in 1983. I wonder whether it is right to have two voting changes within the United Kingdom during that period especially as direct elections themselves are a novel addition to the method of electing representation in this country.
Within the SNP we think there is value in electorates identifying with "their" MEP. We think that ideally seats should cover existing geographic and political identities rather than arbitrarily move conjoined Westminster constituencies together. We still reserve our position about the actual form of elections, but we are not too happy about the list system. We do not like power being

297
handed over from the people to the apparatchiks or party functionaries.
We believe that there should be some form of PR, because clearly it would be ludicrous in a new European Parliament to have, as may be possible with the first-past-the-post system, the Liberal Party getting 4 million to 5 million votes with no representation whatsoever. We suggest that the Government might have a look at an EEC elections Bill introduced in another place by Lord O'Hagan in May 1974. It was based fairly on individual constituencies with MEPs elected by the alternative vote. We see that as simply one contribution to this debate.
In terms of the dual mandate we think that there should be a transitional period during which the mandate is neither compulsory nor forbidden, but, frankly, we think that at the end of the day, given the volume of work in this House and the plethora of work in plenary and committee sessions in Luxembourg and Strasbourg, the normal constraints of health and of constituency and party pressure will ensure that by the second elections to the European Parliament MEPs will have to decide one way or the other.
We are concerned, though, about links with this country. We think it ludicrous that contacts and cross-fertilisation should be through MEPs having membership of the House of Lords. It is absolutely ridiculous that British Members of the European Parliament should have to become peers in order to go to Strasbourg. There is obviously some sense in a Joint Westminster-MEP Standing Committee. The still promised Scottish Assembly does however afford us a unique opportunity for Scottish cross-fertilisation, for the good reason that the European dimension will be a totally inescapable part of the work of the Scottish Assembly Committees from the start.
Given the growing stream of regulations from Brussels on such subjects as health, education, transport, social policy and so on, it would be right and proper that Members of the European Parliament should have temporary membership of the Scottish Assembly. They would have the ability to initiate debates and to speak, but not, of course, to vote. Again, we throw that out as a contribution to today's proceedings.
298
Finally, the Foreign Secretary, in introducing the debate referred to the continuance of what he called "national interest and national perceptions". It is a pity that he forgot the national interest of Scotland and the national perception of the Scots people. We welcome the opportunity of a wider forum in which to plead our case for self-government and the opportunity to talk oil and fish to the people of Europe. We think that there may just be a chance, as in the Irish Republic, to counterbalance Scotland's traditional dependence on London through the European Community. But at the end of the day only the Scots people are sovereign—not this House. It will be up to the people of Scotland to decide for themselves their own future relations with the European Communities in the circumstances obtaining at independence.
I find it encouraging that the last Scottish Commissioner, Lord Thomson, gave his first interview after demitting office to a Scottish newspaper, the Daily Record, and had this to say, while stressing his personal preferences, as an ex-member of the Labour Party, for the continuation of Scotland as a member of the British unitary State:
"Europe would welcome an independent Scotland."
8.23 p.m.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) has stated again the stark choice that will face the Scottish people at the next General Election—and we should be grateful to him. It is whether, in his words, they wish to be a small northern State on the periphery of Europe or to remain part of a major European country. I have no doubt that the Scots will vote overwhelmingly to remain British at the next General Election and any election thereafter.
Until the beginning of last month I was a member of the delegation to the European Assembly. It was an assignment that I found interesting. Some cynics may say that I even found it rewarding. But at least I got some first-hand experience of the workings of that Assembly. I am aware, of course, of the limitations on the powers and influence of the Assembly, but I have no doubt of the need to exercise some form of parliamentary control over the activities of the Council and of the Commission.

299
The structure of the Community requires this to be done on a centralised basis. It would be quite impossible for this control to be exercised to any extent by the nine separate Parliaments of the member States, least of all by this overworked and disorganised House of Commons. Therefore, I have been fascinated by the arguments of some Labour Members about whether there should be direct elections.
It is hardly very wise to dismiss the European Assembly as totally unimportant just because the occasional political excitements that exist at Westminster do not come to the fore at Strasbourg, or because the Press in this country tends to ignore, for the present at least, the business that takes place at Strasbourg. However, much as some hon. Members may dislike Britain being part of the Community, surely they would not dispute the fact that the Council and the Commission both have a great deal of influence over the affairs of the British people. I hope that they are not suggesting that we should curtail our influence over the affairs of the Community itself. One way to do that would be to withdraw completely from the whole argument and the participation in direct elections.
I think that arguments that the Assembly has little power and even less influence could be extended to at least some of our local authorities in Britain, yet I do not believe that any hon. Members are suggesting that there should be no direct elections for local authorities. On the contrary, the House is looking forward to the results of next month's local authority elections in Britain, particularly Opposition Members. It may be that the burdens of office have made Labour Members a little resentful of local elections, by-elections or even General Elections, but that is not so on the Opposition side of the House.
However, those who oppose direct elections should say what they would do about the present situation—whether they would argue to maintain nominated Members there, or whether they would go for something like the French system of substitution. I hope that they would agree that the present situation cannot continue and that there is a need for some change and a fresh approach.
Mr. John Stokes: I am one of the few who have always been strong supporters of the EEC but who have grave reservations about now, immediately, going into direct elections. My hon. Friend asked what we would do. I think that we should leave things as they are and have nominated Members.
Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful for that intervention, but it does not answer the question, because that would mean that we should continue with the dual mandate. I should have thought it obvious that Members trying to do a job in both places are severely strained physically—as the sad events of last weekend have shown. Therefore, those who oppose the idea of direct elections must come up with something better than merely continuing with things as they are, but there must be some fresh approach on their side if they want to be taken seriously in the debate. I say that with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend.
I turn to the allocation of seats. This seems, again, to be yet another Scottish debate. I make no apology for that, because the argument requires us to consider how the seats were allocated among the member States. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire said, we know that they were allocated on a totally arbitrary basis. The Select Committee, of which I was a member, refused my advice on the matter and recommended that the seats within the United Kingdom should be allocated quite differently from the way in which they were allocated among the member States. In other words, it said that they should be allocated on a strict population basis.
I fail to see the logic in that. The arguments that one can put forward are fairly damaging, certainly if the Government fail to consider the discrepancies that would exist between Denmark and Scotland. This has been said many times, but it must be said again. With similar populations, there would be 16 seats for Denmark and eight for Scotland. There would be 15 for Ireland but only four for Wales, both countries having similar populations.
Frankly, I do not see how Scotland and Wales can be represented in the European Assembly with those numbers. I sympathise with English Members who say

301
"You will be robbing us again", but the fact is that in the allocation among the member States the Government are a party to what I consider to have been a rotten deal.
I hope that the Government try to take into account the problem of the allocation of seats within the United Kingdom, and that they do not follow the lines of the Select Committee, with which I disagree. If they do I hope that they will reveal some ideas on the matter other than those based on the Select Committee. The needs of smaller States have been allowed for generously but the constituent parts of the major countries have not.
The reasons for my objection to eight seats for Scotland and four seats for Wales are outlined in Early-Day Motion No. 277. It is not only that constituencies would be so physically large as to be unmanageable. Scotland takes up more than one-third of the United Kingdom's land area and Wales takes up about 10 per cent., and it is difficult to imagine how a Member of Parliament would get round his constituency in Scotland within a reasonable time.
My objection is more important than the size of the constituency or of the numbers game itself. The powers and influence of the European Assembly will grow—as they must with direct elections—and people in Scotland and Wales, and perhaps Nothern Ireland, will recognise the influence moving towards Europe. They will see the disadvantages of representation by sheer numbers that they are enjoying compared with the smaller member States. That would be dangerous for the integrity and unity of the United Kingdom.
Representation in the Community requires a greater degree of specialisation from its elected members than is required at Westminster. That specialisation will not be provided if there are eight seats for Scotland and four for Wales. For example, Scotland has two main treaty industries—steel and coal—and a large manufacturing base for heavy engineering and electronics. Outside California, Scotland has the largest electronics industry in proportion to its population. Scotland also has large agricultural and fishing industries, both of which are important within the Community. Scotland also has North Sea oil.
302
How can those industries and specialisations be represented adequately in Europe with the number of Members recommended in the White Paper? In addition to those industrial interests and the need for representation, there is the standard Scottish argument and the necessity of having a lawyer to represent us in Europe. We have already discovered the need for at least one lawyer in the British delegation. The position would be the same for Scotland, because it has its own legal, local government and education systems.
I hope that hon. Members will not allow the devolution back-lash to colour their consideration of the matter. The same is true for Wales. Scottish representation at Westminster and in Europe is more important for the development of Scotland and the well-being of the Scottish people than an Assembly at Edinburgh. It is more important that the Scottish argument be heard at Westminster, Brussels and Strasbourg than it is for Scots in Edinburgh to argue with Scots. Scotland should have a minimum of 10 seats and preferably 12. Wales should have a minimum of five seats.
I turn to the voting system. At Westminster we have a fixation with individual constituencies and the first-past-the-post system. That inhibits our ability to appreciate the major differences in the purposes and representation of the European Assembly on the one hand and the work that we do at Westminster on the other. A higher degree of specialisation is required of MPs in Europe than at Westminster. Specialisation has a larger part to play in Europe than in the normal British system.
That is why I prefer to see PR and the regional list system. The advantage is that there would be a more formal liaison between, for example, the members of the Labour Party at Westminster and members of the Labour Party in Europe. Similarly, that applies to my own party. With the votes that are available to the European Parliament and with the organisations that directly elected European Members would be able to create in the constituencies, if they do not have a close link through the party and constituency with those places, they could easily drift apart and do the wrong thing in a way damaging to the best interests

303
of Britain, Europe, the Government of Britain, this Parliament and this House.
My first priority, as with other hon. Members, is to see that Britain meets the target date of May or June 1978 for direct elections. Above all, I want to see the United Kingdom make a more positive contribution to the Community and its institutions. I also want to see the maintenance of the United Kingdom and its integrity. I do not want to see Britain breaking up.
We have heard from the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire how the Scottish National Party sees this as yet another opportunity to break up Britain. If we do not look at the matter of representation and play a constructive part in Europe as a whole extend parts of it and try to determine how best to be represented in Europe, we shall be contributing to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
8.37 p.m.
Mr. John Roper: In the interests of time, I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) will excuse me if I do not follow him into all the Scottish matters he raised. I had a great deal more sympathy for the Scots about the problem of allocation of the number of seats and the sizes of constituencies until I met the single United States Congress man who represents the whole of the state of Alaska into which we could fit the United Kingdom twice, if not three times.
Some hon. Members are suggesting that the issue of direct elections is coming up for the first time. Some hon. Members are even suggesting that it was not mentioned during the referendum campaign. I therefore decided that it would be useful to check what was said during the campaign and to check my own notes. I found that I had made it quite clear that I hoped that as soon as possible we could move from the present unsatisfactory arrangement of an indirectly appointed European Assembly to a directly elected one. Following this debate I hope that we shall be able to have early progress to fulfil that commitment.
We do not know where that will lead us. It may be, as some hon. Members
304
have suggested, a step towards a federal or confederal Europe, or merely a step towards making the Community a more efficiently run organisation than the present relative allocation of powers between the member countries and the Community as a whole. We do not know, and the decision to have direct elections does not in any way pre-empt, future decisions about the development of the Community as a whole.
It is important that we have an early decision whether to have direct elections. It is important that the political parties of this country can go head with their preparations for the direct elections. It is important that the uncertainty which exists at home and abroad about direct elections should be removed. My right hon. Friends would have much more difficulty in obtaining what they want in the interests of Britain in the Council of Ministers if we were to block the passage of legislation on direct elections and thereby block their introduction in the eight member States of the Community in May or June of next year.
I should like to comment on the issues raised by the Government in the White Paper. Along with every other hon. Member who has spoken, with the one exception of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), I believe that the continuation or introduction of a compulsory dual mandate would be a great mistake. Just as we have recently seen, most tragically, it would create an enormous burden on Members. It also puts restrictions on the choice of Members. I do not believe that it will be possible, or has been possible, for Members with marginal seats—perhaps there are more of these at the moment—to be appointed from this House to serve also in Strasbourg.
It is also worth thinking about what happens when one increases the size of the British representation to 81 Members in the European Parliament. Presumably we shall continue to appoint 36 Members to the Council of Europe—a total of 117 Members of Parliament, perhaps 10 or 11 of them from the other place. Thus, 25 per cent. of the non-ministerial Members of this House would, for a significant part of the parliamentary year, be away in a Continental Assembly. That is an impossibility for the House of Commons.

305
It is particularly important to realise that if the other members of the Community directly elect their Members and operate the optional dual mandate, it will become a more hardworking Assembly. At the moment, its work takes 200 days—perhaps two to two-and-a-half weeks in every parliamentary month. After direct elections, I guess that it will take three to three-and-a-half weeks a month and that it will become increasingly difficult for Members here also to serve in the Parliament in Strasbourg or Luxembourg. Some have suggested a system of proxies, but I think that that would create more constitutional harm for this House than the alternatives.
My initial bias in the argument about the electoral system was that the traditional system of first-past-the-post should be followed. However, the arguments about the different nature of the Assembly and the fact that it is not responsible for creating or supporting an Executive, as we are here, suggests that it might be proper to differentiate between this Parliament and that Assembly in the forms of election. There is a practical problem also, in that, because we are now only about 12 months away from the date of elections, it will be almost certainly impossible in time to set up the arrangements for 81 constituencies.
We must therefore consider carefully some kind of proportional system. The interests of direct elections are such that I would rather have an unsatisfactory system, if it can be arranged in time, than no direct elections at all. It appears that the Government, fortunately, have ruled out a national list. Presumably we could not have a United Kingdom list. We should have to have four lists, for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is therefore appropriate to consider what system of regional lists we should have.
The White Paper raises the question whether we should operate on the existing standard English regions or have sub-regions.
Mr. Heffer: Would my hon. Friend explain who would draw up the lists, how Members would get on them, who would vet them and who would decide, once the people had voted, who was elected? I think that we understand why
306
my hon. Friend is against a national list—because people like me would be drawing it up. Equally, I should be against a regional list which some other people would draw up.
Mr. Roper: There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the systems and their effect upon those who draw up the lists, so I shall return to that point. I was however dealing with the question whether a regional system should be based on standard English regions. The White Paper suggests as a possible standard region the South-East excluding London—which would look rather like a doughnut, with Greater London being the missing centre. The regions would have 14 Members and might be too big. The Government should consider having sub-regions, so that no region had more than perhaps eight or nine Members.
I turn now to the system of election and the important question of the list, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). It is extremely important to point out that neither the single transferable vote nor the system laid down in Annex B of the White Paper gives any particular power to the party machines. Although all candidates are selected, the relevant order in which they are chosen is the decision of the electorate, both under the single transferable vote and under the list system suggested in Annex B.
Although there would be some choice over those who go on the list, the ranking on the list would be choice of the electorate rather than of the party machine. Both of these systems have considerable advantages over a system in which the names of those who go on the list and the ranking among those names is decided by a party machine, irrespective of what its views might be.
The arguments between the two systems in the White Paper, which I shall call the Annex B system and the single transferable vote system, seem to be finely balanced. The single transferable vote is logically fairer and is an innovation with which we could live. It was understood fairly quickly in Northern Ireland. However, as was pointed out earlier, there is an extremely serious counting problem.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what calculations have been done on this

307
problem. Let us take the South-East area, excluding the Greater London region, where we might have perhaps 4 million or 5 million votes cast and 14 seats. There would be as many as 50 candidates if there were, for example, three candidates in each of the 14 seats as well as candidates from other parties. Has the Home Office estimated how long it would take, if there had to be 10 rounds of counting for 50 candidates with 5 million votes cast, in order to make sure that each of the 14 seats was filled?
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law), with his experience of the length of some of the elections in Northern Ireland, where there were far smaller areas and far smaller numbers of votes, will realise that this is an extremely complex problem. We are talking of something that would last for several days, if not weeks, before the result was known. This is a serious disadvantage, on which we need more factual information before the House gives its support.
On the other hand, I suspect that the Annex B scheme comes very close to the Finnish option described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps), with one exception. I think that my hon. Friend referred to voters having the option not of selecting between the candidates of the party of their choice but of voting just for the party and allowing the selection between candidates to be left to voters who wish to make the choice. That is a sophistication which is not in the Government's scheme, and which may or may not be desirable. If there is a star candidate on the list, the choice of other candidates may be determined by a small minority of voters. Has my hon. Friend the Minister considered combining some of the advantages of the single transferable vote system and of the list system by enabling voters to place in order the candidates of the party of their choice, so they will decide which party they wish to vote for and then list in order the candidates of that party? That would reduce considerably the amount of time necessary for counting. But it was not in the White Paper. On balance, I think that the system in Annex B, the regional list, is probably preferable to the single transferable vote, particularly because of the problem of counting.
308
Finally, I wish to refer to two other matters mentioned in the White Paper. The first is the question of finance for the elections. This is a serious matter for all political parties. The prospect of having to fight three or four rounds of elections in a particular year is a serious problem. The Government say that they have an open mind on this matter and are still examining proposals in the light of the considerations of the Houghton Committee Report. It would be an advantage to the House if the Government could relatively soon come forward with some news about that.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) raised the question of the extension of the franchise. In the White Paper the Government suggest that this should be referred to a Speaker's Conference. Does that mean there can be no extension of the franchise to those living overseas and working in international organisations before the first round of direct elections? It would be useful to have some clarification of that.
My right hon. Friends will be considering the results of this debate in the very near future. I hope that after that consideration they will be able to bring a Bill before the House which we can carry. I believe that they should seriously consider bringing forward at the same time a timetable motion to cover the progress of the Bill through the House. That is a factor of considerable importance if we are to get the legislation through and if we are to have direct elections in May or June 1978.
Mr. Heffer: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to one matter which I think he has entirely overlooked? The Labour Party is firmly on record against direct elections. Will he bear that in mind?
Mr. Roper: My hon. Friend knows very well that I am not unaware of that fact. I have elsewhere suggested that it would be useful if the Labour Party was able to hold a further special conference in order to consider its position on direct elections. I believe, however, that if we are to get direct elections in May or June 1978 it is important that my right hon. Friends seriously consider introducing, at the same time as they bring the Bill forward, a timetable motion to cover its progress through the House.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. George Gardiner: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) in speaking in a debate on European affairs. This is the second time that I have done so. I substantially agree with the earliest portion of his remarks, but I think that his recitation of the difficulties and complexities of the various PR systems add up to a pretty sound argument for not adopting them.
I do not propose to treat this debate as one on the principle of direct elections to the European Parliament. For me that issue was settled long ago. We are debating a White Paper with green edges which was substantially devoted to the question of the electoral system we are to follow, and it is to that matter that I should like to address my remarks.
I speak as one who has always been a strong supporter of Britain's membership of the EEC and of the principle of direct elections to a European Parliament. As such, I greatly regret the turmoil which has been injected into our discussion of this matter by the sudden proposal to introduce into our electoral system mechanisms which have never been employed before in the United Kingdom, except in one constituent part of it, and there with dubious success.
Last summer we all knew what needed to be done to meet this objective. We had before us a Select Committee report. I believe that at that stage there was a substantial consensus across the House in favour of the proposals put forward by the Select Committee. I warn the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary that by confusing the issue of direct elections with arguments on the merits or otherwise of PR they are doing grave harm to that consensus, which I believe still basically exists in this House.
The Prime Minister has promised a free vote on this matter: fair enough. But it must be a genuine free vote on the issue of the electoral system, separate from and in advance of the Bill. Whichever way such a vote went, I would accept it when it came to the Bill itself. But if, without that prior endorsement of proportional representation by the House, the Government present the issue in the context of the Bill, already drafted and approved by Ministers, they are asking for trouble. That would not be
310
a genuinely open and free vote on this issue.
I am opposed to rushing into proportional representation, whether it be a single transferable vote, or national or regional lists, for a number of reasons, and I do not have time to go through all of them. First, I am concerned about the implications for the rest of our electoral system.
I know that it has been said that there is no necessary connection between PR for European elections and the electoral system for Westminster. Certainly I accept that we are looking at very different bodies and that the European Assembly does not have the responsibility of producing from within itself an Executive. However, I would find the arguments far more credible if their strongest advocates were not the very same people who want PR for Westminster elections as well.
There is a highly-organised pressure campaign producing glossy literature and financed by big business men with more money than political sense who are deluded into thinking that PR will produce a more stable Government and will dish the left wing of the Labour Party. These campaigners see PR for the European elections as the first step towards gaining PR at Westminster—and I do not blame them. Otherwise, why would they spend so much money promoting their campaign? As for the Liberals—and they have deserted the Chamber altogether—we all know that their motives in advocating PR are blatantly obvious.
There are some arguments in favour of the different PR systems. Every electoral system has certain advantages and certain drawbacks. If the object of the system is to secure a perfectly fair reflection of the views and votes cast in an election, the PR system is the one to go for. But the right way to approach this is the way that was proposed for Westminster elections. The issue should be examined and considered most exhaustively by a Speaker's Conference. The advantage and merit of this would be that we should hear a number of arguments in favour of single Member representation. These arguments are not being pressed with the same vigour as those for PR by this pressure campaign.

311
The British parliamentary system is substantially based on single-Member representation. Any PR system worthy of its name involves some form of multi-Member seats, and vastly larger electoral areas than those to which we are accustomed in this country. The advocates of PR frequently disguise this fact.
We are told that opinion polls have been conducted which it is claimed, suggest that a majority of the British people want PR in this country. The sort of question that is put in such an opinion poll is "Do you think that the strength of the parties should be fairly represented at Westminster?" Given such a question, most people would agree that given an ideal world, they should be. What such polls never ask is whether the elector desires to see the end of his constituency and of a Member of Parliament who represents that constituency and whether he wants to be part of a vastly larger electoral area of perhaps several millions represented by a whole series of Members of Parliament—in whichever Parliament we are talking about.
I claim that there is far more virtue in single-Member representation of defined constituencies than all the leaders in The Times would suggest. First, this system provides the most direct possible contact between the voters and a Parliament, of whatever kind of Parliament we are speaking.
Secondly, it is the system which has supported the two oldest surviving democracies in the world, namely, Great Britain and the United States. I believe that the argument in favour of single-Member representation of understandable, manageable and defined areas is as powerful in regard to representation at Strasbourg as it is in Westminster.
Those of us who have campaigned in favour of direct elections to the European Parliament, as I have, have always put the matter in these terms—namely, that we promised the electors their own representative in the European Parliament. If we go for one of the proportional representation systems discussed in this debate and outlined in the White Paper, we shall snatch away from the voters in this country that which we have consistently promised them. As a committed supporter of British membership of the EEC,
312
I believe that to import an alien system of this kind would be the worst possible way to introduce into Britain the concept of direct elections to the European Parliament. Such a move would do grave damage to the European cause.
In opening the debate this afternoon the Foreign Secretary said that it was the Government's desire that there should not be a low poll at these elections. I am sure that we would all agree, but equally I am sure that the way to guarantee a low poll would be to hold those elections on a PR system, which would mean that the electors would end up far more remote from those representing them than anything they have been used to in this country.
I said before, and I say again, that I have always been a strong supporter of British membership of the EEC. But there are many pro-Europeans such as myself, who, if presented with a Bill embodying a voting system that would itself damage popular support for Europe and that would be introducing a major change to the constitutional practice of this country without the fullest discussion and investigation first, could conclude that the price we were being asked to pay to meet the May-June 1978 deadline was too high.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I want to confine my remarks to the main question we are debating today, namely how members of the European Parliament should be elected, whether by the first-past-the-post system or by some form of proportional representation. That is the essence of this debate, it is the burden of the White Paper, and I wish to keep strictly to that argument.
We are offered four options in the White Paper, and I wish to comment briefly on each. First, there is the simple majority, or first-past-the-post system, which is intimately familiar. It has the great advantage of being well known, everybody understands how it works, and everybody accepts the result of elections conducted under that system. It is related closely and intimately to the concept of the constituency, and each Member elected has a special allegiance to his own constituents and to his own local political power base.

313
As the White Paper points out, the advantage of the single-Member constituency is that the elector votes for a particular candidate, with the clear knowledge that the candidate who obtains the most votes will be elected as his Member. I agree with the White Paper that this well-known system should not be changed or curtailed except after the most careful consideration of the present and future implications of such a step.
The problem that the House faces in considering this matter is one of time. We face that problem because the Government have taken so long to produce the White Paper and the Bill to enable direct elections to the European Assembly. As a result, we are now short of time and, consequently, short of the ability to give the most careful consideration to the future implications of change from the first-past-the-post system. That in a nutshell is the problem that the House faces.
We are being urged by some to consider adopting the system of proportional representation for a variety of reasons, of which one is that such a system could be adopted in time for the European direct elections when they take place in the spring of 1978. If we are to change our system of election for the European Assembly, it would be much better to make any change only after due consideration has been given to the matter and after a wide body of public opinion has been consulted. However, I shall give my views on the list system that is used by the majority of our European partners.
The problem that we face is that there are several different types of list system. If we were now to adopt the regional list system, which has been widely referred to today, there is no guarantee that we should not have to change it again in accordance with the Treaty of Rome when elections on a common basis are adopted for the whole Community. My objections to the list system are that it breaks down the constituency link and places too much power in the hands of the political parties, to the detriment of the electorate, especially small minority groups within the electorate. It also makes it difficult and expensive for an independent group to field the list of candidates that would be involved in large regions.
314
If we are considering the list systems, my preference is for the German system. That is because it has the great advantage of being a mixed system and retains the constituency link. The German system works by having one constituency Member for each constituency plus an equal number of Members who are elected on a list. If we are obliged to have a list system for our first elections, it is possible that something on the German model might be more acceptable. It would cut down the work of the Boundary Commission, which would consider the delineation of only 40-odd constituencies. It would enable them to be topped up by a balance of 40 or so to make up the total list.
These are all complicated considerations. We need sufficient time to consider them and to consider each list system if we are to have the one that is best for our country.
We all know about the advantages and disadvantages of the single transferable vote. I shall say not much about it tonight, except that I believe that in the Republic of Ireland one or two occasions there has been an attempt to change from that system to a first-past-the-post system.
Mr. Thorpe: And it has been defeated.
Mr. Shersby: As the right hon. Gentleman reminds me, such attempts have been defeated on referendums. Nevertheless, that shows the dissatisfaction of the Governments who have put forward those proposals.
I am not in favour of the dual mandate being compulsory, although I should have no objection to its being optional. I accept that we shall probably have to go for some form of proportional representation for all of Europe, and probably on the second election.
On balance, I should prefer to retain the first-past-the-post system for the first election, as we did with the Greater London Council in the 1960s before we broke the various parts of the GLC into individual constituencies. Before that time we elected GLC councillors on a borough basis.
I think that it would be wise for Britain to press for a uniform system of election to be adopted by the whole Community for the second elections. That would

315
avoid constant change. I shall listen to the debate and keep an open mind before casting any vote on this matter.
I believe that European Members should have the opportunity to sit and speak in this House, but not to vote. There is plenty of room for them here, as the empty Benches demonstrate tonight, and those Galleries up there could be occupied by European Members who wish to take part in our proceedings. There would be considerable advantage to Members of the European Assembly being able to participate in important debates on matters such as agriculture and industry, to quote but two examples. I believe that they should sit in the House of Commons for their full term, irrespective of whether a General Election takes place in the United Kingdom during their term.
I believe that the franchise should be extended to all United Kingdom citizens wherever they may be living in Europe. It is important that they should not be disfranchised.
I also believe that Northern Ireland should have the same system as the rest of the United Kingdom for the first elections. At the second elections it would have the same system as the rest of Europe. We must not neglect the vital problem of Northern Ireland at these elections.
Finally, I want to say a word about candidates. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider making more widely known the duties and responsibilities of directly elected Members to the European Assembly. If we are to have directly elected Members, I believe that we should try to attract men and women of the highest calibre from many and varied backgrounds to represent this country in Europe. I believe that is vital to all the people of the United Kingdom.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. John Hunt: This has in some ways been a surprising debate. I continue to be astonished particularly by Labour Members who assert that the holding of direct elections for Europe is somehow undesirable or, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) put it, "a step away from democracy." After all, what could be more undemocratic than our present
316
system under which we nominate 36 Members of our Westminster Parliament to go to the Assembly without a direct mandate of any kind from the British people?
How can it be "a step away from democracy" to increase the total membership of the European Parliament from 198 to 410 and the United Kingdom representation from 36 to 81? I should have thought that the recent fiasco over the sale of cheap butter to the Soviet Union demonstrated the importance of having a strong and more effective parliamentary presence in Europe to attack and expose the excesses and occasional idiocies of the bureaucrats in the Commission.
I sometimes suspect that the anti-Marketeers are so vehemently opposed to this major step towards greater involvement and participation because the directly elected Members will be better able to influence and control Community policies and better able to expound and explain them to their electorates. I suggest that their great fear is that direct elections will improve the image and impact of the European Parliament and lead to a greater public understanding and support for its work and objectives.
As has been said, the impression both at home and abroad is that the Government's approach to the whole issue has been leisurely, not to say lethargic. In common with other speakers in the debate, I welcome the White Paper which has been produced. It is a fairly thin document, and I find it difficult to understand why it could not have been published several months earlier. If that had been done, we should not now be up against the pressure of time in this way. For example, we could avoid some of the problems that could arise if the House eventually decides to adopt the first of the four possible voting methods outlined in the White Paper—the simple majority or the first-past-the-post system.
For elections to the Westminster Parliament I have always defended and supported the simple majority system on the basis that in most elections in the past—until recently—it has ensured the return of a strong Government with a clear, workable majority. It also provides the elector with a direct personal representative in Parliament.
In the case of elections to the European Assembly, the first argument—that

317
has already been set out clearly—does not apply in the sense that we are not electing a Government only. I suggest, however, that the second advantage of the simple majority system, namely representation by an individual and identifiable Member, applies with equal force. Perhaps it applies with even greater force to the European Assembly. Therefore, I regard these direct elections as of crucial importance in reviving a sense of involvement and participation in European affairs. If we wish to do that we must devise a system by which the electors in a particular area will be able to identify with their man in Europe, the person who has been sent to the Assembly by their votes to represent their views and interests. Clearly, the simple majority system is the most obvious way of doing that.
However, there are three separate factors that cause me to hesitate before nailing my colours to that particular mast. The first has already been brought out. In a European context such a system would almost certainly produce a grossly unrepresentative result in terms of votes cast and Members elected. Whilst there is, understandably, not a great deal of sympathy for the Liberal Party on these Benches, the public would regard it as an electoral outrage if the Liberal Party obtained 3 million or 4 million votes and yet did not return a single Member to the Assembly. In a recent booklet "Fair Elections or Fiasco" Mr. Michael Steed, who is a Liberal but also an acknowledged expert on electoral systems, presented an analysis that proves that in the present political climate the possible result of elections on the first-past-the-post system would be: Conservative Party 15,500,000 votes and 65 seats, the Scottish National Party 1 million votes and eight seats, the Labour Party 7,500,000 votes and five seats, the Ulster Unionists 500,000 votes and three seats and the Liberal Party 3,500,000 votes and no seats at all.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and a number of other speakers today, I should find it impossible to defend or support such a result and such a grossly unfair distribution of seats. My fear is that such a grossly disproportionate result would sour and poison the atmosphere at the start of the life of the new Assembly.
318
That would be highly damaging to the Assembly's work and impact.
My second reservation about the first-past-the-post system is that time is now running desperately short and that even if we adopted option B as outlined in paragraph 30, that would take, according to the Government's figures, a minimum of almost five months—although, as the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) suggested, it would probably be substantially longer than that. I fear that, even with just one round of representations, the Boundary Commission could be swamped with objections and could find it physically impossible to adhere even to the optimistic timetable in the Government's White Paper.
The third factor that influences me is the knowledge that in subsequent elections to the European Assembly there will be a universal system for all member States. It is quite clear that the one system that will not be adopted by our European partners is that of the simple majority. For all these reasons I, in common with speakers on both sides, am inclined to favour the regional list system which, as the White Paper points out, would allow some of the virtues of the simple majority system to be maintained.
I should expect our existing constituency parties to be given a voice in the selection of candidates on the regional lists. That would reduce the power of national patronage that has concerned many speakers.
It is anticipated that in my area of Greater London, 10 Members would be elected to the Assembly and it would be helpful if they reached an informal arrangement to look after the interests of eight or nine parliamentary constituencies in London. Residents of those constituencies would then feel that they had an individual voice at Strasbourg.
Unless such an agreement were reached, I fear that the regional lists would prove too impersonal and would negate the whole purpose of direct elections, which is to bring the European Assembly closer to the people.
The record of the Government on these elections has been one of drift, dither and delay. My plea is that as soon as the

319
debate has been concluded, the Government should speed the introduction and implementation of the necessary legislation so that we can keep to the agreed timetable and keep faith with our electors at home and our friends overseas who want to see Britain once again playing a prominent and effective part within the Community.
9.22 p.m.
Mr. Roger Moate: My hon. Friend the Member for Ravens-bourne (Mr. Hunt) said that he was surprised that a number of people were still opposed to direct elections, but I do not think that he will be surprised to find that I am one of them. I should not feel a sense of outrage if the Liberal Party gained several million votes and failed to secure any representation in the Assembly. I should be surprised if the Liberals secured that many votes in any future election, but if they did, I should see their lack of representation as further evidence of their consistent failure to make the breakthrough at successive elections.
The point of our electoral system is not that minority parties cannot secure representations, but that they have to overcome a fairly high hurdle before securing it. We saw with the SNP that even with the first-past-the-post system it managed to secure a substantial representation.
It is not surprising that so many Liberals are experts on electoral systems—they stand to gain the most from changes. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) that one's suspicions about the advocacy of proportional representations for European elections is heightened by the fact that the advocates are those who favour a change for the Westminster system.
Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Liberal Party had a majority in this House in the years before 1914 it did not introduce proportional representation?
Mr. Thorpe: It did. The right hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. Look at the 1918 Bill.
Mr. Moate: I remember that during the General Election campaign, when the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) was doing well in his campaign
320
and the swingometer looked like going past 20 per cent., thereby giving the Liberals a substantial number of seats, we heard very little about proportional representation.
I should feel a sense of outrage if we had the regional list system advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravens-bourne. According to the White Paper, we should have 14 Members representing the South-East at the European Parliament. About 7 million people would have to choose 14 representatives from a list of 40, 50, or 60 candidates.
Then we are told "If that is thought to produce an impersonal relationship between elector and Member, the Members, after the election, among themselves, would allocate certain parts of these vast constituencies to each other". That seems more like Russian roulette for the electors than a system of democracy.
I am appalled by those who claim that they are seeking to make the Common Market democratic by their readiness to abandon all vestiges of democracy, as we understand the word, in the systems that they are prepared to adopt. I disagree fundamentally with the right hon. Member for Devon, North on this matter, but at least I respect his principles, because he is prepared to say that his concept of democracy involves a particular electoral system and he places that concept of democracy before this particular artificial deadline for direct elections that has been established.
However, I have less respect for those who say "I do not care what system we have or how democratic it is as long as we can get direct elections." Personally, I think that that is saying that the end justifies the means. Frankly, that is not a philosophy that I would be prepared to support.
In the very few minutes avaiiable I must say that this is not a debate about membership of the Common Market. It may be, of course, that there will be familiar faces on both sides of this argument, but I think that we can accept that the Common Market can survive without direct elections. It has so survived for 19 years. It is a changing organism. We can see the prospect of a wider Europe being created by the accession of Greece and of Turkey, perhaps of Spain and of Portugal. It is quite conceivable that the Community, as a community of nation

321
States, could survive—indeed, flourish—without any sort of Assembly whatsoever. If one seeks to make it more democratic, in those circumstances one would need to strengthen the democratic control of the national Assemblies over the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and by so doing we could truly render it democratic.
However, I think that the debate so far today has disposed of a couple of arguments that have been propounded by those passionately in favour of direct elections. The first myth is that we are bound by treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) disposed of that argument. We are indebted to him for that, at least. He made it quite clear that in his mind we are not bound by treaty and we are not legally committed.
The second argument is that the matter was settled by the referendum. It was not so settled. The matter was not even mentioned in the Government's White Paper. In answer to that, we are told that the opponents, those advocating "No", pointed out that omission, and the fact that that omission was pointed out apparently therefore gained the supporters of membership a mandate—a sort of mandate by omission. That is a very strange doctrine indeed. Therefore, let it not be believed that somehow the British people have already cast their verdict on this point.
I now turn to the fundamental point—the question of democracy. People say "Surely even if you were not in favour of British membership you want to see the institution subject to democratic control." That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. I think that that is abusing the word "democracy". I believe that it is a step away from democracy, and I reject the opinion of those who believe that one creates democracy by making paper constitutions, by creating artificial entities and saying "We shall set up an electoral system and therefore the whole thing is democratic." By adding the word "democracy", apparently, the whole thing is made all right.
I do not believe for a moment that the suggestions made in the White Paper would improve democratic control by the people in my constituency or the South-East Region over the decisions taken
322
by the politicians in control of their destiny. Indeed, it removes power from the voter. Democracy is about power being exercised by the voter over his elected representative and over his Government. What we are doing is increasing the influence of a European Assembly that is far removed from the voter.
In the South-East Region the elector would have some 14 Members and he would be one of 7 million voters. What influence would he possibly have over his Member? When would he see his Member? Would he even know who he was? It is utter rubbish when hon. Members talk about the Member being lobbied by his constituents. It is a preposterous suggestion in those circumstances. It is just as preposterous whether one has half a million people or a regional list system involving 7 million people.
Finally, I suggest that the systems of proportional representations are designed to remove power from the voter. Certainly they reduce exaggerated swings and make it harder to dislodge professional politicians. Once a politician is elected under a PR system, it is difficult to achieve a major shift in political power. That is why so many people are in favour of it. They dislike insecurity. But democracy is about insecurity. Nearly every system that we have discussed so far is designed to remove power from the people.
We should continue to debate the principle, and that will not be resolved until the Bill receives its Third Reading and Royal Assent—if it ever does. Until that happens, the principle of direct elections will not have been established by the House or the country.
9.31 p.m.
Mr. Michael Alison: The purpose of the debate is to give the Government an opportunity to listen to the views on their White Paper on Direct Elections to the European Assembly, and in particular to hear Parliament's views on four options specified in Paragraph 23. From the Foreign Secretary's speech, one would not have gleaned that that was the purpose of the debate. He spent most of his time discussing the possibility of a federal Europe, although that is not one of the options on which Parliament has been asked to express a view. The right hon. Gentleman concluded that a federal

323
Europe would not be created by the proposed system which made it odd that he should spend so much of his time discussing it.
The Foreign Secretary's contribution was thus singularly irrelevant to what we have to discuss today, in the light of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). We may rejoice that most hon. Members did not follow his lead into federalism. Most hon. Members made some attempt to express views which the Government said they wanted to hear.
It is reasonable to make a tally of the views that have been expressed. I counted 18 speeches, most of which I heard. Of those, four were against direct elections in principle no matter what method was used; 12 were in favour of direct elections in principle no matter what method was used, and although there was a good deal of variety of views on methods, those in this group were firm in their support of the principle of direct elections. One, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), speaking for the Liberal Party, was in favour of direct elections only if a proportional representation system was used. One hon. Member was ambiguous in his attitude and wanted a delay so that we could all think more about it. A total of 12 hon. Members were thus in favour of the principle, four were firmly against, one was guardedly in favour but more in favour of the principle of PR, and one was uncertain. On that tally there can be no doubt about the views of the House.
I hope that the Minister of State will assure the House that the Government will not allow themselves to be influenced—I use the word "influenced" deliberately—by those who expressed a view against holding direct elections in principle. All those today who were opposed to the principle of direct elections were also against Britain having become a member of the EEC and of remaining in it. But the principle of whether direct elections should be held, by whatever method, is not one of the options on which the Government are seeking a view.
Paragraph 5 of the White Paper speaks unequivocally about the
"Government's commitment to proceed to such elections".
Paragraph 9 of the Green Paper of February 1976 said:
324
"The Prime Minister made it clear that the British Government accept the Treaty commitment to the introduction of direct elections."
I hope that the Minister of State will unequivocally confirm this commitment tonight. I lay some stress on this commitment to the principle of direct elections because many of us are haunted by the spectre which was graphically raised this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood), namely, that the arguments and disagreements about the means or methodology could finally frustrate the end which most hon. Members have in common—they want direct elections by one means or another.
If the means were allowed to defeat or frustrate the end, that would foist upon Europe the fiasco that the Government foisted on Britain in connection with the devolution Bill. There was broad agreement in principle about that Bill but disagreement about method.
Mr. John Mendelson: How can the hon. Gentleman maintain that there is a treaty commitment? Did he not hear his right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party saying quite clearly that there is no such commitment, because under Article 138 it would have required a decision and recommendation by the Council of Ministers and such a recommendation and decision have never been made?
Mr. Alison: This is a bizarre situation. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) quotes the ex-Conservative Prime Minister against me when I have just quoted the present Prime Minister against him. If the hon. Gentleman would like to come over and sit on this side of the House and talk to my right hon. Friend, he would find that my right hon. Friend was not nearly as explicit—
Mr. John Mendelson: He was.
Mr. Alison: —in asserting that it was not a treaty commitment as the hon. Gentleman is now trying to suggest.
Mr. Spearing: Read Hansard tomorrow.
Mr. Alison: I shall indeed do that. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had been reminded of what the Prime Minister said in the

325
Green Paper, he would be only too willing to support that view. In this context I am happy to pray in aid of the Labour Prime Minister against any suggestion that it is not a treaty commitment. I believe it clearly is.
Mr. Jay: Did the hon. Gentleman also notice that the Labour Foreign Secretary made no attempt to argue that this was a treaty commitment?
Mr. Alison: The Labour Foreign Secretary made very little attempt to argue about anything at all in the White Paper with regard to proposals for direct elections. He talked about federalism, which was not talked about by my right hon. Friend; nor is it a feature of the White Paper as such.
Perhaps I can briefly declare my own position in this context. We have been criticised, my right hon. Friend in particular, for not specifying what our position is. We have a free vote on this issue. Personally, my commitment and enthusiasm above all are to the principle and the event of direct elections to the European Parliament. I am content to proceed to these direct elections on a first-past-the-post system if, as the Select Committee recommends, it is the most viable and practical.
I know that this arrangement will be transitory and that it will not take place in all likelihood in any other than the first election. In this context my preference would ultimately be for some form of PR for the European Assembly, which I am sure is bound to occur, but I am content to have first past the post for the first election if necessary.
I want to hear the arguments for and against the different kinds of proportional representation when we are given the opportunity of discussing them. The over-riding need is to commit ourselves to direct elections as such and then to adduce whatever means are most likely to secure the desired result.
Mr. Thorpe: What would be the hon. Gentleman's position if he were satisfied that there was a real danger that a first-past-the-post procedure could not be completed in time?
Mr. Alison: That would undoubtedly lead me to feel that it was the wrong
326
method to try to bring forward for the first election.
The over-riding need is to have direct elections within either the May-June 1978 time-scale prescribed in the White Paper or within an extended and flexible scale to which the Government have also made some reference in the White Paper. It therefore will depend on the form of the Bill which the Government bring forward. But one thing is clear—the Government cannot claim on the strength of 18 speeches today and perhaps another 18 on Monday—a total of 36 Back Bench speeches, or perhaps 5 per cent. of the voice of the elected Members—that they really know the view of the House as to the methodology.
The structure of the Bill which is finally brought forward must therefore be such that either at the outset it features two or three options or, if it features only one option, that it is structured in such a way that an alternative method can be grafted in without destroying the whole structure. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist the House on this. He will be well aware of the fiasco of the devolution Bill because of the effect on it of major amendments to its internal structure by which its viability was evacuated.
We must have a Bill which either features alternative methods which can be selected, or, if it prescribes or selects ab initio one particular feature, for example, PR or first past the post, is drafted in such a way that the refusal of the House to accept the preferred governmental option does not have the effect of destroying the whole Bill.
It is possible to draft and construct a Bill in which most aspects are interchangeable and which can be used whatever final method of election is adopted by a vote of the House. For example, some of the major items which are bound to feature in the mechanics of the Bill, such as the issue of writs, the register of electors, disqualification, election expenses, validity of nominations, and a whole range of other similar technical features, saving alone the specific details of the European constituencies, are all technical features that are quite interchangeable whatever method of election we proceed to.

327
The Bill could thus be drafted in such a way as to maximise the interchangeability of its technical features so that it could be adapted to first past the post, regional lists, STV, or whatever else the House decides. It would be a disaster if the Government produced a Bill with a structure such that the refusal by a majority on Second Reading to accept a particular method would have the effect of torpedoing the whole Bill. It would do exactly what most of us do not want, namely, throw the baby out with the bath water and lose the end as a result of arguing about the means. We should have the worst of all worlds.
If the Government not only included in a schedule to the proposed Bill a list of the regional electoral areas, which is provided quite effectively and helpfully on page 22 of the White Paper, but further proceeded to break down that list to individual European single-Member constituencies, such as the first-past-the-post system would require, and called upon the Boundary Commission at an early stage to produce such a European constituencies list as part of that schedule, without any commitment in principle in advance to the selection of this kind of method, there would be much less hesitation on the part of the Liberal Party, for example, to allow the Boundary Commission to make this kind of examination. Indeed, when hon. Members saw what the Boundary Commission was producing for inclusion in the schedule of a Bill, without prejudicing what form of election we finally had, many people, on seeing the resulting designation of constituencies, might decide that they did not want to vote for a first-past-the-past system. But the exercise should at least be engaged in so that we could have the maximum flexibility to choose the method of election without having to throw out the whole Bill for want of agreement on methodology.
I believe that it is the mind of the House, as reflected in the speeches today, that the principle of direct elections, to which the Government are themselves committed, is supported by the majority. We do not want questions of method, however vital, to prevent the actual holding of direct elections in May or June 1978.
9.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): There is nothing quite so interim as an interim wind-up, but I thought that it would be an advantage if I tried to answer some of the points raised tonight so as to leave the Home Secretary with a less than impossible task when he winds up on Monday.
Like the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), I have spent the debate primarily listening to views. We have both curtailed our speeches so that we could hear as much expression of Back-Bench opinion as possible on what is, after all, a major constitutional issue.
The right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) was probably right when he hinted at the tyranny of freedom of choice in this place. We are admittedly always rebelling against the Whips, yet when we have freedom to give advice, we are either absent or uncertain what advice to give. That is why some of the advice that the Government have received has been contradictory.
For example, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) complained bitterly about our failure to give a positive lead to the debate, yet the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) suggested that we were tackling the matter in exactly the right way and that the House was not ready to vote upon definite propositions, while the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), in his usual Tod Slaughter way, warned us severely that we had better listen carefully to what the House of Commons had to say. That we have done. I have heard all the points which have been raised and I hope that I can comment on them without inflection, because it is the Government's intention as soon as the debate is over to consider the points made, with a view to bringing forward our legislation.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash asked about the Government's intentions. They are set out in paragraph 6 of the White Paper, where he will see what we are committed to doing. The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) mentioned the point raised with the Prime Minister yesterday by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). As the Prime Minister then said, we are

329
studying that proposal, but the fact that it were to be decided upon a motion as to principle would not prevent its being raise and debated all over again on Second Reading.
Sir Anthony Royle: Before the Minister leaves the question of the method and the House being consulted, would he say whether he intends that the House should divide on the question of the method of election before the Bill is published? In other words, shall we have another debate to discuss the method, the system, before the Bill is brought forward?
Mr. John: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening just now, he would have heard me say that although I had some preliminary remarks to make on the suggestion, we would consider it, as the Prime Minister undertook only yesterday.
Leaving aside the temporary skirmish between the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) about Scottish independence—a subject which seems to come into almost every debate that has anything to do with the matter—we have had two debates tonight. That is why I cannot accede to the request of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, who first criticised the Foreign Secretary for dealing with federalism and then chided everyone who had dealt with the principle of direct elections. We are holding this debate to listen to the views of hon. Members. If anything has become apparent—if it were not know already—it is that some hon. Members feel strongly about the principle of direct elections as well as about the mechanics. Therefore, it would have been quite wrong of the Government to ignore that. It would have been wrong for my right hon. Friends to ignore the fact that one of the fears that hon. Gentlemen have—whether they are right or wrong is another matter—is about this being the road to a federal Europe.
There are two strands within this argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle), who is not here at the moment, came very close to saying—if he did not say so directly—that we should leave the Common Market. As hon. Members will know, I took a certain view at the time of the refer-
330
endum about entry to the Common Market, but I also said that I would accept the verdict. Whatever I may have thought of the decision privately, that is a pledge that I keep to. Whatever other hon. Members have said, I would say that the decision on the referendum was the conclusive decision in this matter.
The fear on which my hon. Friends have concentrated is what they see as the inevitable step on the road to a federal Europe. While it is very clear that the powers of the European Assembly at the moment are far from constituting any sort of power or any arrogation of power from this House, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North has said, my hon. Friends have stated that direct elections will themselves set up an inevitable chain which will lead us inexorably towards a federal Europe. But if the powers are insufficient at the moment, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), to consider that the powers could be transferred only if there were to be a diminution of the power of this House. Those powers could be transferred from this House only with the consent of the Government and the consent of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made very clear this afternoon the Government's position on the question of federalism, and I would have thought that this was of some reassurance. I certainly do not share the concept of a federal Europe held by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps). My point is that at the moment the way in which the Assembly is constituted does not put it on the road to a federal Europe or give it the necessary power for that. The powers of this House would be transferred only by the will of Parliament and Government.
Mr. Jay: In that case, can my hon. Friend assure us that if any proposal came forward later to grant greater powers to the Strasbourg Assembly, we should not be told by the Government that we were already committed and that there was no freedom to vote?
Mr. John: I wish that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North would stop ascribing to me statements and suggestions that I have never made. My point is that I do not believe that the fact

331
of direct elections would lead inexorably to the sort of federal Europe that my hon. Friends fear, and I ask them to approach the subject of direct elections in that light.
The second debate is about the details of the Bill. To call them details is not, I hope, to undervalue the importance of each of these steps. One important detail concerns the dual mandate. Hon. Members on both sides, apart from the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), were opposed to the compulsory dual mandate, although several suggested an optional dual mandate. I think that this might be inevitable in the light of the realisation of our work load at the European Assembly, and our views must be coloured to some extent by the tragic events of last weekend. I ask, however, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to consider that the dual mandate was a suggestion designed to conquer one of the thorny problems which needed resolution, namely the connection between Assembly Members and Members of this House.
I must tell the right hon Member for Sidcup that, frankly, I am not attracted at all to the idea that they should be able to sit and speak here but not to vote. I do not believe that he has thought it out with his usual care. If there is the pressure on the European Parliament that we all assume, its Members would not easily be able to give their attendance at Westminster. Even if they could, the term of the election and the nature of the job would be quite different from what they are here.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) raised the problem of Britons in Europe being able to vote. That is dealt with in paragraph 32 of the White Paper where the Government express their view that they do not believe that this matter should be resolved without prior consideration by the Speaker's Conference. I shall study the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I must reiterate that this is the Government's view.
Mr. Roper: I asked whether that meant that it would be impossible for such people to take part in the first direct elections.
Mr. John: That is what is stated in the White Paper.
332
I turn to the most important question of the day—the method of voting. This discussion has divided itself into three fairly widely held and mathematically computed points of view. First there is the simple majority system, the advantages of which are said to be intelligibility, a constituency interest and certainty. These aspects were put forward very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). The only point I would make—and I think that the hon. Member for Reigate half anticipated this—is whether the Assembly, which is not a Parliament and which is not forming a Government, needs quite the same degree of certainty as does a Westminster election.
The second system is that of the STV, which was put forward by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on behalf of the Liberal Party and which was supported by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) in an interjection. It is advanced by its advocates as a fair system, although the right hon. Member for Devon, North was kind enough to say that it was not absolutely fair since no system is.
I have before me a letter in which a professor of mathematics says that an even fairer system would be to take the square root of the votes cast for each party and to allocate the seats in proportion to that. I invite hon. Members if they have a free weekend to work out what that means. But the point about STV is that it exists in Northern Ireland for special reasons, and we have experienced it only in comparatively small electorates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) asked about the STV system and about the sort of delays it would create. Constituencies of up to 5 million are spoken of under that system. The largest Australian State—New South Wales—has an electorate of about 2·5 million. The system is used in the Australian senatorial elections. The results are sometimes delayed for some three to four weeks before they can finally be announced. There is no question that if recounts take place the procedure is very complex indeed.
The third method is the regional list system, and this is dealt with in paragraphs 43–46 of the White Paper. The

333
general objection raised to that, apart from the question of lack of connection with the locality, was that of the advantage that it gives to party machines. I ask my hon. Friends at least to consider this as a possibility—if the choice were by regional party delegates, it could not be much different in essence from being chosen at constituency level—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

CREDIT UNIONS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]
10.0 p.m.
Miss Betty Boothroyd: On 5th April the Minister of State replied to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and promised that the Government would take an opportunity to put before the House legislation to enable credit unions to operate. Already, a Credit Union Steering Group has been set up consisting of interested bodies and talks have begun with the Treasury.
In this context I welcome the opportunity tonight to provide an airing to a subject about which a great deal of ignorance still persists, and to ask the Minister a number of questions beyond the actual legislation proposed—about the level of public awareness that it will be necessary to encourage and stimulate if the new legislative framework proposed is not to be stillborn.
The best method of describing credit unions is by saying that they are mutual savings and loans societies—a form of co-operative. A distinguishing feature is the common bond in that the members are known to each other—they belong to the same trade union, are members of the same tenants' association, work in the same factory, or come from the same immigrant community. Credit unions are non-profit making organisations voluntarily run, and, because the members are known to each other, the tendency to incur bad debts is rare. They encourage regular savings, give the members experience of financial management, and can provide loans at favourable rates of in-
334
terest. With all the advantages, there are still only 50 or so credit unions existing in Britain. This is partly because under the present legislation they are required to register as industrial and provident societies or as companies.
If the Government fear that a Private Member's Bill would not pass through all its stages before Parliament was prorogued, will they undertake to bring in the necessary legislation themselves before the end of the current Session? Will that legislation broadly follow the Northern Ireland model? Even legislation is not enough on its own.
Six years ago the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit said:
"There is a prima facie case for encouraging the credit union movement and for taking steps to make its existence, its aims and methods widely known in the hope that it may take root here and more credit unions may be formed in Britain."
What are the Government prepared to do to encourage public awareness? The recent appalling statistics on the take-up of supplementary benefits is a reminder that there is a world of difference between legal provision of a facility and the actual use of it by the people who need it most.
In this case those who need the facility most are the poorer borrowers, the lower income groups, the majority of whom do not have bank accounts. If they want to borrow money, they can go to a moneylender, a pawn-broker, or friends—if they have rich friends—or they can go without. There is no evidence to show that low income consumers are unreliable borrowers. Indeed in America 16 per cent. of all consumer credit comes from such unions and they have a very good track record on defaulting.
I believe that there is very little difference between the Minister and myself in recognising the basic value of credit unions. The Minister's response is most needed on how we can put the advantages across to those most in need of the facility.
Is there not a case for a simple hand-book or some literature which the Government might produce? Will they encourage trade unions, voluntary organisations, womens' organisations and other bodies to make the benefits of credit unions known to their membership? Is a further advisory service necessary to supplement the work already done by the

335
Credit Union League and by what is now being done by the Steering Group? Given the success of credit unions, particularly among the West Indian communities, will community leaders be consulted when the Government are formulating their legislation, and is there any rôle that could usefully be performed by community relations officers among groups other than West Indians?
If I may sum up, there are clear advantages to be gained from the growth of credit unions. They strike at the high-rate moneylenders, to whom many in the low income groups too often have to resort. They make the individual realise that the big banks are not the be-all and end-all of financial respectability. They give more than respectability, namely, responsibility and a feeling of not letting one's colleagues down. They lead to the responsible education of members within a community and to union in the wide use of money and management of their own financial affairs.
I know that the Government recognise these advantages. The purpose of this debate is to offer the Government the chance to explain what further action they believe is necessary, outside the legislative framework, and what steps they propose to take to stimulate public interest.
10.2 p.m.
Mr. John Roper rose—
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman reached agreement with the Minister about his intervention? There is a firm rule that the Adjournment debate belongs to the hon. Member who has raised the subject, unless agreement has been reached with the Minister on the intended intervention.
Mr. Roper: I am aware of that. I saw the Minister and told him that I hoped to intervene. In view of the small amount of time taken by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), I shall keep my intervention brief and will give the Minister sufficient time to reply to the points which have been made.
Mr. Speaker: I wanted to put it on record that that was the situation, otherwise Adjournment debates will no longer belong to those who obtain them.
Mr. Roper: I am aware of what you say, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate your ruling. I repeat that I shall be brief.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised this matter, which is of considerable interest. There is a considerable potential for the development of credit unions, which exist in every other country of the Commonwealth.
I hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to say not merely that the Government will be proceeding with legislation, but that the Government's plans for a co-operative development agency which are being studied by the Department of Industry will allow help to be given via this new form of co-operation. I believe that such a move would add considerably to the general pattern of the co-operative movement in this country.
10.4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): Just before Easter, on 5th April, I announced, in a Written Answer to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) that the Government would take the opportunity of the proposed legislation on the licensing and supervision of deposit-taking institutions to put before the House legislative provisions to enable credit unions to operate and develop within a suitable statutory framework. Therefore, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) for raising this subject tonight, because it gives me the opportunity to expand on that announcement. My hon. Friend has given a brief but good resumé of the purposes of credit unions, and perhaps I can take this opportunity to go into the matter in a little more detail.
Credit unions have received little publicity in this country and the objectives of the credit union movement are not well known. This is perhaps surprising because of the strength of credit unions in many other countries, especially English-speaking countries such as the United States and Canada—where credit union loans represent a little over 10 per cent. of all instalment credit granted for the purchase of goods and services—Australia, the West Indies, and, more recently, Ireland. Since we are proposing to base legislation on a Northern Irish model, it is perhaps worth saying a little about the Irish experience.

337
Credit unions were first established in the Republic of Ireland in 1958 and in Northern Ireland in 1961. By the end of 1976 there were 360 credit unions in the Republic of Ireland with 280,000 members and approximately £50 million in assets, and 94 credit unions in Northern Ireland with 80,000 members and total assets approaching £10 million. In 1966 the Dail passed the Credit Union Act, which regulates the operation of credit unions in the Republic, and in 1969 their operation in Northern Ireland was regulated by the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. In both countries regulation has stimulated growth.
This aroused interest in Great Britain. As my hon. Friend has said, the Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit, reporting in 1971, concluded favourably, as she has quoted, in respect of credit unions. In 1972 my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth introduced a Private Member's Bill to regulate credit unions, but this failed to reach the statute book because of lack of time.
Meanwhile, about 45 credit unions have continued to operate in Great Britain, but there has been little expansion in numbers of unions, membership or assets. Their supporters maintain that their development has been handicapped by the lack of a satisfactory legislative framework within which they can operate. I am not sure that, even when regulated, credit unions will catch on in Great Britain in quite the same way as they have in Northern Ireland because there may be special circumstances, but I am persuaded that legislation will encourage growth in credit unions' activities.
The Government propose to legislate on credit unions for two main reasons. First, and most importantly, we are sympathetic to their aims. They encourage regular savings, they provide cheap loan facilities for their members, they encourage self-help and foster community spirit, and they have an educational objective in giving their members some experience in management. These are all very worthy objectives, and we hope that legislation will facilitate their fulfilment.
The second reason for legislating stems from the realisation that there are dangers in not having any regulation of credit union activities. First, regulation and supervision will provide protection for the
338
members of credit unions. At present, credit unions are unregulated and unsupervised, and are potentially vulnerable to fraudulent practitioners. I hasten to add that as far as I am aware there have not been any cases of fraud and that the existing credit unions appear to be managed by honest, law-abiding citizens. But there is a potential danger, and credit union representative bodies—such as the Credit Union League of Great Britain and the National Federation of Credit Unions—are themselves aware that one case of fraud could somewhat discredit the movement and set back its growth. They, therefore, welcome regulation and supervision.
Second, legislation on credit unions is desirable to ensure that the proposed legislation on the licensing and supervision of deposit-taking institutions will be effective. It is possible that credit unions, if left unregulated, could form a loophole in the arrangements proposed for the supervision of banks and other deposit-taking institutions. The proposed legislation on credit unions would close that loophole by specifying that a credit union should not receive money on deposit.
This is why we need to legislate on credit unions before or at the same time as we legislate on banks and other deposit-taking institutions. Our preference is to legislate at the same time. Although we are sympathetic to the cause of credit unions, we do not think that the problems caused by a lack of legislation are at present great enough to justify a separate Bill when the legislative programme is already so full.
Second, there are some technical reasons for legislating for deposit-taking institutions and credit unions in the one Bill. For instance, the provisions on deposit-taking institutions will probably include new definitions which will be applicable to that part of the Bill dealing with credit unions. The legislation on credit unions will not, therefore, be enacted this Session. I recognise that this is a disappointment to some of my hon. Friends, but I hope that they will take comfort at least from the Government's agreement at last to introduce legislation on this subject.
It might be helpful to the House if I now say something about the form that the legislation will take. We expect that

339
it will follow the pattern of the Nortern Ireland enactment. This regulates the size of a loan that a credit union may make to a member, the value of a member's shareholding in the credit union, the rate of dividend payable on members' shares, and the rate of interest payable on loans. The total value of all loans must be kept within defined limits, profits can be appropriated only in accordance with the Act, and surplus funds may only be invested in the manner prescribed by the Act. Useful consultations have taken place between my officials and the Credit Union Steering Group, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth and which includes members of the Credit Union League of Great Britain, the National Federation of Credit Unions and the National Consumer Council, on possible amendments and additional provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West asked two questions in this respect. First, what publicity do we envisage when the legislation has gone through the House to promote credit unions? I think that in the first instance the best people to publicise credit unions are the Credit Union League of Great Britain and the National Federation of Credit Unions, which have been involved for a long time. The Government should not get too involved in actively promoting the credit union movement. By its very nature it is better that those organisations which I have mentioned should do so.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether we intended to have consultations with ethnic groups. I recognise the importance for ethnic groups of credit unions. In the United States they have grown rapidly as a result of their importance to ethnic groups. But we should not differentiate in this way between ethnic and other groups in our society. Again, it is better to consult the recog-
340
nised bodies which understand the problems of ethnic and other groups in our communities.
As I have said, I think that there are good reasons why credit unions should be encouraged. I do not think that their growth will be at the expense of existing savings institutions. The greatest customer potential is probably among those who are at present unbanked.
Credit unions will not, of course, provide the wide range of facilities offered by the commercial banks, the Trustee Savings Banks and the Giro, and the rates of interest offered on savings are not high. Any growth in credit union activities could, however, be at the expense of the existing lending institutions, which have to charge much higher rates of interest than credit unions are able to charge. But would it be right to restrict competition in the field of providing credit to the poorer sections of the community? The Government recognise that for many people a sudden cash crisis caused by some unforeseen event can compel them to use some quite expensive forms of credit the interest payments on which can impose a severe strain on their current resources. Membership of a credit union could enable such people to keep a line open to cheap credit facilities.
I wish that it had been possible to introduce a Bill in this Session to deal with this important matter. I am sorry that it is not possible. However, we have done the best we can. The best that we can do and the most logical course is to include clauses in the bill on deposit-taking institutions and to deal with the problem in that way. I hope that it will be my privilege, if the time comes, to introduce those clauses, because this is a worthwhile social advance. I hope that it will find its way on to the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Armed Robbery
  Armed Robbery
  Supervision Orders
  Supervision Orders
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Horses and Ponies
  Horses and Ponies
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Eggs and Poultry
  Eggs and Poultry
CIVIL SERVICE
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Statute Book
  Statute Book
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  Treasury (Studies)
  Treasury (Studies)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
INDUSTRY
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  Power Plant Manufacturing
  Power Plant Manufacturing
ENVIRONMENT
  Town Planning
  Town Planning
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne
  Rent Subsidies
  Rent Subsidies
  Solar Heating
  Solar Heating
  Sewerage Charges
  Sewerage Charges
  Rent Act 1974
  Rent Act 1974
  Housing Starts and Completions
  Housing Starts and Completions
  Inner City Development (London)
  Inner City Development (London)
  Housing Expenditure (London)
  Housing Expenditure (London)
  River Coquet
  River Coquet
  Urban Problems
  Urban Problems
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  St. Paul's Cathedral
  St. Paul's Cathedral
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation
  Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  Rating (Site Values)
  Rating (Site Values)
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Water Resources
  Water Resources
  Gipsies
  Gipsies
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Prescription Costs
  Prescription Costs
  Supplementary Benefits Handbook
  Supplementary Benefits Handbook
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
TRANSPORT
  A21
  A21
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  M6 (Anstey-Coleshill)
  M6 (Anstey-Coleshill)
  M6—Telford Link
  M6—Telford Link
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  National Film Theatre
  National Film Theatre
  French (O-level Passes)
  French (O-level Passes)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Passports
  Passports
ENERGY
  Petrol Consumption
  Petrol Consumption
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Common Fund
  Common Fund
SCOTLAND
  Local Government Staff (Car Purchase Aid)
  Local Government Staff (Car Purchase Aid)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Spina Bifida and Mongolism
  Spina Bifida and Mongolism
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
WALES
  Land Authority for Wales
  Land Authority for Wales
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Cheese
  Cheese
  School Discipline
  School Discipline

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough

WATER SUPPLIES: UN CONFERENCE
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the United Nations conference on world water supplies and needs.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the United Nations Water Conference held in Argentina from 14th to 25th March produced about 100 action proposals for improving the quantity and quality of the world's water supply which will be inadequate to sustain future growth in many places unless water management is radically improved. It was urged that these proposals should be implemented by member States. For the developing countries, it was agreed that the Secretary-General should review the funding of water projects so that increased resources could be devoted to them.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether there will be any report of these very important decisions by that conference? Furthermore, while there is concern about energy resources, is not the problem of water supplies far more important for millions in the world? Was it not reported to this conference that one-third of the population of the world is without secure drinking water, and can we have an assurance from the Government that they will give the utmost support to United Nations scheme plans for dealing with this matter in its second development decade?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as the first question, that of whether the report will be published, is concerned, I am afraid I cannot give my noble friend an answer but I will make inquiries and write to him if it is to be published. I can say that the conference did not take the view that the developing countries were risking running out of water, but was rather aimed at ensuring that the best use was made of the water resources available. I think it is fair to say that the United Kingdom delegation played a major part in this conference. They stressed the need for training at appropriate technical levels. The conference as a whole did not accept that there was any need for a separate United Nations organisation, but organisation does exist at the moment to do all that they wanted to do. So far as finance is concerned, in 1974 we spent in this field over £6 million. The figure rose to more than £10 million in 1975 and, within the present constraints, I can give my noble friend an assurance that the Government will give what support they can to funding.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not a fact that 99 per cent. of the sweet water in the world is now underground? Is it not therefore desirable that there should be a big plan to bring this to the surface, not only to fertilise the deserts but in order to supply the needs to which the noble Baroness has referred?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that these are all points which were taken into account at the conference. We have already helped the financing of water supply projects in Malawi, Jordan, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, many of which were for bore holes, and we are also interested in irrigation and water resources projects in Indonesia, Thailand, Ghana, Sudan and Pakistan. I am sure that we are aware of the fact that the water is underground and with our technical know-how we shall be able to help these projects to get it to the surface.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, does the noble Baroness consider that it is appropriate for the United Nations to hold international conferences in countries where there are consistent and flagrant violations of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? Could this factor be taken into account in determining

125
the venue of any future international conferences of this kind?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think that that is rather outside the scope of the original Question.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, will the Government supply to any nation in dire straits the name of the Sikh rainmaker who was responsible for giving us one yard of rain last September?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Denis Howell!
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, this plan will be implemented at enormous cost. Are there proposals to meet that cost; and, if so, what do Her Majesty's Government propose to contribute?

OVERSEAS CIVIL SERVICE: WIDOWS' PENSIONS
2.40 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the delay occasioned in the payment of pension to the widows of deceased officers of the Overseas Civil Service, due immediately on the death of these officers under the Widows and Orphans Pension Fund, and of the distress caused to the widows by this delay.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, overseas widows' and orphans' pensions are normally paid promptly but I am aware that sometimes there have been delays, usually when the pension is payable from a scheme managed outside the United Kingdom. In these cases Her Majesty's Government try to do everything possible to obtain an award and payment from the responsible overseas authority.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I assure her that we are grateful for the help received from the
126
Government in this respect? Is she aware that principles are involved here and that the pension of every officer, when pensionable, on overseas territory must be approved by the Secretary of State? In that territory —in order to safeguard the position of his widow, because his pension ceases on death—he is required to pay into the widows' and orphans' pension fund. Is she further aware that there are now three cases where widows in that category on the death of their overseas husbands, former pensioners, have been waiting for three months or more for some sort of payment in connection with their pension?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. I think the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord for the constant vigilance that he exercises on behalf of these people. On the first point, we are very much aware of the principle that, when money has been paid in, it should be available for the widows. I think that the whole House will understand that where overseas countries have taken over the payment the solution really is to do what we are aiming to do: to get the whole thing transferred to Her Majesty's Government so that then delays will be very rare. In regard to the specific cases to which the noble Lord referred, I am sure that he will be glad to hear that three have already been paid and a fourth will be paid by the end of this month.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she will not agree that the countries concerned, where these civil servants acted so well, owe them a debt of gratitude? Will she also ask Malaysia to look into their cases, because the Malaysian civil servants were asked by the Government to stay on even though they had been prisoners of war under the Japanese and many of them were not in good health, and they nevertheless did so in order to help the country get on its feet again?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, not only this House and this country, but also the overseas countries concerned are very much aware of the debt of gratitude that is owed to these very deserving and distinguished public servants, and therefore to their widows.

CONCORDE: AIRCREW TRAINING
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the full exploitation of a New York Concorde service would be limited by a lack of trained aircrews, and what steps British Airways have taken to train aircrews for a possible service to Australia.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, British Airways have informed me that their Concorde pilot training scheme is now running smoothly and efficiently. If access to New York were available, the airline could operate five flights per week by the end of July, and a daily service by the end of September, but some of these would have to be switched from the Washington service. The output from subsequent pilot training courses would be deployed on restoring the Washington services and on the route to Australia.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer—which is not entirely satisfactory —may I ask whether he can say when a full complement of aircrew will be trained by British Airways so that not only can the Washington and New York runs be fully utilised but also the run to Australia?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Earl would have found my original Answer very satisfactory. There have been difficulties, as he knows, and we should be glad that those difficulties are now being overcome and that British Airways can indicate the kind of timetable to which I referred in my original Answer.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my question as to when British Airways say they will have crews available for the Australia run.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is hoped that operations to Singapore will be possible by the spring or summer of 1978, and to Melbourne shortly after that.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that, although there were massive delays in the training of Concorde pilots due to their asking for extra recoverable expenses to reach the training centre, the programme is now going well and with very few delays? Furthermore, would the noble Lord accept that during these unfortunate industrial disputes at Heathrow all Concorde flights have been on schedule, so far as they are permitted by route licences at the present time? Is not that something of which British industry can feel a little proud?
Lord ORAM: Yes, indeed, my Lords; there were early disputes. First, there was a dispute over pay and, secondly, over the provision of cars for the pilots in training. But those difficulties have been overcome and, as I indicated, the programme is now operating smoothly. That is a matter about which we can all feel satisfied. I endorse what the noble Lord said about the schedules being kept in good order, despite the well-known extreme difficulties in connection with the dispute with the maintenance engineers.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, why should we be proud when people do their job properly? Should we not be irritated when they do not?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, when industrial disputes arise, we ought to take satisfaction at a successful outcome to them.
Earl ALEXANDER of TUNIS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether talks have taken place with the Canadian authorities to establish a service to, for example, Montreal or Toronto?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I have no information about that matter, but I will look into it.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, would the Minister agree that, as regards safety and regulation, the efficiency of the aircrews of the Concorde in its months of service is something of which we can be proud? If the other crews now under training attain that standard, our pride will be even greater.
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. If the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, does not mind me expressing pride, I think we should be proud.

HOMELESS YOUNG PEOPLE
2.50 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to designate homeless young people as a priority group in the order issued under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as was made clear in the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, my right honourable friend is considering the arguments which were urged on behalf of homeless young people at that time. He has also undertaken to make a draft text of such an order available before the Committee stage of the Bill starts in that other place. My right honourable friend had understood, in the course of consultations with the local authority associations, that the view there expressed was that the priority groups should be confined to those identified as such in the joint circular on homelessness issued in 1974. We have, however, recently started consultations with the associations on the recommendations contained in the report of the Working Party on Homeless Young People and will take into account the views then expressed on this point.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, while recognising the guarded nature of that reply—which leaves one uncertain as to whether anything particular is contemplated—may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware of the debate in this House recently? Is she aware of the strong views expressed? Would she be surprised to know that, to take a typical young people's centre, perhaps 2 per cent. or less—nearly all pregnant girls—would be assisted by what she has in mind?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; I am very much aware of the recent debate we had in this House and of the points
130
raised by my noble friend. As I said, at this time my right honourable friend in another place has promised to consider whether the priority groups can be extended; but I must remind my noble friend that, if we extend the priority groups with the agreement of the local authority associations, we have to find money from somewhere to extend the service, and we then have to consider further where that money has to come from.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is a correspondence between the incidence of crime among young people and the number of homeless young people? Would she not regard that as almost a peremptory argument for making a priority group of these homeless young people, in the interests of a greater degree of probity and decency among those who are at present in great danger because of the lack of any home to which they can go and of people in whom they can confide?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I regard it as a very good argument, but, as I said, consultations are already going on with the local authority associations as to whether they are willing for these priority groups to be extended. At this stage I could not give any further commitment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, while deeply sympathising with the terrible problem of the homeless, whether they he young people or families, may I ask how the noble Baroness feels this Bill will help, since it will provide for no more houses to be built and no more houses to be let?
Baroness STEDMAN: That is as may be, my Lords, but the Bill certainly places the onus of responsibility for housing homeless people on specific authorities.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, will the noble Baroness appreciate that the very muted reply she has just made will be very discouraging to those people who feel very strongly about this terrible problem of the homeless young? Will she ensure that Her Majesty's Government bring every pressure to bear upon local authorities to appreciate the seriousness of the problem and to appreciate that there

131
is nothing upon which money is better spent than on providing housing for the homeless young?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the situation as outlined by the right reverend Prelate, and I am sure they will do what they can with the local authorities. We accept that there is a problem concerning homeless young people and we are trying to do what we can. We think this Bill is perhaps a step along the way. We hope that as a result of the consultations, we might at some future date, if not now, be able to extend the priorities to include the young people to whom the right reverend Prelate has referred. In the meantime, we shall continue to give as much guidance as we can to local authorities on how to handle this specific problem in their areas.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, while appreciating the reply given by the noble Baroness, may I ask whether it is not time the Government made up their mind that this is a particularly serious problem? In view of the fact that there are so many people who are terribly agitated about the situation—young and old, very devoted and dedicated people—would it not be possible for my noble friend to say that she will now give sympathetic and full consideration to the problem and that, even if the Bill does not go through, my noble friend herself and the Government will see to it that the matter is attended to in the way which has been suggested?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government always give sympathetic consideration to problems of this nature, so I have no hesitation in giving my noble friend that assurance. What I have said is that on 18th February in another place my honourable friend agreed to institute consultations about widening the scope of priorities with the local authority associations, and those consultations are now taking place.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what action the housing corporations are taking in this matter?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is a rather different question. I have no
132
information available at the moment, but if there is any information which can be sent to the noble Baroness I will write to her.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, both this House and the other place are deeply concerned, as has been said. May we be given a period of time during which we may be told what the Government are doing? May I suggest that, irrespective of what the local authorities do and the tardiness of their delays and deliberations, the Government themselves should exercise their prerogative and authority to do something now about the matter?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in another place my honourable friend promised to have these consultations before the Committee stage in another place. I am not aware, off the cuff, of the exact timetable of the other place concerning further consideration of this Bill, but I anticipate that there will be some decision from the Government as to whether the priorities remain as they are at present in the Bill or whether it will be possible to widen them by the time the Bill reaches Committee stage in another place. Then, in due course, the Bill will come to this House.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be disturbed to know that a number of us hope to promote a debate about this matter in the near future?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords; I should not be disturbed.

CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS (TIME LIMIT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prescribe a time limit for the construction of certain roads and for purposes incidental thereto. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read 1a and to be printed.

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to call attention to the organisation of the postal and telecommunication services; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I was very pleased to have won first prize in the raffle for the short debates. However, I have a certain number of misgivings, because the subject is very diverse and wide-ranging. I should like your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to understand that I am not here in an aggressive or attacking mood. The object of the debate is in general to produce, I hope, some constructive suggestions to the Post Office.
It is a great pity, alas! that we do not have with us today the report of the Carter Commission, as was hoped would be the case before the last Recess. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, kindly wrote to tell me that unfortunately the report would not be available.
The object of this debate is two-fold: first, to provide a cheap and efficient postal service and, secondly, to provide a cheap and efficient telecommunications system—because at the moment in this country I do not think we have either. Also at the moment, looking at the future, the prospects from the public's point of view do not appear too rosy for any chance of improvement in efficiency or cheapness. I hope that some of the criticisms and suggestions that are made today by other noble Lords as well as myself may lead to some general rethinking by the Post Office.
I start with the postal service. I am sure your Lordships are aware that the Post Office has a monopoly on letters but not on parcels or newspapers. In the Second Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, dated 3rd February 1976, it was stated that:
"…during the past 10 years the tariff for first-class letters had quadrupled, the quality and service had deteriorated and the traffic had declined".
So the general picture is not very good.
Since 1969 the main service changes that have occurred are as follows: the downgrading of head post offices; the
134
closure of sub-post offices; the closure of post offices on Saturday afternoons; the withdrawal of the third delivery in London, the withdrawal of bank holiday collections, the withdrawal of Saturday afternoon collections; the ending of Saturday afternoon parcel despatches; the widening of the service differentials between first-class and second-class mail; the withdrawal of Sunday collections—to which matter I shall return later—and the withdrawal of late evening collections. The Post Office claims that 93 per cent. of first-class letters are delivered by the following working day, but this means that about 700,000 first-class letters every day are still subject to delay.
I should now like to discuss the price factor. So far as one can ascertain, the only justification for the reduction in service would have been the holding of prices. But I am afraid that the record is unimpressive. In 1970, the cost was 5d for a 4 oz. first-class letter, which in metric terms was 2·08p for 113 grammes. But on 13th June this year, if the current proposals of the Post Office go ahead, it will cost 12p for 113 grammes, which is nearly six times the price in 1970. With parcels, it is the same sad story. In 1970, a kilo cost 3s. or 15p, and the proposal is that on 13th June it will be 13s. or 66p. During the same period, the retail price index will have risen only from 100 to about 254.
I now come to overseas mail and the proposed increases in printed paper rates, which will especially damage exports. The service which is mainly used is known as the direct agents bag, and this cost 16p for 2 lb. in February 1975. But, once again, it is proposed that in June there will be a charge of 40p for a kilo or 2¼ 1b., and adjusted for metrication this is an increase of just over 125 per cent. Over 50 per cent. of the output of publishers is exported and they have to compete with a subsidised American postal service. I have been given to understand that the postal business usually had a target of a 2 per cent. return on revenue, yet on overseas mail it is attempting a return of 6 per cent.
Private industry is subjected to the most detailed examination and scrutiny before any price increases can be approved. The Post Office seeks to justify its current

135
proposals, by its own admission, in its statement to the POUNC's report of 5th April 1977, on the grounds of "the possibility that inflation will be higher than assumed." The Post Office is asking to be allowed to anticipate inflation—something which no private firm would be allowed to do. It went on to say that there is a "possibility that traffic levels will be lower than assumed." If we take the history of Post Office forecasts, we should be very uneasy. For instance, in 1975 it forecast, and was targeted to make, a loss of £70 million on posts, but in fact the loss turned out to be only £9 million. Therefore, the first- and second-class increases of about 20 per cent. in September 1975 were not necessary.
Again, in productivity the record is poor. Since 1970, the throughput per employee has fallen by 12½ per cent., which is equivalent to about 1p on an ordinary letter. It is also noteworthy that administrative staff increased from 5,800 in 1970 to 6,744 in 1975/76. This is a 16 per cent. increase, and if you add on the TV licence records staff it is a 28 per cent. increase. Concurrently, total traffic declined by 13 per cent., and the number of operative staff remained at about 160,000. The cost of this increase in administration works out at over £11 million—enough to restore Sunday and late evening collections. The annual report and accounts do not give administrative staff growth for telecommunications, but there is good reason to believe that their administrative record is far worse than that of posts.
I now come to postal customers—the commercial user, the charities and the general public—who have all lost faith in the postal service. The parcels service is being priced out of existence, as I have already said. Only 160 million parcels were carried last year, compared with over 240 million in the early sixties. The reduction of the first letter weight step to 50 grammes, with so little notice, will affect the direct mail industry, which in turn will damage the Post Office itself. Delays in mechanisation have been such that few expect it ever to be introduced. The general pattern of postal services has been one where all users are asked to pay more and more for less and less, and are subjected to bewildering policies. Many
136
users would like to make more use of the post, but they are often prevented from so doing by excessive prices and by continual uncertainty. What users need is an open approach from the Post Office, under which it makes public its plans and discusses them with all sections of customers.
I should like to give your Lordships one example of the Post Office's heavy-handedness. At Christmastime, just over a year ago, because of the cost of posting Christmas cards, a vicar advertised to his flock that local Christmas cards could be collected and delivered through his church. But he was informed very sharply by the local postmaster that he was infringing the Post Office's monopoly, and was therefore breaking the law. That is reported in Hansard for the Commons of 4th February, 1976, at col. 1211.
To return to Sunday collections, not long ago the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, replied to a question of mine that the Post Office has said that it costs eight times more to collect mail on a Sunday than on a Saturday. I can well understand that, with overtime and this, that and the other, it might cost two, three or perhaps four times as much, but I fail to understand—and nobody can explain the reason to me—why it should cost eight times as much. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, can inform us of the reason when he replies.
I now come to a commercial which was done by Tommy Steele and shown on ITV the other day. I am not anti-Tommy Steele, but it was a long and very expensive commercial put out by the Post Office, saying "Write and post more letters". Do we need to have this kind of thing, to tell us what to do with the Post Office? It was an extremely expensive commercial to make, and it will be extremely expensive to pay for every time it is shown on ITV. If we are to have advertisements, why cannot the Post Office advertise where we can post our letters on a Sunday, because there are some places where one can do that, although I have not been able to find out where they are. There are also some rural areas where there are two deliveries a day, one for letters and one for parcels. Again, I do not know where they are; but surely two deliveries in a rural area cannot be economical.
I should now like to turn to the telecommunications side, on which I know the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and probably the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are to speak. In the past, I have complained in your Lordships' House about the fact that when the STD does not work, and you have to get the operator, you are then charged the full operator rate. Why should we have to pay for this when the equipment is faulty? When the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was in the "hot seat", he said in answer to a question on this point that the operators have to be paid. But they have to be paid whether they are getting calls or reading a book. A spokesman from the Department of Industry said to me the other day that if the full operator rate was not charged the public would cheat. To me, this seems a non sequitur. How would they cheat, if they were charged for a call at the normal STD rate? Surely nobody is going to ring up an operator by dialling 100 and wait for an answer if it is possible to get the number through STD!
On 16th March last, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said that £45 for installing a telephone is far too high, and in many instances causes great hardship to the old, the handicapped and ordinary people who live in sparsely populated areas. How right he was! Surely it would be better to pay a smaller installation fee and thereby perhaps generate more business.
Then there is the rental payable in advance. Perhaps it would be a good idea if every subscriber had to use "X" units, and to pay the rental even if he did not use them. But once he had used that amount of units the rental could be waived. Surely this would encourage more use of the telephone. I believe that only 50 per cent. of the households of' this country have telephones; so if we could increase substantially the number of telephones the whole service should, in theory at any rate, become cheaper. As there seems to be little likelihood of the postal service becoming cheaper and every likelihood of fewer facilities being provided, surely it must be right to try to increase the number of telephones. On 16th March, at col. 128 of Hansard, it was implied in your Lordships' House
138
that the Post Office exercised its discretion on telephone installation charges. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, was unable then to give any information on how often this discretion is exercised. Perhaps the noble Lord could do so today.
As I have said, it is most sad that the Carter Committee is not with us today. However, I have heard a rumour that it has suggested that the postal and the telecommunication services should be separate entities. If the rumour is correct, it is probably a good idea, particularly as one service makes a loss while the other makes a profit and at the moment neither helps the other. However, I should like to say one word of warning. If the services are to be split, there should be no increase in the aggregate staff employed, as occurred when the Corporation was set up in 1969. An enormous increase in staff took place then.
Before I finish, may I give one or two examples of money being frittered away, perhaps unnecessarily. At the Old Bailey the other day a witness was asked by the judge: "What is your profession?" He replied, "I am a Post Office delayer". The judge asked him what that meant, and he said, "My job is to scrutinise second class mail to make certain that it does not get delivered too quickly". Very often I have likened our country to Alice in Wonderland but that, I think is Through the Looking Glass. There is another perhaps unnecessary expense. If you watch commercial television you are likely to see a "commercial" of a bird sitting on a telephone wire saying "Use the telephone on Saturdays and Sundays" when you can use it at a cheaper rate. Most people who have a telephone realise that. Again, do we have to pay for this unnecessary advertising?
I have nearly finished and I am sure that your Lordships will be delighted to hear me say so. However, I should like to mention one other matter about which I feel the general public and all noble Lords feel very strongly. Why should the Post Office worker, or a small group of workers, have the right to dictate to us whether we may have our mail delivered to South Africa—and also whether we may have our mail delivered to a film processing firm in London because a small group of workers disagreed with the

139
way that firm was being run? The Post Office has a monopoly, and I maintain that thereby it has placed upon it a responsibility as well as a special obligation to deliver the mail.
Perhaps I may now make a few suggestions which I hope will be constructive. First, why not advertise where the Sunday service postal collection exists already? Why cannot post offices accept bulk postings on Sundays? They will do so in one area and if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would like to have details I will gladly give them to him afterwards. Inter-city deliveries are profitable, whereas deliveries in rural and isolated areas are not. However, I believe that Scotland has very successfully started the practice of delivering local mail by local bus services. Could not this system be adopted in the rural areas of England? Perhaps the parcel delivery system could be improved by amalgamating the parcel delivery service of British Rail National Carriers and British Road Services.
On 31st March the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said:
"Do we want a commercial undertaking or a social service, for at the moment we have neither".
I should like to read one sentence out of the Post Office Act 1969. It comes from Section 9(1):
"It shall be the duty of the Post Office (consistently with any directions given to it under the following provisions of this Part of this Act) so to exercise its powers as to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British Islands in regard to matters that are subserved by those powers and, in particular, to provide throughout those Islands (save in so far as the provision thereof is, in its opinion, impracticable or not reasonably practicable) such services for the conveyance of letters and such telephone services as satisfy all reasonable demands for them".
We live in one of the finest Welfare States in the entire world. I humbly suggest to your Lordships that we should have a social service from the Post Office which should be viably run for the benefit of all. My Lords, need I say more? I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, we are all most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for his extremely able and very useful contribution to the debate, which affords us with a wonderful opportunity to discuss the Post Office,
140
a subject close to our hearts. In fact, it is a subject which we all love to hate. I should at the outset declare an interest. I am President of the British Direct Marketing Association and we are very much concerned with mail. Therefore I have had a certain amount of input from members. Over the years, the Post Office have been very courteous to me and have shown me both the telecommunication and the postal side. If, therefore, in taking up the last point made by the noble Earl about the service which the Post Office has to provide under the 1969 Act I sound rather astringent, I could, having these friends, hide behind the cartoon of my family which appeared recently in The Times, which said that some of my best friends are Mitfords.
The Post Office is enormous. In some ways, it is as large as China. It is the largest employer of labour and, because it is so large, it has, unfortunately, other similarities with China. It tends to hide behind its inscrutable Great Wall of non-accountability, an area that I should like to touch upon later. One aspect of this non-accountability comes up right at the start. It stems from a number of questions which have been asked from these Benches over the last year on the sore and sad subject of Sunday collections. The Post Office said that there would be a one year experimental period, which should end on 2nd May. However, it is not very experimental, because the Post Office has already made up its mind, as we know only too well, that on 2nd May it is not going to return to Sunday collections. This is very sad, because everybody who was consulted said that we need Sunday collections. The Post Office hides behind the fact that it was not a very large service. It is quite true that the service did not have so much of the business mail, but it handled an enormous quantity of personal mail and this fact has been totally disregarded.
I feel your Lordships should have your attention drawn to an article which appeared in the Observer on 17th April. Readers were asked for the actual areas in which hardship occurred. I will not weary your Lordships because it is already in print, but there is sufficient material there to show that hardship is being caused to a large number of people because of the withdrawal of the Sunday collection service.

141
Another aspect is the so-called planned cut deliveries. In fact, Mr. Tom Jackson raised the point and I rather agreed with his description of the Post Office when he said:
"This is all part of the usual Post Office policy of giving less and less service to the community at higher and higher price".
That is a serious charge, but I am afraid that we are in fact getting less and less service. I said that I was going to be astringent and perhaps I sound far too critical, but we used to have by far the best postal service in the world. That is absolutely unquestionable, and I will say that it is still a very good service compared with that in a lot of countries, but, accepting that point, I feel that we should not say that because it is better therefore it must decline from now on. Let us try to maintain the service that we had in the "good old days" when the Post Office was part of the Government under a Postmaster-General.
Many aspects of Sunday collections have been referred to. Mr. Alex Currall, who is a most charming and able man, answered questions put by my noble friend Lady Young about Sunday collections, and all I can say is that his four-page letter tried to set out the facts but it did not really cover the situation. It was a sort of apologia for it, and it did not give any real answers. My charge is that the philosophy of the Post Office is wrong. It does not accept bulk buying on the postal side because it claims that it costs more, but this is a question of approach. On the telecommunications side, there is a degree of acceptance of bulk buying but at the same time the charges are exorbitant.
In a speech which I made in your Lordships' House on 16th March, during the very useful debate which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I referred to the question of charges and that subject was covered quite fully, so I will not weary your Lordships with it now. However, the noble Earl has spoken of the incentive to use more of the services, and although our installation charge and our rental charges are not so exorbitant, we do have to pay a lot more for local calls. So we are caught at the other end; there is a fairly hefty "Catch 22" in regard to the charges.
142
We have heard a lot about Carter, and we have waited with great enthusiasm for the Carter report, but it is always just around the corner. It would have been useful if we could have had the Carter report today, but we must look forward to the pleasure of its arrival later. However, there is one aspect on which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, a question. The Post Office has made a submission and supplied a business plan. This has not yet been published although parts have either been leaked or in some way have appeared in the Press. I do not want to be taken up on that but certain information has appeared in the Press and therefore I feel that we should see the Post Office submission in this regard.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a most important point and I want to get it absolutely right. Was the noble Lord saying that this House should have a view of the Post Office submission prior to the appearance of the Carter report?
Lord REDESDALE: Yes, my Lords. The reason why I say that is that some information has already appeared in the Press. In my view, that is rather a mistake and therefore it would be of value to us all to see the whole thing now rather than just getting little bits.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Because of the leakage, my Lords?
Lord REDESDALE: That is correct, my Lords. I am only too aware that this is a short debate and I do not want to take up too big a share of the time that is available, so I will go on to the question of cost. The noble Earl spoke of second-class deliveries and the interesting occupation of being a Post Office delayer, referred to at the Old Bailey. I must confess that when the Old Bailey was referred to I thought it was a reference to the last Postmaster-General, but in fact I want to raise a question on what he said on the whole question of accountability during the debates on the Bill which later became the Post Office Act 1969. On the second-class mail we now have a ½p rise, which is very considerable. The increase is to be ½p on both first-class and second-class mail. The answer

143
given by the Post Office is that this is only a 6 per cent. increase on first-class and an 8 per cent. increase on second-class mail. I feel that here the Post Office, as usual, is being a little naughty. I can cite many examples of where it tends to hide behind things or perhaps does not disclose everything. This increase is allied with a reduction in the maximum weight from 60 grammes to 50 grammes. If your letter happens to be on the heavy side—and perhaps some of us are rather more prolific writers; I do not know—and is above 50 grammes you will have to pay 12½p, instead of 8½p, which means in fact an increase on that small segment of about 46 per cent., not the 6 per cent. or 8 per cent. that we have heard about. I do not think the increase would have mattered so much if it had not reduced the weight. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider that point.
I have said previously that I wanted to raise the whole problem of accountability. Just to go back on the history of this, it was raised by Mr. Stonehouse in 1969 during the passage of the Post Office Bill. He accepted that the change to a Corporation would mean that the Post Office was not as answerable on the day-to-day items as it had been in the past. It was glossed over by Mr. Stonehouse and by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in this House when they said that in fact one could always get an answer one way or the other from the local postmaster or by various Parliamentary devices. But we have had experience of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, dancing around on this subject and hiding behind the fact that he is not actually responsible for the day-to-day running of the Post Office. That is quite true—I am not saying that the noble Lord is wrong—but it is rather a pity because we cannot actually bring our guns to bear on somebody on the other side. We have to rely on these other, rather more diffuse methods of getting information.
I have long waited for the occasion when I could actually refer to something which had been said by my noble cousin Lord Denham. In a Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House on 12th June 1969 he made the point that we would lose out very considerably on our ability to gain information on the
144
Post Office. As a result of that the service has slipped.
Being very conscious of the passing of time, I should like to turn to one other aspect. We have a Post Office Users' National Council, chaired very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. The noble Lord, will not, I hope, instantly rise to his feet when I say that, although they do a good job, they have no teeth. I will say immediately that I know that the noble Lord has teeth, because about 10 years ago on a police debate he bit me very firmly. So I would not say he has no teeth and I would not say that he does not do a very strong job himself. But they have very few statutory teeth and very little actual power. On a number of occasions, when they have spoken on the subject of price or something else, they have not had the power to do anything about it; they can only recommend. It is a great pity. We hear about representation. We hear about worker representation on the Post Office Board; well and good. Bees do it for years in hives. Fine. But what about the users. I think the users ought to have considerable representation on the Post Office Board. Only in that way could we get something done. POUNC does its very best, but it has a large number of laymen on it. I feel that there ought to be many more people on the Board who are concerned in the day-to-day effects of the Post Office on business, whether it be telecoms or whether it be postal. I hope the noble Lord will give some consideration to this point.
My Lords, as I said earlier, I know that we have a good service. In fact, it is not as good as we should like it to be. Other countries complain about their services and the delays in services. In Canada, where they have just had a two cents rise in costs, it is said that the two cents is for storage. Perhaps our service is getting slower, but it is up to us to chase the Post Office to provide improved service.
3.32 p.m.
Lord WALL: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for this opportunity of a preliminary canter down the Carter course. Like others, I look forward very much to its report, especially on the performance of

145
the Post Office since it was set up in 1969 in corporation form. I have a special interest in this; it is now more than 10 years ago since, at the request of the Government, I was loaned by my firm to the Post Office for two years to see whether I could do anything to help in the preparations for the eventual translation of the Post Office, after 300 years as a Government Department, into a public corporation. Two years is far too short a time to learn a great deal about a large organisation, but I think I came to understand a few of its problems. After nearly nine years I am very much out of touch, but, unlike the noble Earl, I think that in all the circumstances the total performance of the Post Office Corporation since inception has been most creditable. I will support that statement with a few facts.
Taking telecommunications, it has grown rapidly; the number of telephones has grown in the last nine years by 60 per cent. and the number of calls by 100 per cent., with an increase in staff of only 5 per cent. Much progress has been made with new technology, for example, digital switching and wave guides, and with modernisation. STD is almost complete, and the call failure rate has been cut in half in the last nine years. The less fortunate postal service has certainly seen its services declining, but its standing as a service as compared with other countries has not diminished.
Turning to financial matters, the Post Office has made profits in four of the last seven years. The three years in which losses were made were due to Government insistence on price restraints. The recent turnround in profits in 1975/76 was, of course, largely due to higher prices, but also due in part to internal savings of no less than £80 million. Compared with other nationalised industries, I think the Post Office's record is good, and I shall be interested to see whether or not Carter shares that view.
I should now like to touch very briefly on some of the management problems of the Post Office—size, diversity, monopoly and relationships. First, size. The Post Office is a very large organisation measured by any standard. I remember that 10 years ago I estimated that in most respects the Post Office was larger than the United
146
States Steel Corporation—one of the world's industrial giants—and since then it has grown faster than US Steel. The postal side offers a graphic illustration of size related to performance, as the noble Earl has said. Ten years ago the Post Office was handling 35 million letters a day. Taking a reasonable figure of performance of 90 to 95 per cent., this means that every day some 2 million letters can give cause for complaint.
It is now generally recognised that size poses serious problems of management and organisation, and the classical methods of tackling these are by the maximum delegation of authority and responsibility, the hiving off of units before they get too big, by cost and profit centres to measure performance, and by periodic reviews of the total organisation. Unfortunately, these solutions are not easily available to the Post Office. It has to provide services at uniform prices throughout the United Kingdom, irrespective of actual cost. Wages are also fixed on a national basis irrespective of local supply and demand. Thus any kind of real delegation is almost impossible. Ten years ago the Post Office separated the organisation into four self-contained businesses and separated posts and telecommunications within the regional organisation. We looked into profit centres, but so many arbitrary cost allocations had to be made that the whole exercise made no sense, apart from Scotland. So the Post Office has to face its size problems with a much more limited armoury than is available to private enterprise.
Diversity presents the usual problems of handling four quite different businesses, but I will touch only on posts and telecommunications. These two businesses differ fundamentally. Posts is a public service, telecommunications a public utility. Posts is labour intensive, telecommunications capital intensive. Posts is contracting—the volume now is about what it was 40 years ago; telecommunications is expanding—it is doubling itself roughly every eight years. Posts can never be run commercially, telecommunications must be run commercially. So the two businesses have nothing in common except their history. Is it not time, therefore, that this was recognised? I personally am now convinced that these two vast operations should be completely separated into two corporations.

147
Turning to current criticisms, it is, of course, the posts that come under the greatest fire. While posts must remain a large service demanding large resources, the underlying trend is contraction. Its technologically based competitors in personal communications, such as telephone, telex, teletext and facsimile, have so much to offer. Seventy-five per cent. of its costs are labour, and many of the hours worked are what these days are called "unsocial". Who really wants to get up at 5.30 in the morning for six days a week all the year round in all weathers?
The question then is how, against this adverse background, we can maintain, as we must, an acceptable postal service. Let us not delude ourselves into believing that we can have this without rising prices and without changes in services. Some people will say that we should subsidise the losses. This, surely, is the worst solution. When subsidies come in through the front door, efficiency goes out through the back door. Once you are accustomed to working in the red, the size of the red figure soon ceases to matter. But I accept that to set the postal services the objective of operating without subsidy is to set a most challenging task, but not an impossible task. If I had time I would spell out some possibilities, but I will move on to a much more easy picture, that of telecommunications.
Here the outlook is very much brighter. We have a fast growing industry—as I said, doubling itself every eight years—with exciting technological developments, especially as telecoms converge with computers, broadcasting and information services, all with increasing international connections. Here is a highly capital intensive business which can offer a fascinating future for its staff and can meet higher wage costs by increasing productivity. The contrast with posts could not be more marked. It seems to me, though, that the real issue for telecommunications is to make sure that they can achieve the high level of profits which is essential to provide full depreciation on assets at replacement values—and the historic values are already £5,000 million—especially with the accelerating obsolescence of Strowger equipment; to pay interest on borrowing and to provide for a substantial part of the new money needed to finance the vast future investment programme, which will soon
148
approach £1,000 million a year. The target of 6 per cent. set last December by the Government looks low in relation to the expected inflation and to the 9½ per cent. to 10 per cent. which is permitted in North America. The Post Office is well on course to meet the target of 6 per cent. and its primary aim must be to ensure that the telecommunications part of the Post Office is run on sound commercial lines with the minimum of political interference.
I turn to the question of the Post Office monopoly. Every time the Post Office comes under fire some suggest that the monopoly should be changed. This defeats me. In every country of the world the postal service is a State monopoly, and that includes North America. In every country of the world telephones are a monopoly. In most countries they are a State monopoly but in North America they are private monopolies, but none the less monopolies. The real differences between the private monopolies of North America and the State monopolies elsewhere are two-fold. The first is the system of regulation; the second is the fact that in North America the telephone monopolies also manufacture most of their own equipment. I shall deal with this point later, but I should like to deal with the question of regulation as here we can learn something from North America.
The private telephone monopolies of the United States are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is a really tough regulator. No telephone company can change its prices without FCC approval. Likewise, both the amount and the terms of new money need its approval. It also looks into complaints against the private monopolies and on at least two occasions in the last few years has taken important decisions which were far from welcome to the telephone companies. The beauty of the American system is that regulation is concentrated, whereas in this country it is diffused—stretching from the Cabinet, through the Department of Industry and the Price Commission to the users' organisation. Our system is far too subject to political forces.
I turn to relationships. I have just touched on the relations of the Post Office with the Government. I think

149
they need improving. In fact, I believe that the whole system of regulation needs looking at again. I shall not venture into the area of the relations of the Post Office with its customers because time is too short. On the other hand, I want to say a little about relations with staff and suppliers. The Post Office probably has the most developed Whitley system in the public sector. Although I, personally, have doubts about this system for a commercial business, I shall not pursue the argument now.
However, I am concerned about the recently announced new structure of the Post Office Corporation Board. To have taken this major decision before the Carter report is published and the future of Bullock has been decided looks unwise as well as discourteous. I am certainly not against having trade unionists or workers on the Post Office Board, but I believe that the Board needs some really top-rate business people as well. This hasty decision can hardly help.
The relations of the Post Office with its suppliers have recently been in the news. We are told that they are not close enough; there is conflict between the two sides. Yet it is barely 10 years since the Post Office was severely criticised both by Government and by Parliament for continuing the former Post Office rings—they were too close. We were told to break them up. It looks at times as though the Post Office can never win—every time it comes round the last bend there is someone busy removing the winning post, and that is usually the Government. However, this problem badly needs more attention.
The American private telephone companies are the main suppliers of all kinds of telephone equipment. Western Electric, for example, is a very important and profitable part of the great and successful ITT empire. In the light of American experience, and, for that matter, Swedish and Japanese experience, we must take a new look at the organisation which will bring together the Post Office telecommunications section and its suppliers. Of course there are great problems. For example, unlike America, our telephone suppliers are all part of large electrical and electronic businesses. We must find a better answer if we are to have both a
150
well run and successful telephone communications monopoly and a successful group of telecommunication suppliers, especially with the great export opportunities that exist in this field. At least we must devise an organisation to deal with product development—indeed, with research and development in general—and with exports.
It has been estimated in America that it takes some 15,000 man years to develop a new telecommunications system, and I suppose that the cost must be £150 million. As is the case with computers, we as a nation can afford to do this only once every 10 years, so we must get it right. Sir William Ryland has expressed some interesting personal thoughts on this problem of relationships with suppliers and I hope that they will receive urgent examination.
I have run over my time, my Lords, although I know that I have left a good deal unsaid. In conclusion, may I hope for more understanding of the problems of the Post Office and the great efforts it is making to overcome them. It is time that there was some praise as well as criticism. Perhaps the Carter report will provide the opportunity. Some years ago in the United States the FCC took a major decision in what is known as the "Carterphone case". It stands as a milestone in American telecommunications history. Let us hope that the Carter report will provide a similar milestone in the history of our great Post Office.
3.46 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, I intervene only briefly to express a point of view which I have voiced in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for giving me an opportunity to do so. My theme is very like that of the noble Lord, Lord Wall, but there is one fundamental difference. The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has given a long catalogue of the changes in the standard of services provided by the Post Office. I am sure he will realise, as the House will realise, that much of this is due to the fact that the Post Office is caught between the Scylla of inflation in a labour-intensive industry and the Charybdis of the financial disciplines of a nationalised corporation.

151
I, personally, regret that the whole problem of the Post Office has been referred to a Commission, although I hope that when the Carter Commission reports it will be able to give some advice as to the very obvious changes which are necessary in the whole establishment of the Post Office at present.
The major change—this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wall—has been obvious to anyone who has been interested in and sympathetic to the problems of the Post Office ever since it was turned into a nationalised corporation. The fact of the matter is that to regard the postal service as a nationalised industry has always been nonsense. To combine posts and telephones into one corporation has always been wrong. As the noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Redesdale said, the Post Office is a service. It is important to remember that it is not only a service that is important to the individual consumers and the mail order business, but it is an essential part of the administrative structure of the Government of this country. It would not be possible to run this country without it. It is true that it would not be possible to carry on normal trade and commerce, even at a relatively low level, without it. That is not true of the telephone service. We could govern, we could collect taxes and rates, we could operate in industry and commerce and conduct trade without the telephone, but not without the Post Office. Nor for that matter would the Government he able to carry out as effectively as they do at present, or without great additional overheads, the administration of the social service, national savings and pensions.
I repeat that the Post Office is not an industry; it is a public service. Public services are a very different proposition from the financial point of view from that of a nationalised industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Wall, said, the postal services are labour-intensive and dependent upon the 300.000 men and women who work for them. The telephone industry is technologically sophisticated and increasingly automated. The management problems, development, labour relations, recruitment and investment policy are totally different as between the telephone industry and the postal services. Moreover they are not complementary. The fact
152
that if one has a telephone does not mean that there is no need to have a postal delivery; but the converse is not true.
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said that 50 per cent. of the households in this country do not have telephones, but everybody, or the vast majority, has a postal address. In fact, a postal delivery is a necessity, and it is a necessity to every household in the country. All this has been recognised for at least the last 100 years by the equalisation of charges in the postal service, but that is not true of the telephone service or telephone industry.
Finally, there was in the old Post Office, as the noble Lord, Lord Wall, will know, a special esprit de corps among those who worked in it. It was the oldest Department of the State; older than the Army, older than the Navy, older, if I may add to that, the Excise, and certainly the police. As such it attracted a particular type of employee. There were, and still are to my knowledge, old Post Office families who give to the Post Office the kind of devoted service which the military families or the naval families give to their services. There was, and I hope and believe there still is, a sense of loyalty and co-operation between management and staff in the Post Office which is of great importance to the organisation and the wellbeing of the Post Office as a whole.
I do not say for one moment that there is not loyalty and co-operation in the telephone industry, but the relations are different. I have no doubt in my own mind, and I say it with all the confidence that I can muster, that the only way in which this country will get the standard of postal service to which we were accustomed when the Post Office was a Department of State is by making the Post Office a Department of State again. By all means let the telephone industry remain a nationalised corporation. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wall, in saying that there should be two corporations. I say that the postal services, the Post Office, should again be under the Postmaster General; that it should be regarded as part of the Government service just as the police are part of the public services, or the Army or the defence services, or what you will.
I am quite certain that if the country wants the standard of postal service which

153
the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has mentioned, then it has to be administered according to the financial disciplines of the Civil Service and not of a nationalised industry. So far as the telephones are concerned, that is something going from strength to strength as technological change takes place. That is fine. Let it take the challenge of the ordinary industrial world and make good at that, but let us return a great public service, an historic public service, which is represented by the postal services of this country, back to where they belong as part of the Government service of the United Kingdom.
3.53 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this debate; but as it has proceeded, I have been more and more impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and by the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wall, of how important it is that we must wait for Carter and for Professor Posner too. There are great issues at stake, and I feel that as we have so to wait your Lordships will forgive me if, in my approach to today's debate, I may be almost kindergarten in my simplicity.
The other day I introduced a debate on an Unstarred Question and I can therefore be brief. Since it was an Unstarred Question I could not reply following Lord Winterbottom's answer, but I have since had communications of all sorts, some by telephone, about what we said. These subsequent exchanges have emphasised one or two extensions of the points I raised, and I have had a word with the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, on the subject.
First, there is the question of reducing the cost of new installations. This is obviously a matter of great importance to the public, particularly to the old, the handicapped, and people in remote areas. In the course of that debate the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said that the Post Office has given regional directors discretion to consider reducing installation charges where there are "sound reasons for reducing connection charges." Those were his words. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull took him up on this.
154
I only mention it because I wonder whether, when he replies, the noble Lord can tell us that the Post Office is following this up with vigour. It seems to me, living as I do in a country area, that it may well be that underloaded rural exchanges may constitute sound reasons for careful consideration of this business promotion. After all, to add to the connections is good business from the Post Office point of view. At the same time we know—and I think I am right—that one of the troubles today is that there are large stocks of equipment which if not obsolete is at least obsolescent. If the Post Office could improve the rural services where there are old-fashioned exchanges which are going to have to be remodelled as time goes on, this might be a sales gimmick and a way of disposing of such stocks of almost obsolescent material.
The fact of a telephone being a potential lifeline, which was the word we used in the debate the other day, is particularly important, as I said, in remote areas where contacts with centres of population are becoming more and more difficult as the cost of motoring increases. With the increase in the road fund licence and the cost of petrol, and so on, the business of getting a letter to the post if you live in a remote area makes postage more and more expensive.
That brings me back to the suggestion for which I have received much encouragement, that there might be a return to the system of allowing so many free calls or free units per connection. The noble Earl touched on this matter and produced an alternative suggestion which would go the same way. I hope that the postal authorities will give consideration to this matter where, by a judicious use of such a gimmick, as it may well be described, we can increase the usage of the telephone system and improve the convenience to the consumers.
To return to the cost of motoring, this can be a heavy surcharge on the posting of a letter when the nearest letter box is at a distance and inward letters are infrequent. Where I live we are well served by a local post office and, like most of your Lordships, I get letters by every post. Twice a day we get a delivery and that means that the postman can take away, as he does, letters which are ready to go. Therefore, I am not complaining for myself, but it is not

155
everybody who has a stream of letters and a visit from the postman twice a day anyway.
One of my informants tells me that a recent programme on Radio Forth, which is the Edinburgh local radio—I did not hear this programme—made reference to second-class letters not being delivered by second deliveries. The suggestion was made by, I believe, two postmen that they regard the second-class mail as not of great importance. I should like to know whether it is a fact that postmen, particularly where they are dealing with high rise flats, regard a second-class letter as a second delivery job, and what I believe they call a "bumper", or some such word, and because it is a second-class letter they pop it back in the bag for first delivery next day.
Regarding the weekend service, I return to what I said about the overnight letter telegram, which costs 50p plus 4p a word, plus the address at 4p a word. Where I live the last weekend collection, at the East Linton post office, is at 12 noon on Saturday, so it is reasonably possible to get a Saturday letter away to reach London on Monday. Failing that, and as is more common, the last collection on Saturday is at an earlier time, which may mean that the overnight letter telegram service is particularly useful, even if it is quite an expensive way out.
I therefore repeat my suggestion that in view of the paucity of collections over the weekend, the Post Office might consider waiving the 50p impost on Saturdays and Sundays. I appreciate that such a step would be dependent on pressure on the "Dial 100" staff over the weekend. Talking of the overnight letter service, another interesting line which I did not mention to the noble Lord, even when we met the other day, came from a contact of mine who pointed out that an overnight letter telegram is a much more legally binding message than a telephone call, which may be misunderstood or disputed. This could be used as an important advertising point if the Post Office wished to push it.
Those are the main observations I wished to make arising out of what has been said by other noble Lords. As I said at the outset, we must wait before we can
156
tackle vital decisions such as those Lord Alport suggested until after Carter and the other considerations which we hope will soon be before us. Before concluding, however, there are a few small additional points I would make. First, is the Post Office properly remunerated for all the services it renders to the public? I refer to departments other than the post and telegraph services such as Giro, old age pensions and the issue of television and road fund licences. Is the Post Office properly compensated for this work and is any consideration given to those who go into small post offices to buy a stamp and have to wait for I do not know how long while a few old age pensioners draw their money?
Secondly, another contact of mine has drawn attention to the extraordinary effect of the high cost of postage. I suppose the Post Office knows what it is doing, but certainly many small businesses have had to stop sending small articles because of the high cost of postage. I am thinking of a barber shop which used to deal in hair dressings but which has stopped doing so because of the cost of postage. I do not see any solution to that kind of difficulty. Thirdly, is there any possibility of getting the Post Office—this might be an advertising gimmick—to produce 50 or 100 gramme weights which we could use on our letter balances? I understand that it is impossible to obtain them from any private undertaking and I should be glad to hear of any being made available.
As many noble Lords will be aware, I spent many years in India. One of the thrills there is to consider how the Post Office and postmen deliver letters at all. It is quite possible from Bombay to write to a friend up country giving an address as Lamp-post number so-and-so, Queens Road— because the sender sleeps under that lamp-post every night—and somehow one receives a letter in reply.
4.5 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, while there are a number of points I wish to make, I shall be brief, and I wish at the outset to apologise deeply to the House because I had a committee meeting to attend and was not able to be here for the whole of the debate. I was able to hear the rather devastating remarks of the noble Earl,

157
Lord Kimberley, to whose speech I listened with great interest, but I fear that I did not hear the other speakers. I shall be brief, only to be sure that I am not repeating, to the boredom of the House, points that others have made.
I wish to say something in favour of the Post Office. My experience is that the first-class mail is an absolutely excellent service, particularly when one considers the millions of letters that have to be sorted, say, this afternoon and this evening for delivery tomorrow morning. I find it an excellent service when I think of such letters that will be posted today and will be delivered at my house on the outskirts by first post tomorrow morning. It is a reliable and, on the whole, excellent service, and I wish to put that on the record.
Many letters that are said to be delivered late—it is said that some have taken four days to pass between Regent Street and Trafalgar Square—are late because of the fault of the senders and not of the Post Office. If one dates letter arrivals by looking at the postmark and not the date of the letter one will often find that the letter is dated, say, the 17th but was not in fact posted until the 21st, yet the Post Office is blamed for the delay. Most of those who complain about the Post Office are the sort of people whom I would never trust to post a letter for me. I think a great deal of this difficulty is also due to the employment of junior typists who, while they may be excellent at their work, are not senior enough to put to the chief, "Do you realise you have not yet signed Thursday's letters?" Much of the blame that is put on the Post Office can be laid on the posters.
I have frequently met people at dinners or meetings who have asked, "By the way, Platt, have you received my letter?" When I have asked, "What letter?" the reply has frequently been, "Perhaps I haven't signed it yet." I am sure that others more intelligent on the subject than I have spoken on this issue. I would only ask whether it is particularly serious if the Post Office is losing money on its postal services when it is making a handsome profit on its telecommunications. If it were a private industry would it matter so much if it was losing on some of its products but making handsome profits on others?
4.9 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I regret that my name was not attached to the list of speakers and, as a recompense, I shall be brief. Recently I became president of the National Wholesalers' Association and I was very impressed indeed by the recommendations that were put in by the British Stationery Office Productions Federation when the Post Office proposals for tariff increases were being, discussed in March of last year. Three of the points that were put in fit in properly to this debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley.
I see that my noble friend Lord Alport has left the Chamber. However, I agree with him absolutely about the esteem in which we should regard the Post Office. Indeed, the first very important Parliamentary office I held, 25 years ago almost exactly, was as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Assistant PostmasterGeneral—and one cannot have a much higher office than that! During that period I appreciated the esteem in which that great Department—which covers such a wide front and which is such an essential part of the make-up of this country—was held. I therefore agree completely with Lord Alport about it being a national service. However, we should remember that it is also one of the arms of industry. It is certainly one of the arms of the British Stationery Office products industry, a point they make perfectly plain when they say:
"We rely upon an efficient postal service for our livelihood and for our expansion and any increase in postal charges or changes in the service have an immediate effect on our industry".
What they are saying is that if, for reasons which on other grounds may be very good indeed, prices are put up, or the system is changed in such a way that it affects them, we may be inflicting unemployment on those industries which rely on this Department to exist at all.
Therefore while I find my noble friend's description of a national service very attractive and indeed true, it is also part of our industrial arm and there are three points which I think will pinpoint that. We ought to recognise that, while an organisation which has to cover the whole country has to rely to a large extent on what is known as rough justice in order to operate at all—because administratively

159
it is so huge and so difficult—we must find ways, within the broad span of what is called rough justice, in which discretion and good sense can be used.
In this regard my one point concerns the question of Christmas cards. Very many people are employed in the manufacture of Christmas cards, which is an important section of our industrial makeup. When the cost of postage of Christmas cards was increased to the same level as that for letters and similar items it was found that, of the 1,000 million Christmas cards sold in 1975, 40 per cent. were hand delivered because of the extra cost of the postage. From the point of view of the Post Office, if finance is one of its problems—and we know it is—perhaps it should depart from rough justice by recognising that Christmas is a special time and that the sending of Christmas cards is a special activity confined to one particular time of the year. It could he that the Post Office, if it recognised this, would increase its own income while providing the satisfaction that a national service, as my noble friend Lord Alport said, would give to the public generally.
It might be said that an increase of ½p is hardly noticed, but one does not send only a single Christmas card. Ordinary families send several Christmas cards—some send many—and so the increase is not one ½p but several during that period of the year. That makes all the difference to the question of whether people buy Christmas cards, which in turn affects maintaining people in employment as well as giving income to the Post Office itself.
With regard to postal charges, it should be remembered that during the Post Office strike the pools promoters and various other big firms started their own delivery service, and this business has never been returned to the Post Office. It could be that, if an attractive price inducement were given, such organisations could be persuaded to use the Post Office service again, which would be better for everybody and produce more money for the Post Office itself.
As distinct from the Christmas card, there is the pictorial postcard, which is a very important part of the card industry.
160
I should like to mention some figures which are involved here, and it is these figures which have caused me to intervene very briefly in the debate. In the pictorial postcard industry in 1973/74 sales totalled 359 million. In 1974/75 the figure had fallen to 198 million, and in 1975/76 it was down to 163 million. That is due to the extra cost on postal charges, which has discouraged this particular industry very much. The pictorial postcard, like the Christmas card, is a special item which goes with holidaying and similar pursuits, and so here a separation from what I call the rough justice could, I believe, be sensibly introduced. It is not without interest—and I did not know this—that many foreign countries, including the United States of America, West Germany, Holland, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries, as well as, I think, many others, reduce the postal charge for pictorial postcards to below the normal level for the very reasons that I am now arguing. So I believe that here again special discrimination could be made which would meet the needs of the general public—as a national service should do—and at the same time bring in extra income which the Post Office badly needs.
My next point was made very well earlier by my noble friend from the Front Bench. When what I understand is called the weight step on packages was reduced from 60 grammes to 50 grammes, calendars and certain Christmas cards and postcards were brought within the range that was affected. The argument that an extra ½p would not make much difference is completely shattered when not only has an extra ½p to be paid on the postage, but, by a reduction in the weight step from 60 grammes to 50 grammes, covering many calendars and postcards, a further 3½p is put on the cost. So the actual extra impost on the posting of calendars and certain cards is not ½p, which can be passed off as being not very much, but 4p each time. That is the point that my noble friend made, and this situation is having a disastrous effect on the prospects of an important industry, which employs many people and which is, I believe, an essential part of the general industrial make-up of this country. Those points may be small when taken separately, but they are a very important part of maintaining general

161
efficiency in one of our basic industries, and I hope that at the appropriate time they will be taken fully and properly into account.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I, too, must apologise for not putting my name on the list of speakers for this debate. I presumed that other noble Lords would have said what I now intend to say, but I hope to take up not more than three minutes of your Lordships' time. My point concerns the enormous cost of the spoken word and the written word, the spoken word being the telephone and the written word being letters. There is involved here the enormous cost of communication within families. When I mention families, I am sure your Lordships will all be aware that nowadays families are broken up more than ever before. In some cases grandparents are moving away to live, while younger members of the family may be going abroad or to far away places, such as Scotland, or to other distant parts of the country. They are not remaining in one community as they used to do.
In my view, the fact that such people are not able to communicate is having a disastrous effect upon the family. When I say that they are not able to communicate, I mean that even a very brief telephone call from, say, a son to his mother every Sunday evening must now, to my knowledge, be abandoned because of the enormous cost to the son. This means that the mother, or the grandparent, as the case may be—people in this age group, including retired people—or a father living alone, are more lonely than they were previously. They are more cut off than ever before from the family which they have raised. In my view, the spoken word is far more important in this context than the written word, but the written word—the letter—is also of vital importance to all who try to keep the family together. When it takes up to one week for an 8½p letter to be delivered 100 yards in Hertfordshire near where I live, one would like to use a pigeon if one could catch one, or, as I do now, deliver letters. It is not worth trusting the Post Office to deliver mail within a reasonable time.
162
My main point is the communication of the family because I seriously think that, if the rates for letters and for telephoning were, because of the large surplus we have heard of, able to be reduced, a great number of families would be much happier. I am sure that all of us in this House know of family connections—grandparents, mothers, daughters—who long to communicate and to keep up some tie with the family, whereas, with the vast amount that it now costs for these methods of communication, family ties are becoming less close and are more often broken. That is all I have to say on the subject.
4.22 p.m.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, if I may presume to do so, I should like to ask a question of the Minister who is to reply to the debate. It relates simply to the rate at which the Post Office is continuing to invest. Over a period of many years, the Post Office used to recruit 200 or 300 engineers at a time. Over the past decade the number increased to 700 and the forecast was that last year it would recruit 840. In fact, it recruited 35, as a result of an enormous, unpredicted and totally catastrophic cut-back in the investment programme. I should like to ask the Minister whether this number is likely to be increased again, because unless the Post Office can recruit more engineers, particularly into the telecommunications industry, it is extremely improbable that it will survive as a going concern when the time comes that these young men ought to be there in posts of responsibility.
4.24 p.m.
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, we have heard quite a lot of knowledge being aired this afternoon. Since I cannot really contribute greatly to the knowledge, I shall be fairly brief. First, I should like to talk about the telephone system and, in particular, the equipment. I think we would all agree that there have been considerable improvements over the past few years. However, I shall come back to that in a moment. The main problem seems to be—and this has already been raised by one or two of the previous speakers—the fact that there is an equipment monopoly. The choice of equipment appears to be extremely limited and people seem forced

163
to use what can only be called "illegal" equipment. For instance, I know that many people have loudspeaker telephones from Sweden. They are highly efficient and very small and compact, and they compare very favourably indeed with the rather monstrous efforts which the Post Office provide and which are anyway not very efficient.
I am told that the intercom system on Independent Television News is Italian because the same thing does not exist over here. That is not illegal, but it bears on what I shall say in a moment. Why can we not have the 500 Series telephone which is used in America? It is a telephone with four or five or three or four lines in the telephone itself and it avoids the need for an exchange. It is very useful for small businesses. It seems to me that this would be an ideal piece of equipment to use here. It would make us all more efficient.
The Post Office licenses various people to use telephones but has the right to withdraw the licence. The sort of telephones that I am thinking of are the porter telephones in hotels and flats, the warden calls and the door entry telephones. I am told that most of these contracts can range up to 14 years but that the licence for these can be revoked by the Post Office at any time. I should like to ask the Government why this is still necessary. I can see that there might have been some point many years ago, but I cannot see that there is much point now. However, it is obviously very difficult for the companies concerned.
Many of us will have seen the various telephones on sale in shops. Even some of the larger stores in Knightsbridge are selling telephones which are made all over the world, and one shop I know even goes to the extent of exhibiting a notice saying, "These telephones are illegal". However, people buy and install them, and I cannot remember hearing of any prosecutions whatsoever. Surely, this is an anomaly and is a fact to which the Post Office must face up. I think that it should begin to understand that most countries have agreed that supplying equipment to the building is all that is necessary, and that it should allow a wide choice of equipment to be used inside the building, provided it ties in with the various wiring systems that are necessary.
164
As a result of monopoly, I know that, though there are some very competitive tenders for equipment, their number appears to be limited. I am not quite sure in my own mind whether enough attention has been paid to the different sorts of equipment that are available. I believe that any good private company would ensure that its equipment was so good that it would be able to export a lot of it. Can the Government tell us—not necessarily today—how much of our equipment which is licensed and made here is actively exported? I have a feeling that the marketing of our equipment is sadly lacking. I also believe that it is true to say that, if the Post Office does not approve the equipment, the manufacturers will not make it. Therefore, it is a vicious circle. I am also told that of the telephone answering equipment which is licensed here none is available from the Post Office itself and the latter takes no interest. I should have thought that this was a highly competitive area where it could make some extra money.
I know that a lot of money has been spent on equipment. Perhaps some has been not so modern as it might have been, however. I know that decisions have to be made many years in advance, and I am looking forward to hearing in the near future of some really good electronic equipment being installed which will be equal or even better than any in the world. The present scale of wrong numbers and crossed lines is, to my mind, beyond a joke. Anybody who is in business is tremendously affected by this, and the number of extraordinary conversations that I have almost listened to is legion. However, I shall not bore your Lordships by telling you about some of those.
One further point is that no amount of modern equipment will make people more efficient. I should like to see more attention paid to the calls which are made through the operators and calls made to operators, engineers and, perhaps, telegrams. They are sometimes answered extremely slowly, and often one is told, "Well, we are very busy". I am afraid that I do not accept that as an excuse. I believe that the patterns must be very clear by now and I feel that, in the last resort, there could be some recording system saying, "We have your call in

165
hand and it will be taken care of as soon as possible". However, I believe that staffing levels need to be looked at rather carefully. The American system—with which I am familiar having lived out there for five and a half years—is probably the most efficient in the world; one can get any State in the country very quickly indeed and with no trouble at all. Perhaps the American operators have a fuller training. I do not know. The noble Lord, Lord Wall, brought up the factor of monopolies existing in America, but the great point here is that those are private and not State monopolies. I believe that that is why the Americans are so much more efficient. In a way, they are competing.
Before I leave the telephone system, I should like to take issue with my noble friend Lord Alport. I felt that he was a little wrong in saying that we could do without the telephone. I believe that my noble friend said that we were able to do without the telephone, but I feel that the data transmission services which are provided, and, sometimes, the lifelines of old people, are very relevant in this case. Perhaps I can quote briefly from the Observer of 17th April, where an elderly person wrote:
"I live in a town full of elderly people, to whom letters are a lifeline. Some are just elderly, some handicapped, many lonely and unable to afford a telephone. Regular letters, like warmth, are a must".
This brings me on to the next point, where I leave telephones and talk about Sunday letters. It is a "hot potato", I know, but I think that, although most of us have talked about it, there is no doubt that the post on Sunday is a very difficult problem to solve, for financial reasons. I have no doubt that the Post Office is correct in saying that the percentage of post on Sunday is extremely small, but I think it is the type of people who are being hurt that is really the point. So much can be done with a letter written on a Sunday, especially when no other time is available; and I think that the quote from the Observer brings this out, because it goes on to say:
"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to replace the feeling that your letter will he on somebody's mat on Monday morning".
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, touched on advertising, and
166
perhaps I can refer to a letter from the Post Office written to my noble friend Lady Young which talks about advertising. I note that in 1971/72 the cost of postal advertising was £1·1 million and that in 1975/76 it had been reduced to £0·9 million—quite a reduction—whereas, on the other hand, telecommunications advertising started at £2·1 million in 1971/72 and was up to £3·4 million. I must say that I agree with most of the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, about the unnecessariness of a great deal of the advertising; but in view of these comparisons, I must ask the Government whether the Post Office is being run-down in any way because of lack of advertising, which obviously it feels, in general terms, is a necessary evil. May I, lastly, make one very small plea to the Government that they should use their best influences on the Post Office in regard to the wearing of uniforms by postmen? When a postman is in uniform he is very obvious because of the difference in his appearance from all the others one sees frequently nowadays who do not seem to feel that wearing a uniform is at all necessary.
My Lords, although we have a little time in hand, there seems to be no need to drag on with this matter. I think we must all thank the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for giving us the opportunity to bring out into the open some very glaring gaps in the efficiency of the Post Office, albeit that we certainly have a service that is better than many others around the world.
Lady RUTHVEN of FREELAND: My Lords, I did not put my name down to make a speech, nor do I mean to make one, but I have asked the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, whether I might ask a question before the Minister rises to reply. It is a quite banal question, and perhaps does not affect a great many people, but, personally, I have a lot of correspondence with people overseas, and the appalling thing about our airmail paper is that the gum is so bad that the flap will practically never stick to the letter. I think the Post Office ought to make an effort to use a better gum for their overseas letters.
4.35 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I believe this has been a valuable debate.

167
The last time we in this House had any substantial time for an exchange of views on the Post Office was, I believe, in November 1975. We have had, of course, lively exchanges at Question Time but think we can all agree that it is a good thing that from time to time we should cast our eyes over major public bodies such as the Post Office, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, deserves our thanks for raising this topic. Having said that, I should like to go a little further and say that I think that the subject we have discussed today is worth more than a mini-debate. I think that within this mini-debate there is a major debate struggling to get out. We might bear this in mind in the future and see that the usual channels enable us to express our views at greater length in a major debate. Because the subject is immensely important.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wall, pointed out, this is an industry about the size of the United States Steel Corporation, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, very rightly indicated his views about how an organisation of this size should be made accountable to Parliament. There is of course, as everybody will agree, a difference between accountability and meddling, and speaking from this Box or from any Box one finds that people ask questions which really are part of the day-to-day running of a nationalised industry and should be kept out of general debate. But it is not quite as easy as that, particularly in the case of the Post Office, where every day, every one of us, probably, is in contact with someone working in the Post Office.
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, although recognising the problem, I think put his finger on the difficulties we face, or which any Government face, when he quoted from the Act, showing that the Act laid certain duties on the new Corporation which, on certain occasions, could clash, and yet did not lay down any system whereby this conflict of duties could be resolved. The Conservative Administration used the Post Office as a social implement when it was fighting inflation. We in the Labour Party, perhaps strangely enough, went back to strict commercial orthodoxy and raised the tariffs charged on both parts of the Post Office services very substantially to
168
put both parts of those services back into profit. We were taking a much more capitalistic view than the Conservative Government had taken before us.
I think the dilemma indicated by the noble Earl is profound and, as I have said, is worthy of a major debate. That view of mine has been, I think, reinforced by the most important speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wall, and the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who restated the dilemma in a different way. They pointed out that the postal services and the telecommunications services are two entirely different animals. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, pointed out, we could get on without the telephone as a social instrument, but we could not get on without the post. The noble Lord, Lord Wall, pointed out that the postal services were labour-intensive, whereas the telecommunications industry was capital-intensive, and that for that reason, again, we were dealing with two separate types of social organisation. The two noble Lords proposed solutions to this dilemma which differed, but not very widely, I thought: two Corporations by Lord Wall, a State service plus a Corporation by Lord Alport.
These things are matters of very great interest and importance when we are dealing with an organisation which employs about 2 per cent. of the working population of this country. It really is quite a size—almost elephantine. For this reason, I believe that perhaps those noble Lords who have shown their interest today might think it worth while debating the annual accounts of the Post Office, which are laid before Parliament and which are likely to be published in July, for the year 1976/77. This is the conventional way of avoiding meddling while ensuring supervision of a nationalised industry; and by that time, of course, the Carter report should be available to us. A debate on a subject of this importance, but not within a limited time-scale, I think could be of great value.
I believe that many of the points raised today must have been put in front of the Carter Committee; and I noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, when he said that, because of leakages, we should debate this as soon as the Carter report is published. I shall bring that point of view to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of

169
State. But I suppose we shall have to wait for Carter, and perhaps, as some other noble Lord said, for Posner, because that deals with the situation in the telecommunications industry and, taken in conjunction with the annual report of the Post Office, we might in fact get nearer to the heart of the matter than is possible to us today in this short but, I think, very valuable debate.
I should like to underline the problems of the Post Office which arise from the fact that it is so large. Because of its size, of course innumerable mistakes must be made. If one judges its performance, one must take any mistakes that are made, and any shortcomings, in relation to its size. For instance, 30 million letters are collected daily from 125,000 pillar boxes, post offices and other collecting points, and from these boxes letters are delivered to about 21 million addressees. At the end of the financial year 1975/76 there were 21 million telephones installed in the United Kingdom; that is to say, we are in the third position after the US and Japan in the actual installation of telephones in relation to our population. A total of some 16,000 million calls were made during the year, virtually all on automatic exchanges. Roughly 2 per cent. of the working population is employed by the Post Office.
I stress these points so that where shortcomings can be seen one must realise that, with the very large number of human beings and the massive banks of machinery involved, shortcomings must come about. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, pointed out, if we try to compare statistically the work of our Post Office with others, I think that the record is very far from bad. We have the British habit of focussing attention on what goes wrong and losing sight of our achievements. I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said by listing a few of the achievements of this country. Letters delivered per employee by the Post Office compare well with every other EEC country except the Netherlands. United Kingdom charges for basic inland and overseas letters are lower than those of any other EEC country and are not very different from those in the United States, where the post office receives a hugh subsidy. As I have said, the United Kingdom has the third largest total of telephones in the world.
170
In recent years, we have seen the Post Office developing and evolving such new services as Household Delivery, Datapost and Expresspost to meet new types of demand from its customers. I have no doubt that more needs to be done; but that is not surprising because, after all, business is a constant struggle to strike the optimal balance with external demands within a given set of financial and social objectives which frequently are in conflict with each other. Not only has the Post Office got to ride the world economic swells, it has also to overcome the philosophies of Governments—and that is, perhaps, even more difficult.
At this point, I should like to take note of remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Newall, in relation to the actual dynamic industrial policy for selling abroad the telecommunications equipment which is produced in this country under semimonopoly conditions. Perhaps the House will forgive me—as we have a certain amount of time—if I develop this point extensively; because I think it is important for the future competitiveness of our telecommunications industry. We know that it is not only private individuals who buy foreign equipment, but the Post Office itself from time to time does the same thing. This, in fact, has not been a widespread and large-scale problem. Britain's telecommunication requirements have grown, as have the similar requirements of other large developed countries indigenously and manufacturing industry has, generally speaking, developed with its eye on the Post Office as its main customer. This is true also of other developed countries.
In many respects those other countries' equipment differs in technical characteristics from ours and it follows that there is not at present great scope for export and import trade with such countries in telecommunications equipment of the kind used by the Post Office. In fact, figures used by the EEC Commission suggest that less than 5 per cent. of telecommunications equipment within the EEC is purchased across frontiers. I would suggest, although I speak without any exact knowledge, that as the Community develops, standardisation must also develop between the communications systems of the nine members of the Community. I would feel—again speaking personally—that it would be better

171
to try to harmonise our telecommunications equipment than our beer. This would be of greater value to us.
The disparity at the moment in these technical characteristics has been widely realised—for instance, in the EEC—and that requirement for open international tender of the sort widely applied in other public purchasing fields is at present inappropriate to telecommunications. That is as far as I can go today. We have the fact that in all countries, with the exception of the USA, there is a Government monopoly operating. The Government naturally wish to support their own indigenous industry and at the moment this situation inhibits the export in a large way of telecommunications systems to developed countries from this country. But the point made by the noble Lord is of importance, and for that reason I am underlining the point he has made.
My Lords, may I turn now to points made by a number of noble Lords in the course of the debate. One noble Lord raised the question of charges made by the Post Office for calls passed through the operator when the caller cannot dial directly or because the dialled call has failed. The Post Office has recently changed its policy on charges for calls connected by the operator, and for the reason that as from 4th January such calls will be charged at about the dialled rate.
Turning to the various points made by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I must say also that I thought he was slightly pessimistic about the cost of Sunday collections. We believe they are six times as expensive as weekday collections rather than the eight times he suggested. That, of course, does not alter the principle. There is a very high price to be paid for Sunday collections and perhaps we will adjust our letter writing habits and thereby enable very substantial economies to be made in the cost of running our postal services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, made an important point when he suggested that overnight letter telegrams might, to a certain extent, mitigate the disadvantages of the limit on Sunday collections. All I can do is to draw his views to the attention of the Chairman of the Post Office. As I understand it, the noble
172
Lord feels that if over the weekend the Post Office could waive the 50p impost, it might encourage people to use the overnight letter telegram over the weekend to a greater degree.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, but without mitigating in any way the inconvenience of the absence of Sunday collections or, even more, the absence of a late Saturday collection.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in relation to that, when we talk about the lifeline factor in telephone communications, I have been advised that the areas where regional directors have exercised their powers to reduce charges have been the following: the Eastern Telecommunications Region, the Midlands Telecommunications Region, the North-Western Telecommunications Board, Wales and the Marches Board and the Scottish Board. I do not know whether there is a board covering the whole of Scotland, or whether Scotland is broken up into divisions, but my advice is that the Scottish board as a whole has used its powers. Discounts were £5 or £10 per installation. I have to add the bad news, however, that unfortunately discounts are made for relatively short periods because the actual discount made had a relationship to the unused facilities. I have no information on how many connections have been made so far at the reduced rate. On the other hand, the power is there. Noble Lords are alert to the existence of this power, and I am certain that use will be made of that knowledge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, will also have noted this point, because it is part of the way in which the actual lifeline costs could be reduced. I am certain that the point she makes is of great value and must be balanced on the social service side of the postal communications and telecommunications systems. The noble Lord, Lord Bowden, made a very important point about an uneven rate of recruitment for young telecommunications engineers. It is a highly technical point, but I will write to him and give him information on policy and a forward projection as to what is expected to happen.
There was another point which I should have touched on a little earlier; that is,

173
the question of the Post Office's experiment in industrial democracy, to which more than one noble Lord referred. The noble Lord, Lord Wall, mentioned the proposed Post Office experiment which would involve, as we know, a single clause Bill to increase the size of the Post Office Board. Final decisions have not yet been taken on this and therefore I cannot at the moment comment upon the matter. Again, if we have a major debate later in the year, by that time decisions should have been reached on whether to go ahead on the Post Office's own proposals, and whether to go ahead with Bullock in his present or in some transformed state. That is all I can say today in answer to what I found a most interesting debate.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, there are two important points to which the noble Lord has not replied. First, my noble friend Lord Ferrier asked whether the ancillary services of the Post Office were being properly rewarded; that is, payments of pensions, et cetera. Also, did not the noble Earl state that there was a job in the Post Office known as a "delayer", and the general public are very exercised because they believe that their second-class mail is being deliberately held back. Is that true?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, asked whether the Post Office, when it undertook work for the Government—for instance, when it arranged to pay old-age pensions—was properly remunerated. This particular point was considered by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in another place. In their reply in October last year, the Government explained that existing arrangements which had been freely negotiated between the Post Office and the Treasury already met the recommendations of the Committee. I believe noble Lords who are interested in pursuing this matter will find it in Command Paper 6629, which was published in October 1976. As regards the fascinating character called the "delayer", and the technique known, as I understand it, as "bumping", I can say nothing helpful at all. It is perhaps useful that the role of the "delayer" and the art of "bumping" have been
174
brought into the light of day since now many people will watch out for the "delayer" and his "bumping".
Having said this, ending on a slightly frivolous note, may I repeat what I said at the beginning: I think that the debate has been most valuable, and I personally also think it merits a much larger debate when we have more facts which we can use to judge the efficiency and possible future organisation of what is one of our major industries.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord kindly reply to the very important points which were made by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls? Will the noble Lord refer them to the appropriate Department for consideration? Those are the kinds of things in which the ordinary public are interested. The noble Lord has hardly commented on them. May I have an answer to those most important points, please?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was courteous enough to mention to me that he had to leave before the end of the debate. There is a convention in this House that I do not have to reply to points raised by noble Lords who are not in their place. But the debate will be studied and the points made by the noble Lord, Harmar-Nicholls, will doubtless be noted.
4.57 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, first of all I should like to thank all noble Lords who participated, whether by listening or speaking, in the debate this afternoon. I should like to elaborate on what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said about Sunday collections which have been mentioned by several other noble Lords. I believe that the Post Office claim that they have saved £9 million by not having Sunday collections. However, if 3 million letters were posted on a Sunday, as opposed to 30 million which are posted on most other days, at first-class rates, by my mathematics this would produce a revenue of over £13 million, so maybe we might eventually get back to Sunday collections.

175
The noble Lord, Lord Wall, has a much greater knowledge of the Post Office than I do—because I only speak as a member of the general public—and I agree with most of what he said. I agree that the telecommunications is a commercial enterprise and, unfortunately, the postal system is not. That again brings us down to the point that it may well be a good thing eventually perhaps to split them apart. The noble Lord, Lord Wall, also mentioned the new Board, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I have been led to believe that the proposals which were worked out about the new Board were done basically in private by the Post Office, the unions and the Government, and I believe that no user organisations were consulted about this at any stage. As yet, there have not been any proposals as to how the user's interests may be safeguarded. Industrial democracy, certainly if carried out carefully and well, could be very beneficial, but I feel that your Lordships would like reassurance—which perhaps can be provided only by hard evidence—that the experiment will produce results. If it was done badly, if anything it would be counterproductive.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, said that the Post Office is a public service, and I agree with him absolutely. That goes back to what many noble Lords have said already this afternoon: that postal deliveries are a necessity. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, when talking about his telecommunications, said that perhaps we should have greater use of discretion, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, was fairly helpful over that. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, said that he was in favour of the Post Office, and perhaps may have seemed to imply that I was not. But I am in favour of it and merely feel that it could be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who told me he had to leave, talked about Christmas card manufacturers, and said there were 1,000 million cards in 1975. He also said that 40 per cent. of the cards were hand delivered. If my simple arithmetic is correct, if that 40 per cent. had been posted, say, with a 4½p stamp at Christmas, it would have generated revenue for the Post Office of something like £25 million. So perhaps the noble Lord,
176
Lord Winterbottom, could ask somebody to look into that particular point and see whether it might he feasible next Christmas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, talked about communications between families, and I am sure that all your Lordships in this Chamber would agree with her. As regards the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, of course I cannot answer for the Government, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, gave a satisfactory answer. The noble Lord, Lord Newall, said we ought to have more efficient equipment; and I agree. He said that if we had that we could export more, particularly answering service machines, and so on. However, the only point I am not certain about is whether, when I dial 100 or whatever it may be for telegrams, I want to be told "You have been answered and you will be dealt with when it is your turn"—because I think one might then wait for ever!
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said there was not time enough to discuss the whole of such a large subject. I agree entirely with him, and I think it would be very good if we could have a major debate in your Lordships' Chambers, particularly following the receipt of the Carter Report. I should be very interested to know whether, later on, the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, could write and let me know, if he could find out, what the term, "about the rate" actually means. I was optimistic about the Sunday post: I thought it might cost four times as much. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said it would cost six times. It was the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who said it might cost eight times. Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for answering this afternoon on behalf of the Government, and I should also like to thank all the other speakers who have participated in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC RECORDS
5.4 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT Lord TEVIOT rose to draw attention to the present state of the public records; and to move for Papers. The noble

177
Lord said: My Lords, in opening this debate I must declare two interests. One is that I am a member of the National Advisory Council on Public Records and the other is that I am a professional record agent. Your Lordships will know that the history of scholarly interest in the public records of this country goes back for many centuries. In the time of Elizabeth I an Act for the safe keeping of records was passed.
If the practical results left much to be desired, the result in terms of scholarship, and indeed of politics, was both subtle and profound. It could be, and indeed has been, argued that without that scholarly interest there would have been no English revolution, no Civil War, no Hampden and no Cromwell. Your Lordships may think that that might have been a jolly good thing! However, I merely want to emphasise the importance of the records and to remind your Lordships of the long history of interest in them and of the effort that has gone into their care over the centuries.
In this century there have been two notable occasions when the administration and state of these records has been scrutinised by Parliament: the great Royal Commission set up in 1910 and the Departmental Committee which produced the Grigg Report of 1954, on which the present Public Records Act was founded. That was nearly a quarter of a century ago, and I trust your Lordships will feel that enough time has elapsed to justify further consideration. Thus, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have put down their names to speak today, and in particular I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord who is kindly going to answer on behalf of the Government. I should also like to pay a very genuine tribute to the PRO staff, with whom I have enjoyed a very close and intimate connection for seven years, for their dedication and helpfulness.
I hope your Lordships will bear with a little brief history. The Public Record Office dates back to 1836, when the first modern Public Records Act was passed. That was as a result of six Public Record Commissions dating back to 1800. Initially, the Office was intended to deal with the enormous collection of records which had accrued since the Norman
178
Conquest—these records that were rendered, for all practical purposes, obsolete and useless: indeed, it seems that those entrusted with their custody could find little better to do with them than sell them off to be boiled down to make soap. Following that was the fire of 1834 which burnt down the Palace of Westminster, in which many of the records were stored. It was that event—as always with disasters—that seems to have been the immediate spur which convinced politicians of the day to stop shilly-shallying with the problem, accept their responsibility for this great heritage and pass the Act of 1836.
At first, the Office was intended to deal with the enormous collection of records which had accrued since the Norman Conquest and which, with the great reforms in public life and the law which took place between the abolition of feudalism in 1660 and the Industrial Revolution of the early 19th century, had become quite obsolete. Therefore, the immediate task at that stage was to sort out and arrange this vast collection—a process which occupied the full attention of officials for many years and which is still done on an ever-decreasing scale as part of the Office's activities today. As one part of this effort, the Office engaged in a massive scheme of publication which, in the course of the succeeding century or so, resulted in the production of something like 600 large volumes of calendars alone. Again, that side of the Office's work still continues, though what was once a flood is now reduced to little more than a trickle.
As I have said, the Office started out with the medieval records but later in the 19th century was made responsible for the records of many active Government Departments, some of which had not even been in existence when the Office was established. In this century there have been added numerous new Departments—Ministries of Labour, Pensions, Health, Education—I do not need to go on; we are all familiar with them. The Departments produce an enormous quantity of paper. I do not say that that is necessarily their purpose, but it is certainly an inevitable by-product of their work. As a result, the building in Chancery Lane was soon bursting at the seams and more accommodation had to be found

179
elsewhere. Many hospital huts and munitions factories in the country, disused for many years, served that purpose.
This year marks a very important event in the history of public records, in that this autumn there will be opened the new Public Records Office at Kew. That building will solve the accommodation problems. It is the most advanced office of its kind in the world. No expense has been spared. It is equipped with all the best and latest machinery, and it is something of which we can all feel proud. As a building, it will certainly do justice to the great collection—surely the most complete and impressive that any nation can boast. It must be admitted that some of us have had misgivings about its location, but the argument about that is past. We all now wish it well, I am sure. What I am concerned about is that, having provided this splendid building, we should not sit back and assume that we have done everything that was required.
There is a very wide interest in our records, as can be seen in a very good article in today's The Times. They touch upon not only the many nations which formerly made up the British Empire, but those—and they are virtually in every part of the world—with which we have had any contact, whether it be commercial, diplomatic, military, naval or otherwise. This interest is profound and is growing. It is essential, if only as a matter of prestige, that we cater for it as well as we possibly can, and not only cater for it in some passive way but go out and encourage it.
The last major study of our archives was, as I have said, by the Grigg Committee in 1954, which resulted in the 1958 Public Records Act. The results have, on the whole, been successful. For the first time, a special responsibility was placed on Departments for the long-term preservation of our records. It gave the PRO a loose, but more clearly defined, co-ordinating role. It established certain broad principles on which to determine which records should be kept and which added to the nation's heritage, and which to destroy. It established a 50-year rule, which was later reduced to 30. All these were substantial advantages, but since 1954 there have been great changes in the records themselves, in the users and in the ways in which they use them.
To give an obvious example, who in 1954 could have foreseen the great changes that the computer would bring? Again, the needs of historians and scholars were very different then. That is not to say that Grigg should have foreseen them, any more than we can foretell what historians of the year 2007 will be wanting. The late Sir Lewis Namier, whose work on 18th century political and 20th century diplomatic history did so much to revolutionise those disciplines, used to claim that a laundry bill of a man of eminence might be as valuable a piece of historical evidence as a paper which he drafted to put before the Cabinet. No doubt that is an extreme example, and no system would cater for it, but I should like to emphasise the study of low-level papers.
But since Grigg reported there has been a distinct shift in interest from, perhaps, old-fashioned political and diplomatic histories, on which I and most of your Lordships were brought up. There is now an emphasis on economic, social and local factors and, most important of all, the scientific. Would the guidelines set down by Grigg have identified the records appropriate for studies of this kind? I do not know, but we should ask the question and I am certainly not convinced that we are doing all we can to let the professional historians—who, if anyone, should know about these things—have a fair say in the process of selection.
These are hypothetical questions and we cannot answer them here. What we can do is concern ourselves with the practical question of whether the machinery, which is established to determine them on a day-to-day basis, is the best that can be devised. At this stage, I want to make it quite clear that I am fully aware of the present economic situation, so that, purposely, one is trying not to make any suggestions which could cost a lot of money. Ideally, a new Royal Commission would be the answer, but that is quite obviously out of the question at the moment. Perhaps another Grigglike committee could be formed to look at certain aspects of archive management. This brings me on to suggest a Government archive service to be set up on the same lines as the Government economic service and the Government accounting service.
The present situation is that each Department appoints its own departmental record officer, who has a small staff under him. The idea behind this, as recommended by Grigg, was that the DRO should have some long experience in the Department and be able to follow the records throughout the 30-year period. To advise him, there is an official called the PRO inspecting officer who calls and advises him from time to time. There are only five of these inspectors, excellent as they are, one scientific adviser and a medieval specialist to cover 200 Government Departments and three nationalised industries. There is something to be said for this system. The long experience and wide knowledge of the best DROs is not lightly to be cast aside, but I question whether the man from inside the Department is any longer really the man for the job.
Is he not likely to be parochial? Even if he escapes this, how is he to maintain his enthusiasm? Able men join a Department in order to forward its primary functions, not to preside over the funeral arrangements of its long-forgotten triumphs and disasters. Years ago, when the pace of life was slower and the great Departments of State endowed from generation to generation, the post of Librarian and Chief Paperkeeper was no doubt something to be sought after. But today, when the life expectancy of many Departments is so short and when the administrators scarcely remember what happened the day before yesterday, let alone 20 or 30 years ago, the post of departmental record officer is all too often, and regrettably, regarded as an assignment to oblivion. This may sound harsh, but would one expect to find in many Departments able people whose interest lay in the history and records of 20 and 30 years ago? I think that the answer must be found.
With a Government archive service, you would provide a career structure. People interested in records would want to join such a service, and it would not be staffed by those who felt that they were being pushed into a backwater. A proper training in archives management would be given, which I gather is not so at the moment. Historians would be invited to take part in selection and reviewing at early stages. I do not say
182
that this is a perfect solution, but it is the kind of solution which merits proper study.
My next question to the noble and learned Lord is to ask whether he is satisfied that adequate arrangements are being made for records of bodies wholly or substantially supported by public funds. My impression is that he is not, and I hope that he can tell us what he proposes to do about it. Regrettably, there is no national archive service in this country. There is the PRO with its duties, the Manuscripts Department of the British Library, the Historic Manuscripts Commission and the National Register of Archives and a growing number of other bodies, supported directly or indirectly from public funds, but there is no overall co-ordinating body and there is certainly no overall directing body. My personal opinion is that the Public Record Office is the right body to deal with them, because the HMC and the others do other excellent work in advising on and recording private collections.
To give one example of these other bodies, there are the records of the National Enterprise Board which are outside the scope of the Acts, as are all but three of the nationalised bodies. The NEB is concerned with a critical element in the Government's economic strategy, and has a decisive power over the future of British Leyland and several other manufacturing concerns. Future economic historians will need a full record of those proceedings for a comprehensive study of the British economy in the late 1970s.
At this stage, I shall say little on the question of access and closure, as I know that my noble friend Lord Bethell, who has very strong views on this aspect, will deal with it extremely thoroughly. I can say only that I have been advised that, on the whole, Departments take a very robust line and close documents only if they are strictly personal and sensitive, or perhaps politically sensitive. But there, again, I leave that entirely to my noble friend. Another point is the transfer of the 100-year old records from the Registrar-General to the Public Record Office. Here, again, I am hiving-off this one, as it is a wide debate, to my noble

183
friend Lord Sudeley, except to say that when it happens it will benefit an enormous number of people, not only genealogists but demographers, social historians and epidemiologists, to state a few. Practically the whole of my speech has been devoted to the public records in the Public Record Office and not to those deposited elsewhere, but I do not want to underestimate the importance of these records. I should like to mention and welcome the Parochial Records Measure which has been passed by the Synod and which is on its way here. It is an extremely good Measure and it has been eagerly awaited for a very long time.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord. The Measure has not yet received final approval in the general Synod but it is hoped that it will do so very shortly.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his intervention. However, I understood this to be the case. I hope, therefore, that the right reverend Prelate is going to give me some good news on that particular point, and I shall eagerly await his speech. Finally, there are two important domestic matters about which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord. The first is the question of the opening hours at Kew and Chancery Lane. Will there be any Saturday opening at Kew and Chancery Lane? And in view of the fact that many people will have to travel far to Kew, could there be a late night opening there? This service is enjoyed at other similar institutions, such as the British Library and elsewhere, and it is very important for those members of the public and students who are unable to get there at other times. I appreciate that there are staffing and financial considerations, but I cannot stress the importance of late night openings too strongly.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment in order to add to what he has just said? The National Archives in Washington stay open until nine o'clock every evening.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. The photographic charges are at present disgracefully high. I am aware that the Keeper and the Assistant Keeper have
184
done their best to control costs but they, like holders of high office in other Government Departments, are continually being hounded by the Treasury. For example, commercial firms charge 6p for a Xerox copy, and University libraries less, whereas the current price charged by the PRO is 14p. This charge is prohibitive to many students and others and in some cases curtails their work and studies. Is the noble and learned Lord able to give us any hope that the charges will not go up any further in the near future?
One aspect of the costing that I cannot understand is this: why, when the Rolls building at Chancery Lane and presumably the new building at Kew are Crown property, do we have to pay accommodation rates which are equivalent to the current inflationary rates which are being charged for rents in Central London? Other costs, like staff and the handling of documents, I can perhaps understand but the high accommodation costs I find a very difficult pill to swallow. I fear that I have spoken for too long, but it is a very wide subject. Thus, I eagerly look forward to the intervention of other speakers. I beg to move for Papers.
5.23 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I believe that I speak for all noble Lords, not only on my side of the House but everywhere else, when I say that we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for introducing this debate. My noble friend has cast his eyes over the broadest horizon, although he seems to have left out Scotland. Perhaps he was thinking of the well-known Scottish mottoes which serve to caution those South of the Border: "Touch not the cat without a glove" and, "Gaing warily". Therefore I presume that my noble friend is happy about the way that the Register in Edinburgh and Scottish records in general are being looked after. Before continuing, may I say that we ought not to forget that this work is going on in Scotland also. Because the Public Records Acts of Parliament do not deal with Scotland, my noble friend's Motion does not mention them; it just speaks about public records. However, this is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and I should like to make the point that Scotland is being looked after very well and that the rules which apply to England and Wales apply also to Scotland.

185
My noble friend has asked many searching questions, to many of which he applied that old Latin friend of ours "Nonne"—which reminds me that we expect the answer, Yes. All of us like to ask questions to which we know the answer. Governments have to answer those questions, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will do his very best to answer them.
May I state right away that we are dealing with a side of the public service which receives no publicity or laurels and where the senior officers, after a lifetime of service, appear to be rewarded in a rather niggardly fashion. This is the case, despite the fact that our records, on the mere pittance of an annual budget of well under £2 million, are looked after, and produced for historians and students, as well as anywhere else in the world. We do not have many Knights in the Public Record Office, nor do we have many CBEs there. It is an Office which has no excitement about it. Nevertheless, the work goes on there, day in and day out, and without that work a great deal of our most exciting history would be lost. We have probably more records than almost any other country in the world.
Before we carp about whether or not we can use our records in one way or another, we ought to give thanks that they are there and that they are looked after so well. Many of us today think that yesterday's events call for remedies. For this purpose, many people demand greater and fuller access to our records, but let us consider whether it is common sense to show all too early? Which of us would show our intimate papers, if awkward, to the world? Yet today we are being urged to withdraw the safeguards against personal distress and loss of commercial confidentiality and State security from the documents which are so carefully preserved before the sting of time has been removed.
Let us first remind ourselves of how grateful we should be to the guardians of our record heritage. I take a great interest in this subject because my great grandfather, Speaker Gulley, later Lord Selby, who was a QC, took a great interest in records. I have some of his papers and books which deal with the matter, and yesterday I was looking at
186
some of them. I thought it would interest that most noble, learned and erudite of Lord Chancellors if I cited an example that I found among his papers concerning a recent part of the history of his rightly beloved country of Wales. The Record Commission Board held a meeting at the Speaker's House in New Palace Yard on 30th March 1833. The business to be dealt with concerned the records of the Auditor of the Land Revenue for Wales. The board were given an extract from a Select Committee Report of 1800 of the House of Commons to consider which said, and I quote:
"They were lodged in a building in New Palace Yard adjoining to the Exchequer within a few yards of the Thames in one room only, and much too small at that, but otherwise tolerably convenient as to security and accommodation for the keeping thereof, were it not so very damp, for being on the ground floor and near the Thames, every high tide brings the water more or less into it, but the floor has been raised to try to keep it dry."
In 1833 the Board laconically commented that after the building in which they had been situated was pulled down
"these ancient and valuable records were placed in the Wooden Shed in Westminster Hall. From this place it seems they were removed to the Bail Court. They are now"—
we are speaking of 1833, of course—
"in one of the bins at the King's Mews. No keeper of them has, it is believed, yet been appointed, and if they are as wet and mouldy as were the King's Remembrancer's records which lately occupied the other bins in the same depot, it is pretty certain the services of such an officer will never be wanted."
That, my Lords, shows how recently they were in danger and during this debate tonight the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, will be speaking and he might be interested to hear about how some of the Rolls fared as they were kept not so very long ago.
I am now speaking of a letter dated 10th June, 1833, written by a Mr. E. Protheroe Junior. The New World did not have the monopoly of the title "Junior" even then. He wrote about the Rolls:
"Only one man was at work in this office—Henry Gay. He was engaged on the Inquisitions post-mortem and the Parliamentary writs. His working place was the recess of a window in the large room next the roof and over the Rolls Chapel. It is in this chamber, subject to all the variations of temperature felt in an old and

187
ill-built house, that are deposited some of the most valuable records of the Kingdom. The space allocated to the workman seemed much too limited and the spot in every respect so inconvenient and ill-adapted for the work that it scarcely admitted of the task—this was certainly done with less facility and expedition than could have been performed with more room. In winter I remember the coldness of the chamber was given me as a reason for his being absent from his work, as having gone to warm himself by a fire".
That is only 140 years ago and we are dealing with documents that go back much further than that. So before we carp and criticise let us give thanks that what we have got have been brought into order—indeed, not only brought into order but preserved and available.
The two noble and learned Lords now have a right to purr to themselves as they lick their cream at the way things have changed. The 1838 Act brought order out of that chaos. The Grigg Report of 1954, after an interval of 116 years, highlighted the modern needs based on modern technology and, above all, made the right of access after 50 years dependent upon the Lord Chancellor. It made it the norm that after 50 years all documents were available with the exception of one or two which the Lord Chancellor, as advised, could deal with.
As has been said by my noble friend Lord Teviot, the 1967 Act merely changed the 50 to 30 years with the same powers to the Lord Chancellor on non-disclosure. As my noble friend has said, The Times today asks whether the advisory council of the noble and learned Lord should not be made to advise more on such matters as the bodies corporate of the State, which are not included by law. We have the Post Office, the National Coal Board and the Atomic Energy Authority mentioned specifically as being bodies corporate whose records are to be looked after. I suppose the noble and learned Lord can assure me that this is written into their constitutions? I have assumed that it is, but am not certain about it. It is in the Public Record Bill but I am not sure whether it is in the Acts of Parliament setting up those authorities.
However, what about the other authorities which have come into existence since then? They are not mentioned. One thinks of the Race Relations Board which has been functioning, I believe, since 1968 and which is now going into
188
limbo and a new body is emerging. What is to happen to its records? To say the least, they are of some historical interest for the future, if not now, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Bethell would say they are of interest now. Whether or not it is wise, Parliament has decided that 30 years is a good period and I am not querying that because it is for this Parliament or future Parliaments to change it if they want to. But with bodies such as this, and other corporate bodies such as the water boards, is the advisory board unable to advise the noble and learned Lord as to whether these other corporate bodies of the State whose existence is important should not also be brought into some form of advisory or compulsory saving of their documents for the future?
Recently there was a letter in The Times by a Mr. Aronsfeld dealing with a distressing matter to his people at the time of the German ill-treatment of the Jews. He complained that under Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 the disclosures have not been allowed. It made me wonder. I do not suppose for one second that without prior notice the noble and learned Lord will be able to give me the answer, but it might be interesting to find out on just how many occasions the noble and learned Lord, in his capacity as an adviser, has issued evidence as to non-disclosure under this section of the Act. I am sure it would be interesting not only to this House but to the country if we could have that information, but I appreciate that I have not given the noble and learned Lord any warning.
I have enormous sympathy with both views on this point. I can appreciate completely the points raised by my noble friend Lord Teviot and what I feel sure my noble friend Lord Bethell is going to say, knowing him as I do. One wants to know the truth and the sooner one knows it, the better, if only to castigate those with whom one disagrees who may still be in some form of public office, and one would like to castigate them while there is a chance to do so.
Bearing in mind the other points mentioned, such as personal distress and Government security and commercial confidentiality, it is difficult to decide. I am sure we should all love to punch some

189
people on the nose, but whether or not it is a sensible thing to do is another matter. On balance, I am prepared to believe that we have probably got it almost right. As I have said, if Parliament believes otherwise it can change the law and give the Lord Chancellor and his advisers advice to consider the matter in another way. But as long as we give him this advice I do not see how we can blame him, and I am not sure that we should blame him or the Act at the moment, although on certain matters we should all like to know what has happened. That is only human.
I suggest that historians like my noble friend Lord Bethell will always be upset by the fact that they are going to be delayed in getting their information. I can remember just after the war being absolutely amazed when an Australian war correspondent called Chester Wilmot wrote a book called Struggle for Europe. I thought then—and I still think with knowledge later acquired—that it is one of the best accounts of the last war ever written. The interesting thing about this book is that it was an Australian war correspondent, historian, writing very soon after the event, without the advantage of the memoires of British, German, American and other generals, without the advantage of documents made public by Governments of one sort or another, enemy or friend. That man, Mr. Chester Wilmot, was a great historian; he was a great journalist. He got his facts right without having all the proofs there. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Bethel!may be able to get some of his facts right without all the proofs, and it may be that his son or grandson will say, "Daddy" or "Grandpa, was dead right; here is the proof". We in this age get our facts moderately right, I think, if we have our antennae out in the right directions.
I gave the list of the reasons which the noble and learned Lord had for withholding, and I personally think that this discretion is by and large right. Bearing in mind the type of noble and learned Lord Chancellors we have had in recent decades I think they can be trusted to do this duty. If circumstances totally change, well, all right, Parliament can change the law, have another advisory body to advise. My noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned the late Sir Lewis Namier. I was thinking
190
how L. B. Namier would have loved to have the original documents about the Balfour Declaration. Would it have been good, though, if he had got them, I ask myself, and I think the answer would be, No; his historical antennae might have had too much support perhaps.
My Lords, I have been speaking for a long time and I apologise; it is a subject which interests me. I really do believe that, with all the political interest and excitement which can be caused by complaining, we have to remember that the chief duty of the Public Record Office is to preserve, codify and, when possible, when more money is available, of their own accord to publish some of the facts they already have. My great-grandfather, Speaker Gulley, was one of those who said, "Is it as important to record as to publish?" I think myself that you cannot publish without recording, so I think the records must be kept first.
The Public Record Office is now, as my noble friend said, about to move to Kew; the building opens in some two weeks' time, and the official opening is in October. The £6 or £7 million spent on this building at Kew is an enormous sum when you consider that their annual income is well under £2 million. I think they are going to be very happy there. Some two-thirds of these dedicated servants of the Crown are moving there. It is not easy for them; they do not want to move there; very few of them want to move there. One-third only will stay in Chancery Lane. It means that searchers will have to go down to Kew. It is not far, I know, but nevertheless for those who work there it is not always all that easy. We should pay tribute to the fact that they are going to move. What they will need is a period of consolidation to be able to get their feet more firmly and efficiently on the ground with these new buildings. At the moment they have only some 20 years filing space ahead of them. After that they will have to consider with the Government of the day acquiring more buildings. When we are considering these things, we forget what is involved. There are over 80 miles of shelves filled with files.
In this debate we should not be doing our duty if we did not primarily put forth our thanks to the Public Record Office for what it is doing. Whether or

191
not we as Parliament see fit to authorise the earlier or later publication of the documents they so carefully record is another matter, but in a debate of this kind the least we can do is to say thank you to these people, 450 of them, of whom only some 33 are on the repair and maintenance side of these very delicate documents. They work on a comparatively minute peppercorn budget, and with no glamour. I for one should like to say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whose pleasant duty I imagine it is to preside over this body in a paternal capacity, that I would wish him to pass on from myself and from my Party our grateful thanks for what this body does.
5.47 p.m.
Lord DENNING: My Lords, as Master of the Rolls, I have many occupations; perhaps I might say I have many roles. Among these are the records of the Realm. My Patent describes me as the Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England, and those go back for at least the last 700 or 800 years. The Master of the Rolls, I am afraid, must have been a little remiss in 1834 in the care he took then. I should like to say it was my predecessor Lord Langdale—and, of course, in those days the Master of the Rolls owned all the land between Fetter Lane and Chancery Lane—who made it possible for the Public Record Office to be built. He presented the land on which the Public Record Office now stands to the Government, and the Government built the Public Record Office on it. Since that time the Master of the Rolls was Keeper of the Public Records and responsible for them, with a deputy keeper, who, of course, did all the work.
Since the Grigg Committee in 1954 and the Public Record Act of 1958, the Lord Chancellor has been responsible for the public records. The Master of the Rolls is chairman, shall I say, of the consumer council; he is Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records. One of the most valued members is my noble friend Lord Teviot, who has practical experience of the working of the Office, and his most valued initiation of this debate has brought to your Lordships' attention matters which do need consideration. I have been Chairman of the Advisory
192
Council for the last 15 years. We meet regularly and we have under review many of the matters which have been raised today.
During that time there have been two major achievements. When I became chairman of the Advisory Council there was the 50-year rule which meant that Government Departments kept all their documents close to their chests for 50 years and that no one could see those documents until the 50 years had expired. A few years ago, on the advice of the Council, the period was reduced to 30 years bringing it into line with that applying in other countries. That was a great improvement. Government Departments are now bound to release the documents and send them to the Public Record Office after 30 years. That is the first great achievement.
The other is that as accommodation was so short in Chancery Lane—the search rooms were overcrowded and papers could not be kept within those confines—a great new building has been erected at Kew. The site was provided by the Government and the finest record office in the world is now built and will be opened later this year. There have been some difficulties over staff having to move their homes closer to Kew, but I hope and believe that the new building will give rise to a great advance in the keeping of records in England. Those are the two major achievements in recent years.
My noble friend mentioned the problem of the new situation since the Grigg Report. We have all the computerised systems, mechanised records and the like. However, there has been a change in emphasis in history. In addition to the great diplomatic changes that have taken place, there have been changes in the social and economic history of the people. Furthermore, great new bodies have been set up which are not subject to the Public Record Office at all. My noble friend mentioned the National Enterprise Board. There is also the Race Relations Board, the Steel Corporation, the transport undertakings and many others which do not come within the ambit of the Public Record Office. Some means should be provided or advice should be given whereby their records can be preserved and allocated instead of being destroyed. The problem has been considered by the

193
Advisory Council and it does not come within the terms of the Statute. However, the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts has initiated a pilot study to discover the extent of the problem as regards these fringe bodies. Therefore, that matter is being dealt with as far as possible.
It has been well said that, in view of these changes, perhaps it is time to take a new look, rather as the Grigg Committee did 23 years ago. The Advisory Council thought that that was desirable and put it before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord was sympathetic to its request but felt that this was not the time to take such a look. We must accept that. It is important to say that the Public Record Office is serving the country well. The users and readers of its records, and those overseas who use it, are well served as economically as may be.
One particular problem which has been raised lately—I think my noble friend Lord Bethell may raise it—is whether Government Departments disclose or send to the Public Record Office all that they should. It is a difficult question because if Departments do not want to disclose their records, they may overlook them, miss them or even destroy them. The Public Record Office can do nothing about that. There may be very good reasons for Departments acting in that manner. Perhaps I could give an illustration.
Some years ago I had to conduct an inquiry into the Profumo incident. Some very secret records containing all sorts of indiscretions were made. Should those records be kept, or not? The key answer to that was that the evidence was given in confidence. I assured everyone who gave evidence before me that such evidence was completely confidential and would not be disclosed. Only one copy was kept and many people would have liked to read it. A year or two later I was asked whether even that one copy could be destroyed. A good case was put forward for destroying it. The information had been given in confidence and, therefore, the question was raised as to whether it would not be a breach of faith for such records to be disclosed later—even 30, 40 or 50 years later. The answer is that the confidence is being maintained; the records
194
of the Profumo inquiry have been destroyed and the information is only in my head and I am forgetting it all now. That is just an illustration of the way in which Departments can control—I do not say wrongly—the disposition of records.
The other problem is whether the period should be extended from 30 years to 50, 75 or 100 years. Departments can often make out a good case for that. National security, international diplomacy or exceptionally sensitive matters may be involved, or information may have been given in complete confidence, never to be disclosed. There is also the exceptionally sensitive situation where individuals who are still living might have their characters injuriously affected. All those are grounds on which the period of 30 years is from time to time extended. However, I hope that there will not be too much anxiety over this because the inspectors of the Public Record Office inquire of the Departments the grounds for closure for a longer period. They tell the Departments that the Advisory Council keeps an eye on the matter. The Advisory Council looks into these requests for extended closure to see whether they are justified. We hope to institute a procedure whereby samples can be taken of these requests for extended closure.
I hope and believe that the procedure works reasonably well. We should thank the Keeper and staff of the Public Record Office for keeping the records as well as they do. From time to time improvements have to be made, and the Advisory Council will do what it can.
5.58 p.m.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, I wonder whether it is necessary for me to make my speech at all because my noble friend and former colleague Lord Mowbray and Stourton has told the House what I am about to say. Nevertheless, I can perhaps add to the interpretation of my speech, which noble Lords have already heard, and I hope that they will not be too surprised if it differs in certain respects from the version they heard from my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Pure guesswork!
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, indeed, pure guesswork. I should like to join with my noble friend Lord Teviot in paying a tribute to the Public Record Office and to those who work there for the extremely noble contribution that they make to the recording of this country's history. My noble friend Lord Teviot and I are, I think, the Members of your Lordships' House who spend most time in the Public Record Office. In fact, my noble friend probably spends more time there than I. Certainly, whenever I go there I usually see him. I have yet to meet my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton there. It is on the basis of continually visiting those excellent offices for seven or eight years that I believe that I may have something to contribute today. Like my noble friend Lord Teviot, I wish to declare an interest in that I am a professional writer who makes use of the Public Record Office for his writings.
I fully accept that this is a question of balance, and most of the speakers this afternoon have emphasised this point: how do you balance the arguments for disclosure against the arguments for closure? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has the unenviable task to maintain the balance, and what is he to do about it? It has been said in a previous debate on this subject in 1967 that sound Government must be the primary consideration, and historians must take second place. I entirely agree with that. Historians are an interest, but a comparatively narrow interest, and sound Government must be the main consideration which the noble and learned Lord takes into account when deciding whether or not to close documents.
I would make only one point here and that is that when making these decisions the noble and learned Lord should bear in mind that it is not only the narrow interest of the historian that he has to consider, it is also the public interest, and on occasion the public interest may be better served by disclosure than by closure. There are certain areas of history where the national point of view is kept hidden; where documents which would put us in a better light, or would explain why this country acted in a certain way, would reveal to the world the reason behind our actions, even though they are criticised elsewhere; documents which perhaps are
196
kept closed, perhaps to the detriment of the national interest. This is a consideration that should be borne in mind.
So we get back to the question of balance and the noble and learned Lord's unenviable task. This is where I wish to put to him and to the House my first point where I think there is cause for concern. We all know that the noble and learned Lord has it as part of his duties to close documents for longer than the statutory 30-year period. In this duty he acts upon advice. It is obviously not practicable for the noble and learned Lord to read every single document to which he affixes his signature for closure. He acts upon advice. But the question is on what advice. How does he decide which, closure or disclosure, is in the interests of the nation as a whole? How does he maintain this balance? What advice does he get?
Of course, he gets advice from the Department which issued the documents in question. I cast no aspersions whatsoever on the members of Government Departments who give the Lord Chancellor advice suggesting that documents should be closed, but the fact remains that the member of the Department who gives this advice is a member of that Department; he has an interest in the matter. I would submit that it is not only the advice of that person, or of that group of people, that should be taken into account by the noble and learned Lord when making his decisions, but in practice this is so. I shall willingly give way to the noble and learned Lord if he will interrupt me and tell me that it is not so, but in practice, I feel, after making inquiries, that it is so.
The noble and learned Lord does not, in practice, have the chance of getting any advice from any other body of people, whether from any group of historians or the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council can request the right to see documents but this request will be granted only if the Department feels able to allow it. Nor does he get advice from the Public Record Office itself. In other words, it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord who acts in a judicial capacity in this matter is hearing only one side of the case. I ask him seriously to consider whether some improvement

197
might not be considered in the implementation of either the present 1958 and 1967 Acts or of some new Act, which would enable an advocate for disclosure to have the chance of putting arguments to him.
In this respect I have a lot of sympathy with the suggestion put by my noble friend Lord Teviot that a national archival service might fill this gap—a group of men with a career structure who had an interest in history and the preservation of documents; who were cleared for security at the, highest level; who were thoroughly reliable, and who might be able to balance the arguments to enable the Lord Chancellor and his successors to take a judgment over closure or disclosure. This is not the only problem over the closure of documents. If it were the case that the noble and learned Lord made decisions about closure and disclosure either himself or under advice entirely, this would not be so bad. At least we would know that there was a machinery through which all documents had to go before they were closed to the public. But this is not the case. There is, I am sorry to say, the notorious matter of Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that a completely new situation has arisen through the publication of the Crossman Diaries? I entirely support the extreme objectivity and fairness with which the noble Lord approaches this subject. The documents will be published under advice; the most skilled and impartial advice one can get. But the situation now is that it does not wait 30 years; its waits five minutes. On this point, would the noble Lord take into account that nobody's name was more lavishly mentioned by Mr. Crossman than my own? There is a difference between Mr. Crossman and myself. He kept diaries and no papers; I have kept the papers but no diaries. I shall leave my documents, too, for them to be looked at perhaps in 30, 40, or, so far as I am concerned, 100 years hence. But I can assure the noble Lord that I know of no single instance of which Mr. Crossman has given an account in which he is not the major part of 100 per cent. inaccurate.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, for
198
that interruption. However, may I say with great respect that it is on a slightly different point from the one I was arguing. While I have the greatest sympathy with him in what happened to him over the Crossman Diaries I am, at the moment, addressing my arguments to the question of documents which are at least 30 years old and to the problems which arise from the existence of those 30-year-old documents.
I mentioned Section 3(4) of the Public Records Act. This section provides that—
"any records may be retained after the said period"—
of 30 years—
"if, in the opinion of the person who is responsible for them, they are required for administrative purposes or ought to be retained for any other special reason and, where that person is not the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chancellor has been informed of the facts and given his approval".
In other words, Government Departments may retain in their offices documents
"for administrative purposes or … any other special reason",
and I should be interested to know what kind of special reasons are envisaged in this Act, provided that the Lord Chancellor has been informed and given his approval.
One may say that there is an adequate safeguard against abuse of this section of the Act because the noble and learned Lord has to be informed of facts and to give his approval. But I have to inform the House that on 13th November 1967 the noble and learned Lord's predecessor, Lord Gardiner, gave a general authority for the retention in Departments of various categories of records. He gave that authority in advance for 25 years, authority which will lapse only in 1992. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could allay my anxiety in this matter by indicating to the House exactly which categories of records can be retained in Departments indefinitely without even being submitted to him. At present, Governments can and do retain papers without even submitting them to the Lord Chancellor for long closure under this section of the Public Records Act 1958 and I feel that in this matter justice is not being seen to be done and that, in all justice, the noble and learned Lord should turn his mind to the problem.
My third point where I think there is cause for concern was referred to, I thought dramatically, by the noble and

199
learned Lord, Lord Denning—the question of the destruction of records—and here again the Public Records Act 1958 provides certain opportunities, if that is the right word, for Government Departments, for under Section 6 we read:
"If, as respects any public records in the Public Record Office or any place of deposit appointed under this Act, it appears to the Keeper of Public Records that they are duplicated by other public records which have been selected for permanent preservation or that there is some other special reason why they should not be permanently preserved, he may, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor and of the Minister or other person, if any, who appears to the Lord Chancellor to be primarily concerned with public records of the class in question, authorise the destruction of those records, or, with that approval, their disposal in any other way."
Again, we have this provision that for any "other special reason" documents may be destroyed, and Lord Denning described how the documents which related to the Profumo affair had been destroyed. I was rather alarmed and shocked when I read in The Times this morning that there was a rumour that they had been destroyed; that is, the documents in the Profumo and Suez affairs. Lord Denning has now confirmed that the Profumo documents have been destoyed and I wonder what others have been destroyed.
I very much doubt whether the noble and learned Lord will be able to give me an answer now, but have the Suez documents been destroyed? I dare say he will not be able to tell me today, but I should like him to write to me on the subject telling me what documents on important controversial matters have been destroyed and what is the machinery for authorising the destruction of documents. It seems to me, as an historian, an entirely different thing to close documents for 50, 100 or even 150 years than to destroy them. As an historian, it goes very much against the root of my professional feelings to think that documents on such a crucial matter could have been destroyed. It is not possible to argue it out here, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord did not make an error here and whether it would have served the purposes which he rightly had at the front of his mind—the question of confidentiality—if he had requested that the documents be closed (even for 150 years) so that some future historian could have made use of them.
200
My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton said that in his opinion the 1958 and 1967 Acts were probably working reasonably well and he felt that radical changes were perhaps not necessary. Personally, I doubt whether he would feel the same way if he had had as many bounced tickets as I have had. A bounced ticket is a ticket applying for a document which is returned to a reader with an inscription on it indicating that the document, for one reason or another, is not available, usually because it is retained in the Department under Section 3(4) as I have described. I was, in one particular case, the victim of many bounced tickets earlier this year when I was researching the question of Palestine—and here I must declare a special interest in that I am writing a book on Palestine. As was published in the Press at the time, a large proportion of the Cabinet Office papers on Palestine were closed for 50 years instead of 30 years; in other words, for an extra 20 years.
While being sad about that at the time, I could not complain about it because I did not know what was in the documents; for all I knew they might have contained most damaging matter extremely dangerous to the security of the United Kingdom. Thus, I should have been in no way justified in making any complaint about the decision taken by the noble and learned Lord to close the Cabinet Office papers on Palestine on the recommendation of the Cabinet Office. However, by an archival quirk I had the opportunity of seeing some of the documents which the noble and learned Lord closed last year, and I am holding one in my hand. The reason I was able to see this document is because it was cross-referenced in the Foreign Office documents. It had been closed in the Cabinet Office but a copy of it appeared in the Foreign Office documents, so I found myself in the lucky position from my point of view of having obtained a document which the noble and learned Lord closed. I was able to obtain several such documents.
I hope the House will accept that I mean no disrespect to the noble and learned Lord when I say that, having read these documents which he closed last year, I cannot for the life of me see why he did it, because while the material in the documents is extremely interesting and

201
indeed controversial and might embarrass—embarrass but not, I think, injure—one or two individuals, it is in my view in no way prejudicial to this country's security; it is in no way likely to damage this country's diplomatic, national or economic interests. The most extraordinary part about it is that it seems that the noble and learned Lord agrees with me, because when I pointed out this quirk a reconsideration was made of the 1946 Palestine papers and I have now heard that, with one small exception, they have all been opened. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking the trouble, which I know he took, to reconsider this matter and for coming to a generous decision on reconsideration.
While this is a story which ended well, it forces me to ask myself how many other documents there are which have been closed by the noble and learned Lord or his predecessors or which are retained in Departments under Section 3(4) on the cautious advice of Government record officers but which could be revealed without any damage whatsoever to individuals, to the national interest, to economic interest or to any of the other criteria mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton.
Those are three points which I would put to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and upon which I hope he will be able to give me some sort of an answer. I shall end with one or two positive suggestions: my first suggestion has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teviot. I agree with him that perhaps a Government archive service would answer some of the genuine worries which historians feel about the way that documents are closed, preserved or kept in Departments. A professional body of civil servants whose job it was to take a personal interest in the history of our country and in the records themselves would provide a balancing factor to the advice of Government Departments which, although it is in no way sinister—I am not suggesting that there is any sinister motive here at all—must always be seen from one point of view.
I would also suggest that the noble and learned Lord might perhaps think it advisable to consider ways of strengthening his Advisory Council. At present, it meets only once a quarter and I gather
202
that it is not always well attended. The members are not entitled to see individual documents unless the Departments give their consent. They have no powers, but give advice only. Perhaps a few teeth for the Advisory Council would allay some of our worries.
My third and most immediate practical suggestion is that the ad hoc Cabinet Committee which is about to review Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act should take under consideration the question of public records. I know that the noble and learned Lord is a member of that ad hoc Committee and I wonder whether he can indicate to the House whether he would think it useful for this matter to be put on the Agenda of the ad hoc Committee which, I understand, is to meet on the general question of open government this summer. It seems to me to be something which would be very much in the spirit of the Government's Manifesto, and we all know how anxious the Government are to fulfil their Manifesto. In that document, there is a promise to move as quickly as possible towards the maximum degree of open government.
I wish to close by once again expressing thanks and paying tribute to the archive officers in Government Departments who have always been very helpful to me personally and against whom I have no complaint whatsoever, as also to the staff of the Public Record Office, who have always been politeness and helpfulness itself. I hope that I have advanced certain arguments which indicate that the situation, while not at all bad, leaves room for improvement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, may I, with great respect, remind your Lordship that this is a short debate? If there is to be any expectation that I am to reply to the debate—and I gather that there is—perhaps those who are to follow will bear in mind that the debate has to end at 7.30 p.m. or thereabouts. I apologise for this intervention, which I hope will not be thought unkind to those who are to follow.
6.23 p.m.
Lord SUDELEY: My Lords, I shall keep my speech as short as I can, though

203
I am afraid that there are four points which I had it in mind to raise. The first relates to the Registrar General. In February, 1975, the Registrar General reached an agreement with the Keeper of the Public Record Office on the transfer to the Public Record Office of the registers of all births, marriages and deaths which are more than 100 years old. However, before the transfer can be made, the Public Records Act 1958 must be amended so that these records can be treated as public records and the Registration and Marriage Acts must be amended so that the records can leave the custody of the Registrar-General. In January last year, the Lord Chancellor's Office advised that the chances of amending the Public Records Act 1958 in the near future were slight. Once the records have been transferred, the Keeper of the Public Record Office intends to preserve the original registers by giving public access only to microfilms of the registers. The microfilming, which has already been put in hand, is proceeding in reverse chronological order and should be completed by about 1980.
This is the state of affairs at the moment, but, in many ways, it is rather unsatisfactory. There is no reason why only those registers which are more than a century old should be transferred. Registration has always been an open matter, so no objection can be raised that the privacy of individuals will be infringed if the registers of births, marriages and deaths which are less than a century old are also transferred. Also, though changes in the law may be required before the registers themselves are transferred, I am not sure whether there is anything to prevent the microfilms from being transferred to the Public Record Office immediately after they have been completed.
Meanwhile, students using the Registrar-General's office labour under great disadvantages. They have access not to the registers but only to indexes of them. After consulting the indexes, they can only obtain certified copies of particular entries. This is of little use to demographers and social historians who have to consult large quantities of the original entries rather than just individual entries. Then, the high cost of certificates has gone far to drive down the demand. In February,
204
the Registrar-General wrote to me to say that since 1975 the demand for certificates had dropped substantially. When questioned as to why he will not give the public access to the original registers the Registrar-General likes to argue that under the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Marriage Act 1949, he is not required to provide access. However, the point here is surely that neither of these Acts prohibits the Registrar-General from providing access.
The Registrar-General is also to be criticised for his change of policy over providing access to the records of local superintendent registrars. In the autumn of 1973, the General Register Office did not see why historians should not have access to those records but, in August 1974, Miss Graham of the General Register Office, sent out a circular letter reversing that policy. Miss Graham said that the volume of requests for access had reached unmanageable proportions. But it is pointed out in Local Population Studies No. 13 for the autumn of 1974 that this statement is not well founded and that the number of students was unlikely to exceed about 60. It would be very satisfactory if the law were changed so that these local records could be transferred to county archivists under whose care the same problems would not arise.
The second matter upon which I should like to comment is one which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, mentioned. It relates to the political papers which should be recovered as public records but which are not so recovered. In February, the Secretary to the Advisory Council on Public Records wrote to me saying that the papers of Ministers and officials in the registered files of Departments were safe enough but that difficulties arose where papers were in unregistered folders or not filed at all and so became intermingled with private papers. The extent to which loss has occurred in the past owing to these difficulties has recently been indicated in two surveys which have just come out—Hazlehurst and Woodland's Papers of British Cabinet Ministers 1900–1951 and C. Cook's British Political History 1900–1951, Vol. 2, Guides to the Private Papers of Selected Public Servants. While the Public Record Office does its best to try to stop this loss continuing,

205
the Secretary to the Advisory Council on Public Records does not think that anything like total success can be claimed.
The third matter upon which I should like to touch is one that has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, my noble friend Lord Mowbray and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning; that is, records of a public character about which Her Majesty's Government ought to do something even though they are not covered by Statute. These are the records of the fringe bodies. The secretary's report to the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for 1975–76 included a note headed Historical Documents of the State, Records of the Fringe Bodies, which deals with this subject, and I should like to give the gist of this note so as to make it better known. It has not been mentioned in the debate so far.
The note speaks of the growing numbers of bodies of a public character, financed by public funds, which would resist attempts to bring their records within the scope of the Public Records Act because this would vitiate their independence of Government control. The note goes on to say that discussions have taken place between the Keeper of the Public Record Office and the Lord Chancellor's Office with a view to making such records into a new class, called protected records. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would decide which records would fall into this category, and where they do so there would be an obligation to consult the Keeper of the Public Record Office on how these records should be selected and disposed of, where they should be deposited, and what access the public should have to them. I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to say, when he answers the debate, whether these proposals which I have just outlined have any chance of being implemented in the very near future.
The fourth matter on which I should like to touch is that of the records of the Church of England, which I trust come within the scope of the debate, since if one goes back far enough one sees that the Church courts governed many matters which come under the arm of the secular law; the Church is not disestablished, and many of our parish records are already in the care of the local record offices. On
206
the subject of parish records, some months ago genealogists were extremely pleased with the Parish Registers and Records Measure, which far exceeded their original expectations. They were so happy indeed that they hoped that when the Measure came before your Lordships' House no noble Lord would criticise it, because they were afraid that the Measure might then have to go back to the Synod which has taken so much trouble over the Measure that it has by now become rather tired of it.
But unfortunately I am afraid that at the last moment an Amendment has been put down to the Measure which has given much disquiet to historians and genealogists. The 1962 Public Records Act enables bishops and incumbents who deposit the registers of baptisms and deaths to request that research into these records should be free of charge, but if the Amendment to which I refer goes through, then diocesan record offices will be able to override the provisions of the 1962 Act. Some diocesan record offices come under local authorities and they will continue to be restrained by some kind of public accountability. But private diocesan record offices, such as the Borthwick Institute at York, the Cathedral Library at Canterbury, and the Bodleian will be able to charge what they like. I am not sure whether the movers of the Amendment realised the full implications of what they did, and I am hoping very much that there might be some happy chance that when the right reverend Prelate speaks after me he will be able to give the House some assurance that the Amendment will be dropped before the Measure goes before the Synod for final approval.
Then there are the records of cathedral libraries. At the moment the deans and chapters of cathedrals are able to dispose of their records without reference to the Cathedrals Advisory Committee as a statutory body, and not so long ago some mediaeval records were sold from Bury St. Edmunds. But if, as I hope, the Cathedrals Advisory Committee can be turned into a statutory body—and I should like to ask a Starred Question about this—then the deans and chapters of cathedrals are unlikely to surrender their independence without getting some kind of State aid in return. Once the cleans and chapters

207
receive their State aid, then the need to consider their records as public records will become twice as significant.
The final matter on which I should like to touch is that of the central records of the Church of England, covered in Dr. Kitching's pioneer survey published last year by the Church Information Office. Dr. Kitching mentions the possibility of the Public Records Acts being amended so that the Church might make greater use than hitherto of the services of the Public Records Office, and together with his survey there is published a report of the Survey Committee which goes so far as to suggest that if the central records of the Church of England were entrusted to a State-managed institution this would in no way conflict with the interests of the Church. What the Survey Committee has gone so far to suggest might in some ways be a happy alternative to the present sorry state of affairs where, on the one hand, it is often contemplated in Dr. Kitching's survey that the central records of the Church of England should come under the umbrella of the Lambeth Palace Library and, on the other hand, it is apparent from many paragraphs of Dr. Kitching's survey that Lambeth Palace Library is starved of money. Several paragraphs of the survey spell out in detail the consequences of the Church Commissioners not providing the money that is needed for the very necessary expansion of the library.
For example, it is mentioned that the records of the Archbishop's Counsellors on Foreign Relations, and bishops' meetings, should be transferred to the library, yet for want of space the first of these two classes of records cannot be transferred. Again, it is mentioned how, during the course of the survey, the records of the Jerusalem and East Mission and of the Archbishopric of Jerusalem had to be turned away from the library for want of space. My Lords, this is a wide debate, and I hope that I have not erred in trying to cover so many rather disconnected points in the scope of a single speech.
6.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those who have expressed gratitude to
208
the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for the introduction of this very important debate, and I have immediately to make an apology to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, because I am afraid that due to a lapse of memory I gave wrong information in the intervention which I made in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. The new records Measure has now received final approval by the General Synod last February. I was under the impression that it was to receive it in July, and I am very sorry that I gave that wrong impression. The Measure is on its way to this House. It is incapable of being revised now, and of course I cannot in any way possibly comment on the debate which will no doubt take place in this House when the Measure is presented for Affirmative Resolution, but I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, in saying that the General Synod has spent a very long time on the Measure, and I doubt that it will want to spend any more time on it. But I apologise to both noble Lords for having, as a result of an aberration of my memory, given a false impression on that point.
However, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, mentioned the question of the ecclesiastical records of this country because they are very widespread. They vary enormously in their characters, and yet cumulatively they amount to one of the major sources of information on our history and on research into our people. The widest area of distribution of these documents is the parochial records; that is to say, records of baptisms, of marriages, of burials, church wardens' accounts, terriers of possessions, tithe maps and so on. These documents are of not only ecclesiastical interest. As the noble Lord pointed out, they are great sources for the social historian, for the genealogist, for those who are interested in the movement of population and for those who are interested in medical history.
They are of the greatest possible importance, and I should like to give two very small instances from my own experience. When I was Bishop of Chester, I carried out a visitation of my diocese and I examined all the burial registers, among others. It was very interesting to note that up until about the year 1914 every page had an entry relating

209
to three or four infants having been buried. I think that in the whole of my ministry I have buried only one or two infants, and here is an illustration of the way in which medical aid has come to help in the preservation of life. Moreover, occasionally an assiduous parish priest would enter the cause of death, and one would see references to diseases which one never hears of now, such as croup and other childish diseases which no longer are the cause of death.
Another instance concerned one of the most remote and tiniest of the parishes in the Chester diocese, which was Woodhead, where for some years the navvies had congregated in order to cut the tunnel through the Pennines and create the Woodhead Tunnel. When a certain historian was recently writing the history of the navigators he was particularly interested in the records of this parish, not only because of the strange names which the navigators gave to one another but also because at a particular period they had had a very serious outbreak of cholera, and this was all recorded nowhere other than in the burial registers of the parish. So one recognises how very important these documents are, and also, of course, at what risk they are at the moment, because under the existing measure a bishop has very little power in order to ensure that they are safeguarded. He can do something about it only if he is absolutely convinced that the parish will not spend the money on them to provide a proper safeguard, proper repair and so on.
So I am very glad that the two noble Lords have welcomed the new measure, and I hope that the one particular point that the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has mentioned will not act as a barrier to the passing of the measure, because it does enclose so many important things. The most important from our point of view is that it will require that all documents older than 100 years must be deposited in the diocesan record office unless there is some special reason and the bishop is satisfied that a particular parish has a proper safe, that it has had the documents properly repaired, that they are kept in proper condition and so on. This will be a very great advance, as will also be the requirement that the bishop must immediately carry out a survey of all the documents.
210
Some reference has been made to the diocesan record offices, and I want here to pay a special tribute of gratitude to the public authorities who have made it possible for diocesan record offices to be incorporated into the public record offices. I think I am right in saying that 40 of the 43 dioceses all have diocesan record offices alongside the public record office of the local authority, and where that has not happened they are kept in very responsible places such as the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, mentioned—the Borthwick Institute in York, the Bodleian for the Oxford diocese, and so on. I believe that this new measure will provide a very much greater safeguard and will also provide much better opportunities for students, because one of the difficulties at the moment is that if a student wants to make a survey of some particular issue in an area then, if the parish has not deposited its records in the local authority record office, he has to go from one parish to another and back again in order to compare documents. Moreover, it is very seldom in these days that a parish priest can provide a proper oversight when students are examining documents, and there have been cases when pages have been removed from important documents because of a lack of proper oversight. All these things will be cured if, as I believe, it is right that these documents should be deposited in diocesan record offices alongside the local authority record offices, so that they can be properly cared for and properly available to students.
But, of course, the ecclesiastical documents and records are not confined only to the parochial records. There are, as the noble Lord has reminded us, archbishops' and bishops' records, and there are documents attached to particular sees. I think, for instance, of the very interesting and very important documents that attach to the See of London which are known as the Fulham Papers, because for 200 years the Bishops of London were responsible for the oversight of all Church of England congregations outside the British Isles. This meant that they had to exercise very considerable control over the early American colonies, as well as other places where the British Empire was spreading its influence. It is a remarkable thing that the Bishops of London, sitting in their study at Fulham Palace, were able to exercise this control, and yet all

211
those documents are there. They have been most beautifully cared for and catalogued, and they are now in the Lambeth Palace library and available for scholars.
Then there are the papers of the societies, and reference has been made to these. The big societies can of course look after their own documents, like the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and the Church Missionary Society. Their documents are invaluable as records of work done overseas at a time when there was very little evidence available otherwise. Then there are such documents as are contained in the archives of the Council for Places of Worship. We owe this to Dr. Francis Eales and Miss Judith Scott, who created a library of photographs of churches which is quite invaluable and which is there, carefully kept, for all to see. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, pointed out, the danger is that some of the smaller societies —small religious communities, for instance—if they fold up or unite with some other body, do not quite know what to do with their documents. It was in order to advise about this that the Pugh Committee, as I would call it, although Dr. Kitching was the secretary and the research officer, made recommendations about the appointment of an archive officer; and I very much hope that the advice that that archive officer, who has now been appointed, will be able to give will protect these documents with the greatest care.
The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, referred to the great library at Lambeth. Apart from small sums of money that are raised by friends and others, this is entirely financed by the Church Commissioners, and the Church Commissioners, not unnaturally, are very much concerned, about the rising costs of preserving a great library like this, because any money that is spent on the library is not available for the stipends of the clergy, which is the main objective for which the Church Commissioners have to exercise their stewardship. The cost of preserving this very important library at Lambeth is a matter of great concern. However, we place every hope in the appointment of the archivist by the Central Board of Finance of the Church of England and
212
by the Church Commissioners. They have followed almost exactly the recommendations of the Pugh Commission, and it was only after very careful consideration by the policy sub-committee of the General Synod that it was decided to go ahead and make this appointment. We have every hope that it will meet many of the anxieties which have been expressed.
My Lords, I thought it right that I should express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that the Church is very conscious of its responsibility in looking after this unparalleled treasury of historical interest to our country, and that we shall continue to do so to the best of our ability.
6.49 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for introducing this fascinating debate in so informative and interesting a manner. Clearly we are touching at the very roots and heart's core of our history in this debate. It is a refreshing thought, as the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, said in debate in 1973, that:
"We have a literature which compares with that of the Ancient Greeks and, on account of the continuity of our institutions, which is unique by European standards, our records are wonderfully preserved". [Official Report, 13/6/73, col. 7911.
As I was listening to what the right reverend Prelate was saying just now about church and cathedral records, I was thinking that my noble and learned friend, Lord Denning, would be the first to recognise that at least it was due to the care of the cathedrals that some of the historic copies of Magna Charta have survived, so that they may indeed have exercised care where other authorities have failed through the centuries.
I myself, as a lawyer, am proud to recall the words of F. W. Maitland as to the Public Record Office: that it is the most glorious store of material for legal history—as, of course, it is. While I cannot, as can the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Bethell, claim to have worked in the public search rooms myself, I have visited them and I am aware of the unique collection in the Public Record Office of documentary

213
material spanning 10 centuries of British history and also of the formidable problems which the Office has had to grapple with in recent years, some of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred to in his speech.
Since the beginning of 1966, when records of the period up to 1922 were opened as a first step towards establishing the present normal access period of 30 years, the quantity of records held by the Record Office has risen by one-third from 300,000 ft. to 400,000 ft. The number of attendances in the Record Office search rooms each year has more than doubled from 43,700 to 89,300, and the number of records produced annually for students has risen nearly 2¼ times; so that there is a splendid awareness of the value of the Record Office. I should like to join in the tributes paid so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, and others to the magnificent work of the Keeper and staff of the Public Record Office. It is skilled work; it is difficult work. There must be acres of boredom involved in it as well as moments of glistening history and excitement. We are all very conscious of the debt that we owe them.
My Lords, we were all fascinated to hear the account by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, of the activities of Mr. Speaker Gulley and Lord Denning's own historical introductory survey. The noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Bethell, were good enough to give me some advance notice of some of the matters that they raised and for that I am grateful. One of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, was whether the Government would consider amending the Public Records Acts to bring within the definition of "public records" the records of all bodies wholly or partly financed from public funds; and that has been mentioned by other noble Lords as well.
Already, under the terms of the Act, public records defined in the Act include the records not only of central Government but also of the establishments and organisations that are listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. Among these are three nationalised industries, the Coal Board, the Post Office and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The Keeper of Public Records already has powers to
214
accept custody of records of public bodies which are excluded from the statutory definition of public records; and in some cases he has already accepted such records; for example, those of British Rail, the Commonwealth Institute and the British Council. Amendment of the statutory definition to include the records of all kinds of public bodies would, however, require the most detailed consideration of the implications of such a policy not only for the bodies themselves but also for the Public Record Office; so I am afraid that I cannot at this moment give any undertaking about that, but obviously it is a matter which needs further thought and consideration.
Discussions have taken place, as members of the Advisory Council who are here will know, on the proposal that a new category of "protected" records should be created and it is hoped eventually by Statute. Appointment to that status, it has been suggested, should be by the Lord Chancellor with the agreement of the body concerned and would carry no more than an obligation on its part to consult the Keeper of Public Records on the selection and disposal of records, the choice of place of deposit and the regulation of public access. It may be that that more flexible approach will provide a more practical way of resolving the problem; but I must add the caveat that even that modest measure would require a strengthening of the Public Record Office resources which, I am afraid, would be rather difficult to justify at the present time.
Perhaps the most interesting matter, and certainly that which perhaps gave most concern during the course of the debate, was with regard to the closure of public records beyond the normal 30-year period. As noble Lords have already been informed in the course of the debate, the statutory position is that under Section 3(4) of the 1958 Act, records may be retained in Departments if, in the opinion of the person responsible for them, they are required for administrative purposes or ought to be retained for any other special reason, and the Lord Chancellor has been informed of the facts and given his approval.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, asked me about the action taken by my predecessor, my noble and learned friend

215
Lord Gardiner, in 1967. What happened then was that he was invited by the Secretary of the Cabinet to consider a number of documents and he agreed to their classification at that time as being suitable for closure and desirable that they should be withheld. The documents in question all concerned the security of the State. The classes of records had been identified as closely as possible by the appropriate inter-departmental committees concerned with intelligence and security. So that was the circumstance in which they were withheld, and noble Lords may think rightly withheld. After all, one must have a certain confidence in the great Government Departments and the civil servants when they give assurances that the security of the State will be adversely affected. I hope that we have not become so mistrustful and lacking in confidence in our public servants as to question their integrity and judgment in these matters.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will permit me to intervene, can he please confirm that his predecessor gave this blanket provision for documents to be retained under Section 3(4) of the 1958 Act only in respect of documents which relate to national security and not in relation to documents which are sensitive or which fall into any other of the categories under which the noble and learned Lord may close documents?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have already indicated that the documents in question were all documents which were retained for reasons of the security of the State. That is the position. They were concerned with Intelligence and Security and were classified after careful consideration by the appropriate interdepartmental committees. The position under Section 3(4) of the Act I have already indicated is that records may be retained in Departments if, in the opinion of the person responsible for them, they are required for administrative purposes or ought to be retained for any other special reason, and I have been informed and given my approval. Section 3(4) requires that the Lord Chancellor must be informed if there is a retention by the Department, and therefore the Department could not retain the document without my being informed.
216
Records which are transferred to the Public Record Office must, under Section 5(3), when 30 years old, be made available to the public, unless it appears to the person responsible for them that they contain information obtained from members of the public under such conditions that their release to the public at large would constitute a breach of good faith on the part of the Government. In that case they are closed, except as agreed with the Lord Chancellor, or unless the Lord Chancellor, at the request of the Minister concerned, prescribes a period of closure longer or shorter than 30 years.
Previous Lord Chancellors have on two occasions announced the broad categories of records for which they prescribed periods of closure in excess of 30 years. On the most recent occasion in 1971 my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, classified these records in these terms: first, exceptionally sensitive papers, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest, whether on security or other grounds (including the need to safeguard the revenue); secondly, documents containing information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would or might constitute a breach of good faith. The withholding of those documents is all that was contemplated.
I may say in regard to that that certainly no destruction was contemplated, refrain from making any comment upon the remarkable fact that was disclosed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but I imagine that the circumstances there were of such an exceptional character personal to him that he thought it right, in view of assurances he may personally have given, to take the course that was taken. But I would venture at least to express the view that that must be regarded as a highly exceptional event—namely, the destruction of records—and what I have been concerned with is the retention of them in appropriate cases. I see the noble Lord wishes to speak again: I have a great deal of ground to cover and the noble Lord has had a very long run for his unpaid money, if I may say so.
The third category is documents containing information about individuals,

217
the disclosure of which would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants. Those are the kind and class of documents with which we are concerned. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in how many cases the Lord Chancellor had intervened under the powers of the Act. My information is that Lord Chancellors have approved 47 schedules under Section 5(1) of the 1958 Act, closing records for longer than 30 years or opening them sooner. The number of classes of documents in each schedule varies greatly, and the number of records in each class equally, so I am afraid I cannot give an arithmetical total. The last schedule contained about 45 classes of records.
I am of course aware of certain recent criticisms of this procedure—and some of them have been made tonight—which has focused on the fact that decisions on what records should be submitted to the Lord Chancellor for prescription are made by civil servants alone. But I should point out that when a complaint is made about individual closures, the Minister responsible for the Department which has requested the closure is himself bound to investigate the matter in the same way as any other complaint about his Department's actions. As to the suggestion that there should be independent checks on the power of Departments to withhold documents beyond 30 years, the House will have heard with interest of the suggestion which has been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning (to whom I am deeply grateful for his services as Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records) and we shall look forward to learning how the measures he has proposed will work out. I am very willing to give careful consideration to other suggestions which have been made about present procedures.
I was perhaps somewhat harshly chastised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, about the Palestine papers. There was clearly a misunderstanding between the Cabinet Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I have since signed the instrument opening the Palestine papers, with one minor exception, and I am grateful that at least I have credit for having done that. I hope that there
218
will be no unfortunate repetition of that kind of departmental misunderstanding. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, whether the subject of public records would be considered by the Cabinet Committee which the Prime Minister set up last year to pave the way for legislation to amend the Official Secrets Act and to provide for more open Government. The Government have of course looked at a number of possibilities in the course of considering their commitment to more open government, about which the Prime Minister made a statement in the debate on the Address in another place towards the end of last year.
Open government is generally equated with more information about current issues, and I think it was to this that the Prime Minister's statement was largely addressed. There was a suggestion that a committee should be set up to review the working of the present system for selecting records for permanent preservation. The Public Records Acts place the duty of selecting records for permanent preservation on the Departments or bodies which create or hold them. They also provide that this duty should be performed under the guidance of the Public Record Office. Following the recommendations of the Grigg Committee in 1954, each Department subject to the Acts, appoints a departmental records officer to carry out its duties under the Acts, while a records administrative division of the Record Office provides guidance and supervision. The staff of that division under the records administration officer comprises seven inspecting officers, one principal inspecting officer, two senior assistant keepers, with of course executive and clerical support. Guidance is given by the Public Record Office to more than 200 Departments and other bodies which are subject to the Records Acts.
The changes that were made after the Grigg Report have improved things considerably, and give I believe reasonable ground for confidence in the present arrangements for permanent preservation of documents. Whereas before the Grigg Report Departments generally did not usually bother about their records until they became a nuisance to them, they now recognise that they have a duty towards their records, even if it is a duty

219
which has often to take second place, I fear, to the more pressing needs of their current work. But that change of attitude has been of great significance and has provided a fulcrum on which the Public Record Office can exert leverage; and it does not fail to do so.
I am doubtful therefore, in the light of the improvement that has undoubtedly taken place, and the problems about setting up further committees of inquiry at this time (which may, and often do, result in the recommendation of measures involving considerable expenditure of additional resources), whether this is quite the time to set up such a committee. But, naturally, my noble friends and I will pay careful attention to the suggestions concerning the better use of existing resources.
Valuable suggestions were made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and others about the setting up of a national archives service. What I can say by way of assurance as to the quality of the staffs and those engaged in the protection and selection of records is that the Public Record Office has made determined efforts to maintain its standards by giving guidance and co-ordination to departments which, since Grigg, have honourably fulfilled the duty they owe to history by the care of records. The Public Record Office provides instructional visits by departmental record staffs to the Office and it has also made preparations to deal with machine-readable records on computer tapes by recruiting technically-qualified staff, commissioning specially-built tape stores and engaging in discussions with departmental computer staff and academic researchers experienced in the use of such records, so that a great deal of progress has been made.
I am afraid that at this time I cannot undertake to establish a national archives service on the lines suggested, attractive in many ways though I find the proposition to be. If there were more funds available we might be able to do so but, here again, I should like to hear further detailed proposals of exactly what noble Lords have in mind regarding this, because certainly my mind is not closed on the matter.
There was commendation of the new Public Record Office building at Kew,
220
which will be handed over to the Record Office on 2nd May. The formidable and complicated task of moving to Kew documents which at present occupy a quarter of a million feet of shelving in four different repositories will begin in mid-May and will take about five months to complete. Arrangements for maintaining the best possible service in the search rooms while the move is in progress are being given the widest publicity, and we hope that the new building will be open to the public in mid-October. Then it will become the administrative headquarters of the Record Office and will be the most advanced purpose-designed archival building in the world. It will have no equal and it will be a national institution of which we should be proud. It will maintain the worldwide reputation which the Public Record Office has maintained in its 120 years of existence.
If members of the staff of that Office feel anxiety because of any implied lack of confidence in them, I must say the opposite has been the case from everyone who has spoken in this debate. While the move to Kew will clearly cause personal difficulties to some members of the staff, I hope and believe that they will find at Kew a satisfactory working environment in which to continue their skilled and loyal service. I believe, also, that the excellent research facilities there will compensate for the inconvenience caused to readers who might find Kew less accessible than Central London.
I was asked points of detail about charges for photo-copying services. I am afraid that I cannot hold out much comfort as to charges, and unfortunately the same must also apply to the other points of financial detail, which I agree are not unimportant, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. As regards the charges made for the photo-copying service, the Record Office is bound by the Government policy that a Government Department providing a service for which a charge is made must recover the full costs that are incurred. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot hold out great hope for a reduction in this field. Indeed, in a time of inflation, such as we are in, we shall do well if we can maintain prices at their present level.
There was a question as to whether the search rooms at Chancery Lane will be

221
open on Saturdays or one or two evenings a week after the movement to Kew has been completed. I understand the extension of the opening hours at Kew would be more costly than a similar extension at Chancery Lane, and that staffing problems to meet such an additional service would be more difficult. It has been decided, therefore, that Saturday or evening openings at Kew cannot be considered until the pattern of public use of the search rooms there has been established and the extent of any demand for opening beyond normal weekly hours is known. But it is hoped that it will be possible to con-continue the present limited Saturday morning service in the search rooms at Chancery Lane to enable readers to see documents which will be sorted in that building.
My time is nearly up, so I hope I shall be forgiven if I deal only briefly with the delightfully ecclesiastical note upon which this debate has ended. I hope I have dealt with some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley. If not, I will communicate with him. It is excellent to hear that such useful steps are being taken to safeguard ecclesiastical church and parish records, which again go to the very heart of our history as a people. I am sure we have all been greatly reassured by what was said by the right reverend Prelate about that. I thank noble Lords for their participation in this debate. I feel sure I have not been able to satisfy all of them, but I assure them that we do our best to fulfil the principle that documentation of our historical past is made available wherever it can be done safely.
7.8 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, this has been an extremely useful and enjoyable debate. There has been a lot of strong talking, which is very good. Quite often some of our Wednesday debates are criticised for being bland. This debate has been far from being bland. I shall be extremely brief and not be "dog in the manger" for the next minutes to have my time, because there is a very important Unstarred Question still to come initiated by my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton. Perhaps this would be an apt point to mention that a senior member of the Public Record Office, who comes here occasionally and is currently engaged in
222
that important dependency, is looking at its archives at the moment.
I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Mowbray for the omission, which he pointed out, of any reference to Scotland. I agree that it is a great personal omission not to have mentioned Scotland, and even more disgraceful because more than five-eighths of my blood comes from that country. I do apologise for not mentioning it. My noble friend started to pre-empt the speech made by my noble friend Lord Bethell, which I thought was a little unfair. However, it did not matter; but my noble friend did make a very controversial speech. He is a believer in open government. He is an historian and is thinking of posterity, and all the facts—the correct and complete facts—which will be available to historians at that time.
The noble and learned Lord manfully did his very best to answer all our questions. He will realise that one is naturally rather disappointed that he can accept so few of the suggestions which one made. But he has assured us that he will consider matters such as the Government archive service. I feel that this debate has not been wasted, and one v, ill read very carefully the Report of what he has said and look forward to better things to come. On my domestic points, I hope that photographic charges will be pegged. I am disappointed about the opening hours at Kew, and I hope that that is another point which will be considered. I noticed that the speeches of my noble friend Lord Sudeley and the right reverend Prelate gave an added touch. When we got on to the internecine warfare with my noble friend Lord Bethell, their speeches provided the right colour. On that note, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
7.21 p.m.
Viscount BOYD of MERTON Viscount BOYD of MERTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to implement the recommendations in the Shackleton Report dated July 1976 and entitled Economic Survey of the Falkland Islands and, in particular, its recommendations concerning

223
the permanent airfield; and whether they will ensure that, in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, any discussion with the Argentine Government should not put at risk British sovereignty over those Islands. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In July last year, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as Chairman of the Economic Survey of the Falkland Islands, presented his report to the Secretary of State, and we are all very grateful to the noble Lord and to his admirably chosen and highly competent team. It must have been a very moving moment for the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to visit Grytviken in South Georgia, the dependency, and see the grave where his father was buried in 1922 "Under", as his biographer wrote, "the shadow of the mountains he has been the first to cross". I doubt whether ever before any Member of your Lordships' House has had the same experience and then come back to our very different world and written a report to remind us of our responsibilities to a territory with which we are so closely linked.
There have been some 20 or so reports on the Islands in the last decade. Indeed, the noble Lord himself referred to the definition of an "island" as, "a piece of land entirely surrounded by advice". But expert as many of these reports have been, there has been nothing before on this scale about the Falklands. A good many of the recommendations of previous reports have not been followed up. It will be a tragedy and a shameful abandonment of our responsibilities if the same fate should befall the major recommendations of this report.
Twice before in the lifetime of many Members of this House events, or a fear of events, in the Falkland Islands have affected our national security. In December 1914, as a result of our naval victory in the battle of the Falkland Islands, German cruiser warfare collapsed and our country held outside the narrow seas undisputed control of the ocean trade routes of the world. Then, a generation later in 1941, as recorded in the Diaries of Lord Alanbrooke:
"One fear against which Brooke had to guard that winter was a Japanese descent on the Falkland Islands, where an enemy base would have had disastrous effects on the South Atlantic convoys and the supply of the Middle East and India."
I am sad, and somewhat ashamed, that during my long spell at the Colonial Office I did not visit the Islands, though met Falkland Islands company officers and islanders from time to time. I know that the islands and the islanders have made a great impression on the present Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and, indeed, he himself has made a very good impression on the islanders. It is clear that he has the islanders' interests very much at heart.
All of us are very glad of the great interest being shown these days, both here and in another place, in the welfare and security of the islanders; for it would be a sad thing if our interest arose only when, as in two World Wars, our own security was at risk. For the Falkland Islands have been a British colony for 150 years and the culture, language, history and traditions of the people are all British. I remember the words of one of my illustrious predecessors as Colonial Secretary, Lord Milner, who, when speaking to our fellow countrymen who went to live in the colonies, said:
You can feel at home wherever you are—serving directly or indirectly the interests of Great Britain. You will not cease to be ours because you have been transplanted. Our horizon must widen. That is all."
The Shackleton inquiry, as noble Lords know, was conducted on the assumption that the political status of the Islands and their dependencies would remain the same as during the last century and a half, and this is what the islanders passionately desire for the future. The report stresses what it calls, "a striking vigour of feeling about sovereignty". Of course, as the report points out:
"Regional co-operation between different nations is as relevant to this part of the world as to other areas".
But I was somewhat surprised to read in February some words said by the late Foreign Secretary, whose death grieved us all, and was a great loss to our country. He said that it was:
"… implicit in many of the things Lord Shackleton says about tourism, fisheries, airport enlargement and so on, that in practice they can go ahead only in the framework of a wider economic co-operation in the South-West Atlantic." [Official Report, Commons, 2/2/77; col. 558.]
But that is not really what the report said. I refreshed my memory. It said:

225
"It is logical that in any major new development of the Islands' economy, especially those relating to the exploitation of the off-shore resources, co-operation with Argentine, even participation, should if possible be secured".
There is a lot of difference between offshore and onshore development and if we want—and I shall refer to this briefly later on—to develop, for example, the largest concentration of seaweed (kelp) resources in the world, we can go ahead with the islanders with the infrastructure needed, and with the continuing development, without the consent of the Argentine.
As I have said, the islanders are resolved to remain under British sovereignty. I was in Canada at the time when the report was first being studied by British Ministers. There I was charmed to read in the Alberta, the newspaper in Calgary, some words on self-determination. The heading was, "Falkland Islanders cling to Britain", and it went on:
"Somewhere in the Third World there must be hidden away the secret rules about who is entitled to self-determination. One suspects that they consist of just one rule and one exception. The rule seems to be that any colonial territory, however minuscule, is not only entitled to independence but obliged to demand it. The exception simply states that European populated territories are different".
It must be for this House and for Parliament to see that they are not different in the Falkland Islands.
Of course, we welcome the assurances given by Ministers, notably the Minister of State, on the question of sovereignty and in the most recent, on 30th March last, he stated that the Government will not bring proposals to the House if they are not acceptable to the islanders. But, welcome as it is, this by itself is not enough. Some weeks ago, The Times newspaper stated:
"The islanders fear that the Shackleton report may be ignored. Unless something is done quickly, they believe that the noose is being tightened economically, so that they will be forced into accepting an unwanted solution with the Argentine."
So assurances that nothing will be done behind their backs are not, by themselves, good enough, for if consent to the transfer of sovereignty is ever forthcoming it must not have been brought about by disillusion with us, or despair caused by our failure to carry out our responsibilities.
While talking about assurances to the islanders, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who I am delighted is answering today, this question? Two years ago, he was asked in the House by the late Lord Cowley:
"Will the noble Lord ensure that the islanders, or representatives of the islanders, are included in all British delegations in their substantive talks with the Agentine Government?"
The noble Lord replied:
"Yes, my Lords. It has always been our policy that representatives of the islanders should be present at all substantive talks, and this will continue to be our unchanging policy." [Official Report, 10/4/75; col. 181.]
The question that I should like to ask the noble Lord is whether this is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government. And as no representatives of the islanders have been present at any talks, does this mean that there have been no substantive talks with the Argentine? I note that the noble Lord is nodding and I think he is nodding his agreement. However, I shall be very glad if he will change his nod into an explicit statement when he replies to the debate. Incidentally, if the islanders have confidence in us, pressures from the Argentine will not unduly concern them.
How, then, can we show them that confidence? It seems to me, and to many others, that the most impressive, effective and tangible action we can take is to ensure that the Shackleton Report recommendation on the length of the airstrip is carried out. The report urges the extension of the planned runway of 1,250 metres by a further 950 metres to accommodate short-medium haul jets and part-loaded long haul jets on the final leg of international flights. This is the most tangible evidence we can give of our solidarity with our fellow citizens in the Islands and the best possible encouragement to investment and development; for, as the report makes out quite clearly, without this extension there is a strong doubt whether the diversifying suggestions which have been made in the report can be realised to any significant degree. I am assured that, if the airstrip stays at its present planned level, the islanders will still be dependent on the Argentine for essential goods for development to be flown in, and the white card of entry demanded by the Argentine will remain. But if the airstrip is enlarged by another

227
950 metres, the white card can be a thing of the past, the islanders can be independent of the Argentine and development materials can flow in. The contractors are still on the site and only a word from Her Majesty's Government is necessary for what all regard as essential for development to proceed.
The Minister of State, on the last Commons sitting day before the Recess, said about this extension that it is a serious and important project, but he said:
"… it seems to us that on present evidence it would be hard to justify it".
He went on to say:
"We have not closed the door to the project but we need more convincing that it is viable".
He added that it could bear very heavily on the current revenue problems of the Islands. However, the Islanders remember certain observations on revenue matters in the Shackleton Report. This report highlights the fact that between 1951 and 1973 revenue from taxes on profits transferred from the Islands to Great Britain was twice the amount of aid from Britain to the Islands. The report says:
"Over the life of the colony the United Kingdom Exchequer benefit from tax on funds transferred to the United Kingdom has almost certainly exceeded the value of United Kingdom Government aid".
Surely considerations of justice and wisdom, and of trusteeship, should compel us to listen to their advice.
The report examines many ways of improving the economic prospects of the Islands: improvement perhaps as much as 10 per cent. in the nutritional value of the grass on which the present sheep-based economy depends. We are all delighted at the efforts which the Falkland Island Company is making to find new wool markets in East Europe, France, Switzerland and North America. Another suggestion is to increase the yield of blue whiting on an enormous scale—possibly equal to the current United Kingdom total fish landings. There is krill in the area—perhaps the largest untapped source of protein in the world—and I am very glad to read of the intention of the British Antarctic Survey to increase its research work into this and other resources in Antarctica. There are also strong possibilities of a healthy tourist trade and, in the long run, of oil development.
The report covers a wide range of imaginative possibilities and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us good news of progress by the Government in their consideration of these ideas. I have just mentioned alginate development, to which the report gives considerable attention. As the report shows and as I have mentioned, large quantities of kelp—giant seaweed—exist around the Falkland coastlines, within the area which it is free for us to develop with the Islanders, which are suitable for the production of alginates. About one-third of the current world supply is manufactured by a British firm, Alginates Industries Limited, in Scotland. Further developments, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has pointed out, have been frustrated by the world recession and political uncertainty.
The company issued a statement some two months ago in which they said:
"The overriding question is the political future of the Islands",
and they stressed the need for an assurance that British sovereignty will continue. The company has now asked for three assurances before they can reach a decision whether to safeguard future supplies of a raw material, which may be scarce in the long term, by development in the Falkland Islands. They have asked to be assured regarding the continued British sovereignty of the Islands; to be guaranteed an indemnity, should a change of sovereignty take place; and to be promised financial assistance no less valuable than that which is currently available in Scotland. They go on to say, concerning sovereignty, that no assurances regarding this would be credible in the event of the Government deciding not to implement the recommendation of the Shackleton Report on the aerodrome. They make one very helpful comment:
"At the time of the Shackleton Report it was considered that only the production of dried milled seaweed would be a viable proposition but it is now considered that sodium alginate is worth even more than calcium alginate since it is an end product and is worth around £2,000 a ton".
If, given the facilities I have mentioned, they should decide to go ahead, the gathered seaweed would end in sodium alginate in the Islands and then be transported to the United Kingdom by a company which is already earning £10 million a year in foreign exchange and

229
whose development, if possible and encouraged, could cover the cost of enlarging the airstrip in a very few years.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, told us in February of this year that by the middle of next year we shall see whether a further enlargement of the airstrip will be cost effective and, indeed, whether it will be desirable. I know of the noble Lord's keen interest in the welfare of those overseas territories for which we are still responsible, and I very much hope that he will be able to give us this afternoon a more encouraging answer about the aerodrome than he felt able to give us two months ago.
7.39 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, there will be many in your Lordships' House and many more outside it who will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, for giving us this opportunity to ask the Government about their intentions towards the Falkland Islands, to speak about the problems involved and, indeed, to some extent to try to confess the weight which we feel upon our consciences about the way in which these Islands have been left so amazingly under developed by us when they have so much to offer. I share with the noble Viscount an admiration for the report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and his team but I do not share with him his enthusiasm about its composition. I find gaps in the composition of the team which was sent out to look at the Falkland Islands. I think that these gaps in its composition account for certain gaps in the recommendations to which I should like to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government and which I should like to ask them to look into.
The two gaps which I see most particularly in the composition of the team are these. First, there is the lack of a forester and of an agricultural botanist. The other gap is the lack of anybody with practical experience in agriculture: experience of how to apply systems to the research of grassland researchers and people of this kind, and how to come out with a system that is suitable to the soil and climate as well as to the markets which would be available to this agricultural economy. I will refer to this point later, but at this stage I should like to refer to some of the
230
key conclusions in the Shackleton Report, comment on them and ask certain questions involved in those conclusions—questions about the Government's attitude to those conclusions and what they intend to do about them.
There is no doubt, of course, that the economy of the Falkland Islands is static and that the current development plan is insufficient to reverse that situation. Obviously I agree with that, and I hope the Government also agree with it. The ownership of farms in the Falkland Islands and the absence of institutions such as banks form one of the main reasons why development has not hitherto taken place, particularly agricultural development. That is a valid conclusion to have reached. That is where the Falkland Islands are so very different from those parts of Scotland which they most closely resemble. They most closely resemble the islands of Shetland and Orkney and the County of Caithness where I live and where there is a strong body of independent yeomen farmers; where there is a strong tradition of independent land ownership and farm operation. This is particularly visible, for instance, in Orkney where enormous tracts of land, similar in many ways to the land in the Falkland Islands, have been reclaimed and put to use at an intensity not to be dreamed of by the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. I feel certain that this kind of energy could be released if people could be got to the Falkland Islands who would like to use the land in that way, or if the people already in the Falkland Islands could be given both the availability of the land and the finance to develop it. I feel that is a key conclusion in the Shackleton Report and one on which I should like to hear the comments of Her Majesty's Government.
This is again supported by the conclusion in the Shackleton Report that the population tends to show a marked degree of dependence on Government and on employers and that there is a low level of confidence and of enterprise. That is a most important thing to overcome. What must be got across to the people in the Falkland Islands is that they have every right to have confidence in the future of their Islands; that they have priceless assets, both on land and in the seas around them; that they can develop by their own

231
hard work and initiative, and that we should give at least that much back to the Islands as will help them to get started upon this road.
The Shackleton Report refers to the pattern of economic activity, the fragmented social structure and the other factors that have slowed the evolution of a distinctive local culture. I do not think the local culture matters so much as the local confidence, the local sense of ability to control their own future. That appears to me to be most lacking, and that is where I should like the assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they are going to give this sense of confidence to the people of the Falklands.
We then come to the conclusion that wool output has been static over the last 10 years and that the Falkland wool crop can be expected to do no more than hold its own in real terms relative to world prices of manufactured goods. I have to confess that I have never had the good fortune to go to the Falkland Islands, but everything I read in the report and everything that I read of the geography and geology leads me to believe that I know similar land and similar country. I live in similar country. The thing that astonishes me about the report is the lack of confidence in the agricultural future of the Islands.
If I may do some mental arithmetic, systems have been developed which have become very popular in the island of Orkney where problems are similar; where there is little growth in the grass crop over the winter months, where there is a high background wind speed and gales of up to 100 miles an hour are not unusual; where the whole top of the sea can blow off and blow across the land, landing on the soil, leaching out the top layer of lime and substituting sodium and making the top layer of the land tacky and nasty. If the sheep are left out in those conditions they poach up and puddle up the surface of the grass and the grass does not come away in the spring.
In order to overcome that the College of Agriculture demonstration farm at Kirkwall has developed a system of sheep husbandry whereby the sheep are taken in and kept on a slatted floor inside from about the turn of the year until after
232
lambing. This has two effects: first, it protects the sheep from the worst effects of the winter and, secondly, it protects the land from the worst effects of having the sheep on the land at a time when the grass is not growing. So when the sheep lamb, the grass is then ready to come away and grow and the sheep can go out to a good growing crop of grass. As a result, areas where before very few sheep were being kept to the acreage of the farm, are going up to stocking rates of about six sheep to the acre on grassland. They are preserving the grass in a silage tower making a good quality silage, feeding the sheep over the short part of the winter and getting a much higher return from the land.
Let us do some quick mental arithmetic on this. There are 3,800,000 acres of land in the Falkland Islands. Let us say that only one-sixth of that (and I do not really believe that that is the limit, but let us say only one-sixth) is capable of improvement, and let us say that on that land we can achieve only a maximum of two-thirds of the standard that can be achieved in the islands of Orkney. Again I do not believe that because the summers are a great deal warmer than the Orkney summers. If that is so, one might then be able to carry a sheep stock of four sheep to the acre on 500,000 acres, which is 2 million sheep, as compared with the present sheep population of 644,000. This would not only produce an enormous increase in wool but would surely produce enough carcases to start up the mutton processing industries which are referred to in the report.
People have said that we cannot run mutton processing industries because they have never been economic. Of course they have not been economic; there has not been enough raw material. One cannot run a whole mutton-packing industry based on a total population of 644,000 sheep. If you can work up to something in the region of 2 or 3 million sheep you then have a chance of backing that production of wool with a very much better chance of running a mutton-processing industry, with, of course, hides and things of this sort as well.
What also struck me, coming from the North of Scotland as I do, was that the native Falklanders are known as "Kelpers". If you say "kelp" to a

233
Highlander you mean fertiliser, because that is what kelp was to the Highlands of Scotland. The arable areas of the Highlands of Scotland were reclaimed by the use of kelp, and the burning of kelp for fertiliser was a major industry of the Highlands at the time of the 'forty-five and afterwards, until the development of artificial fertiliser at a later stage. This would be a very quick source of fertiliser for the areas which one would require to improve, without importing anything from anywhere.
The next thing that struck me about the report was that nobody had referred to shell sand, and yet there was a great deal of talk about crustacea, there was a great deal of talk about mussels and shell fish and things of that kind. Nobody referred to the absence of shell sand, but nobody referred to the presence of shell sand. I would be very surprised if there are not supplies of lime available in the shape of shell sand on the beaches around the islands. This again had been a source of lime to the Highlands of Scotland, particularly to Caithness and Orkney and to many of the seaward farms and island farms of the Highlands of Scotland. I am surprised that nobody looked for it, but I would not expect a vet to look for it necessarily. He would tend to think probably in terms of fertiliser out of a bag rather than in the old traditional sources of lime fertiliser.
I am also surprised that nobody really went into the possibility of growing trees on the islands, not in order to sell the timber, but if you intend to intensify the agriculture of the islands then you are going to require trees for fencing. If you are going to intensify the life of the islands, you are going to require materials to build houses and bridges, and harbours and jetties. Therefore, some effort to grow trees within the islands would undoubtedly be beneficial, and this is not referred to on any scale within the report. I should like to make mention again of Caithness, where the Forestry Commission are beginning to develop techniques and find varieties of tree which can grow in deep peat. They have discovered that certain varieties of lodgepole pine can in fact put their roots down below the anaerobic layer, below the water table; the roots can go on living. They can do this because they have an air pipe going down the
234
roots and the root is breathing like a diver underneath the level of the water table. These trees are actually capable of drying out peat land, and they are capable of standing up to wind pressure in deep peat. It would have been very helpful, I have no doubt, to Lord Shackle-ton's team to have had somebody there to say whether they thought that this kind of forestry could be pursued within the islands. Forestry within the Falkland Islands could mean a great deal in terms of the ability to carry out any other developments.
Reference has been made to the possibility of fishing. Clearly, there is a most fertile sea around the Falkland Islands and it would seem wrong not to develop this fishery. What we have to remember is that with this fishery should go all the ancillary trades. You will want nets, you will want a net maker, you will want people repairing boats, coopers making barrels and boxes and all kinds of things for dealing with your catch. Again, you will want the freezing capacity for dealing probably with the filleted product, the by-product of the filleting process being either a livestock food or a fertiliser to put back into your expanding agriculture. So here again I have to draw Her Majesty's Government's attention to the enormous possibility of a rolling increase if you can once get a start made. Again, I have to ask them whether they really intend to inject this kind of confidence into the people of the islands so that they will be prepared to take risk in this kind of industry as well.
I do not by any means set aside the possibility of other major industries on the islands. If you can get the farm production of sheep to increase, I see no reason whatever why there should not be a properly vertically integrated wool mill making cloth, tweed, wool, knitting wool and so forth. I know that Hunters of Brora, who run a very good wool mill in the county of Sutherland, would be glad to give Her Majesty's Government any help they wanted in setting up, and advice on how to set up, a vertically integrated wool mill that does everything from taking in the fleece to putting out the finished product. I am quite certain that there could be markets for the quality and type of tweed that could come out of the sheep if there were enough of them.

235
Finally, there is one thing to which nobody seems to have referred. I notice that the surface of the Falkland Islands is covered with peat. There is water in the Falkland Islands, and if you can get the barley there you can make whisky. I see no reason particularly to call it Scotch whisky; you could call it "Falkland Island Grog". I am sure that it would have a worldwide sale. It should not be too difficult to set up a distilling industry there, and there seems to be a very large demand for the right sort of quality of drink all over the world. You would have to import the barley, but you would get an agricultural by-product in the shape of distillers grains, in the shape of grouts which you could then feed to your livestock, a very valuable feed which would be left after you had made your Falkland Island Grog, or whatever it is. I see no limit to the possibilities once one gets it going.
Therefore, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, I ask Her Majesty's Government to give us in their reply this feeling of enthusiasm for the job, of real interest in the islands, of intention to support the islanders in grasping their own future. I ask them to give an earnest promise of this by saying that they will in fact set up an air strip of the right length, and perhaps they might even add to that proper sea facilities, so that if the economy grows there will be harbours into which boats can come to take away things by sea and to bring in supplies by sea. I urge Her Majesty's Government to give us a good reply to this Question because a good, warm, vigorous, encouraging reply will give enormous heart to these people on the islands, who deserve our very best, and in regard to whom I at any rate feel a certain sense of shame in that I have stood idly by all the years of my life and done little until now to speak up for their cause.
8 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to support the Question so ably put forward by my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton. I have heard him speak very many times in the other place and I realise that when he was Colonial Secretary he had an intense interest in and understanding of many countries. He was given an outstanding nickname; when he dealt with East
236
Africa he was called Bwana Kilimanjaro. I do not think that many Colonial Secretaries who have had the honour of dealing with this kind of work have been given a nice nickname.
Unfortunately I have not been to the Falkland Islands and it seems a great pity that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, does not have a magic wand, because as a result of the excellent suggestions that he advanced there might be a complete change. I have taken the opportunity of reading the debates and Questions in the other place, including the Adjournment Debate on 21st January this year. From all these studies, including the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, it seems impossible to get a clear picture of what will happen in the future. That is why I am so pleased that we are having this debate tonight. There was also the 85th plenary meeting of the United Nations' Assembly on 1st December 1976. This was rather disturbing because one of the resolutions was that the Assembly expresses its gratitude,
"for the continuous efforts made by the Government of Argentina in accordance with the relevant decisions of the General Assembly"—
and these are the words I wish to emphasise—
"to facilitate the process of decolonisation and to promote the wellbeing of the population of the islands."
What about the Charter of Human Rights? The Minister in the other House was asked about the Charter of Human Rights in these terms:
"In view of the widely authenticated reports on the systematic suppression of human rights in Argentina, which my hon. Friend may have seen —the Amnesty report and others—does he think that this is an appropriate moment to enter into any kind of negotiations with that Government about the possible transfer of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands?"
The Minister replied:
"We all deplore abuses of human rights, where-ever they occur. Nevertheless, the welfare interests of the islanders require our discussing these matters with the Argentinian Government." —[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/77; col. 395.]
I should like to know why. Welfare is our concern. A headline in the Financial Times of 22nd February this year was:
"Islanders fear a sell out."
That is probably true. It must be remembered that the prospect of Argentinians bringing with them the turbulent

237
and regrettably often bloody political management of their own country is not conducive to the idea of happiness and peace, which the inhabitants have received under British administration since 1833. An article in the Economist of March 1977 states that for the first time Britain has offered to discuss the question of sovereignty with the Argentinians. I gather that there has been no sign—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong —of the Argentinians modifying their claims. It must be remembered that the Argentine claimed the Islands as a successor to imperial Spain. I should like to remind the House that Spain used the Islands as a convict station and then abandoned them. There is no indigenous population.
Last year's military take-over in Buenos Aires cannot have given any comfort to the Falkland Islanders. Now the prospect of oil, krill and blue whiting, which has been mentioned by noble Lords, is encouraging Argentina to take a greater interest. In opening the debate the noble Viscount mentioned the question of chemicals and seaweed. On this matter the Economist said that a single year's production would bring Britain foreign exchange earnings greater than the cost of the airport extension. I should like to suggest that perhaps some of our very hard-hit fishermen in this country, who find employment difficult, might go there with their families on perhaps a five-year contract to help with this fishing problem. As has been suggested, other facilities could be set up, such as the canning of fish. Undoubtedly it would be quite easy to set up such a factory and I presume that some of the catch could be frozen and exported to this country or elsewhere.
The need for the lengthening of the airport runway has been discussed. I remember when I was working in the Far East—and I dare say that my noble friend Lord Boyd will remember this—metal strips were put down on the runways because there were no proper airports. These metal strips lasted a long time and were able to take the weight of the heavy transport planes. As a semi-permanent measure, until more money is available, perhaps this could be reconsidered.
There is also the example of the island of Grand Bahama in the Bahama group
238
of islands. Only a few years ago it was a barren area and it is now one of the best tourist centres in those islands. Many tourists, especially Americans who like to change the venue of their holidays, might like to get away from the "rat-race" for a while and go to the Falklands. One learns from the report that migration loss is acute owing to the lack of knowledge about the future. Should, however, new land holdings be created, this might help some of those on the Islands. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to this. Perhaps in the distant future some of the Rhodesian farmers might like to go there, should they have to leave their homes.
I believe that a new Deputy Governor has been appointed and I should like to know whether this so-called wrangle over the Government's refusal to implement changes in the Constitution is over, and what changes are being made to make the Government more democratic. I should also like to know—perhaps this is a minor point—why the words, "Private—Governor's House" are painted in Spanish on the Governor's house. That does not seem to be very appropriate. Is the Governor personally still seeing copies of the local news bulletins, which I gather have to be submitted to the secretarial staff 24 hours before going on the air? If so, why? Even in this country nothing is vetted that goes out on the air from local radio stations. This matter was raised in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Has a political adviser been appointed, or is there about to be one? Have commercial firms shown any particular interest in the report?
There is the case of the islanders of Tristan da Cunha, although there the circumstances were very different. Those islanders were miserable when brought to this country and preferred to return to the poor conditions prevailing in Tristan da Cunha rather than to stay here. I believe that many of the Falkland Islanders will be disappointed and upset if their life's work and the work of their fathers and grandfathers is not carried on, and that they will never want to settle in this country.
Finally, is it not time to set up all-Party Select Committees to look into these matters? The other countries of the EEC have them. We could quite easily ask people, not only from these Islands but

239
from other countries, for their views when there is need for inquiries. It is much easier for many of us to put forward ideas and questions and see how they are received by those concerned than simply to have a report, although I am in no way criticising this excellent report. Personal contacts give better personal communications. I hope that after this debate some real action can be taken to reassure the Islanders about their future.
8.9 p.m.
Lord SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, for bringing this vitally important Question before the House. I speak as a member of a tourist expedition to the Falkland Islands and the Antarctic Circle led by Sir Peter Scott in February 1968. Our stay in the Falklands was brief; we had time only to visit Port Stanley and two or three sheep farms, as well as West Point and Carcass Islands to see an abundance of wild life, including several breeds of penguins, the black-browed albatross and large populations of seals and sea elephants. Noble Lords will probably have realised that the object of this expedition was to study the conservation of wild life in this remote part of the world. But the overriding feeling of the "kelpers", the population of the Falklands, as it was in 1968 is unchanged today. They are truly British and their simple wish is to remain British. They have said recently that they do not wish the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands discussed—and little wonder, when one sees the state of the Argentine Government.
Your Lordships will know that the Falkland Islands are British by right and in law. They do not want independence, they do not want a change of sovereignty, so there is no real comparison to be made with former colonies where a majority of the population favoured independence from Great Britain. Neither is there any racial problem. My Lords, this is the overriding factor. I was asked by a member of the Falkland Islands Committee at that time in 1968, "Did you notice any mortal thing here remotely suggestive of South America and the Argentine in particular? Don't you agree that it would be shameful to hand us over under any conditions? "I am
240
quite sure that the same person and the same people would say that again today. Of course, I agree that the country, as a lot of you know, is very like the West Coast of Scotland, and the people in it are very like the people who live in the West Coast of Scotland.
I feel sure that that feeling is as strong now as it was then. These islanders are more British in origin and in culture than the British themselves. But, my Lords, since 1968 the population has been steadily decreasing and this is happening for obvious reasons. The first reason, of course, is uncertainty of the future. Whenever the question of "change of sovereignty" rears its ugly head more uncertainty follows. I understand that there are considerably more men than women in the Islands at present, which makes population increase difficult, to say the least. I further understand that in 1974 no fewer than 12 Falkland Island ladies were married to Her Majesty's Royal Marines, and they have naturally come back to the United Kingdom at the end of their tour of duty.
Education, as your Lordships will be aware, is also a grave problem. I understand that many parents in the Falkland Islands do not wish to send their children to school in Argentina because they do not like the political climate in that country. But if the young people do go away to be educated, there are very few jobs to come back to and therefore the young people are forced to move from the islands. It is also abundantly clear that the Falkland Islanders cannot afford to send their children back to this country for their education. Your Lordships will know that the school leaving age in the Falkland Islands is 15, and this does not include the "O" level stage, although correspondence courses are done, I believe, by a few. This all means a continual drain on an already small population.
My Lords, in my humble opinion to put these matters right communications must be improved to the United Kingdom and the outside world, as has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd. Did you know that every Falkland Islander has to have a white card to travel to or from the Islands, and that journey has to be made via the Argentine or Uruguay?

241
I earnestly hope that the Government will find means of stalling the decrease in population by the building of a bigger landing strip which will be capable of taking large passenger and freight carrying aircraft, as suggested in the Shackleton Report. Surely the spending of approximately £5 million—I believe that that is the amount—on such a project would be well within the Government's intentions for developing a purely British colony which has such enormous potential resources.
This will immediately bring more employment and there will be a firm base on which to build a sound economy, with a thriving fishing industry and probably a thriving oil producing industry, as well as an economy built entirely on wool as at present. My Lords, let us make it possible for the Falkland Islanders, or "Kelpers" as they are affectionately known, to have a say in determining their own future.
8. 16 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject this evening. I am particularly grateful to him, and so I think will noble Lords also be, in that he has made some of the points that I was hoping to touch on. I can therefore be extremely brief. I shall say nothing about the economic side because he has covered it so fully, and I shall content myself with a few observations on some of the political difficulties that lie surrounding this problem.
The debate has shown that there is a good deal of common ground between all of us. Nevertheless, it is understandable that the problem should be seen differently in the Falkland Islands and in Whitehall. The Islanders are naturally disturbed about the stagnating economy, and anxious to see an immediate improvement in the livelihood for the younger people coming up. They are particularly nervous of any talk of a political change. The British Government have other responsibilities. They see the problem in terms of the reality of the 20th century. They feel that the long-term future of the Islands can be assured only if there is at least a degree of understanding with Argentina, and they put the emphasis on trying to reach some sensible arrangement so that economic progress can go ahead on an assured and long-term basis.
242
We ought to face frankly the issue of sovereignty. For my part, I think that I accept that with all the appropriate reservations that certainly should be called for, the topic should not be taboo in any later discussions with the Argentine, because clearly if that were so there will be no discussions, and this is something to which one wants to work in the long run. I gather from the nod which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, gave earlier that substantive discussions have not yet begun. That is something about which one need not feel any regret, because it seems to me that the present time may be a rather puzzling one in which to initiate long-term discussions of this kind with the Argentine regime in its present shape, as symbolised by the fact that we do not at present have an Ambassador there.
All this seems to me to emphasise the extreme delicacy of the diplomacy on which the British Government will have to engage. My own thought would be that, when any substantive discussions take place, they should embrace both the political and the economic. There should be no question of going cap in hand and offering some political concessions. Rather we should speak from a position of strength, showing what prospects may flow from economic development, so that it can be seen to be something of mutual advantage.
The Government deserve credit for the way they have handled the tactics of the matter so far. Reference has already been made to Mr. Rowland's visit to the Falkland Islands—incidentally I think the first by a Minister for some nine years—and the impression he created there, and the impression he has also created by the consultations he has had with representatives of the Falkland Islanders in this country. Perhaps I should say that I got a feeling a little time ago that the relationship between my old Department, and some of the people in this country interested in the Falkland Islands, was not as close as I would have hoped it might be and I hope that it will again become. From my own experience, I can say that it seems to me extremely important for an overseas Department to have close and friendly relations with any organised body representing the interests of the particular territory with which we are concerned. I am thinking of my experience,

243
for example, with the India-Pakistan-Burma Association, the West African Committee and a number of bodies which are extremely valuable and it seems to me important that that sort of relationship should be established in regard to the Falkland Islands.
I promised to be brief. I end by saying that the Falkland Islands should not be regarded as an historical anachronism or geographical inconvenience. The Falkland Islands represent people, perhaps not a large number of people, but they are British people and I believe that, given a fair chance, given help, they have the prospect of continuing to make a contribution to the development of their islands, to the development of that part of the world and to the advancement of British interests. They are a sturdy and hard-working people who deserve our understanding, guidance and support.
8.21 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Boyd of Merton for bringing this question of the Falkland Islands to the attention of the House. My interest in the Falklands arises only because two shepherds of mine came from there, one named McCaskell, who is no longer with me, and another named Howard Duncan. They told me much about the Falkland Islands and I therefore feel very sympathetic to that part of the world.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that an agricultural advisor should have been on the Shackleton Inquiry, but I could not agree with him that a forester would have done much good. From my slight experience of the Orkneys, it is quite impossible to grow trees there, and as the noble Viscount said that the Orkneys were very like the Falklands, I cannot see any point in sending out a forester. However, I will not waste the time of the House by going into matters of that kind because I intend to be brief; my speech will be short and sweet, like a donkey's gallop.
I cannot understand why the Government are hedging, as they appear to be, on this issue. After all, only a very small amount of aid, £5·1 million over five years, is involved, and I would call that chicken feed compared with the vast
244
amount of aid we give to the various developing countries. Although the overall sum has been reduced, it is running at about £230 million, and most of those countries have far fewer ties with the mother country than the Falkland Islanders. Perhaps I am wrong and the Government will give the aid that has been requested, but I cannot understand why they should even be considering not giving it. Apart from any feelings of patriotism or sympathy with the people of the Falkland Islands, such expenditure would appear to be commercially wise.
I understand that 94 per cent. of the Falkland Islanders are of British stock and that about three-quarters of them were born there. The two shepherds who came to my place in the Inner Hebrides said that they left the Falkland Islands mainly because of the question of communications. They objected most strongly to having to apply for a visa to the Argentinian Foreign Office if they wished to leave the Islands. They also felt rather out on a limb and forgotten by the mother country. So far as I can recall, those were the only reasons why they left. I implore the Government very seriously to consider providing this £5·1 million, because I understand that £3·3 million of it will be spent on extending the airfield. If the airfield is not extended to take big aircraft, no company will invest in the Islands.
We have heard of the great possibilities for the Falkland Islands, with fishing, seaweed, making calcium and sodium alginate. This process goes on in my part of the world in the West of Scotland with seaweed, making alginate; it is actually calcium and not sodium alginate. I understand that if the Falkland Islands had a factory there to carry out this process, within 10 years there could be an export trade worth about £40 million, which would help the balance of payments of this country to the tune of perhaps £20 million.
As for wool, which now and always has been the chief, almost the only, product of the Falkland Islands, I understand that last year it grossed £2·6 million. However, I believe that the Islands have increased their gross national product by the staggering figure of 80 per cent.; if this country can increase our GNP by 2½ per cent. we think we are very fortunate.

245
I will not delay noble Lords much longer because everything that ought to be said has been said. Again, I urge the Government seriously to consider the request that has been made. I appreciate that the Argentinian Government is a military Government, and for all I know it may be a very good one, although it is not in our tradition. I agree that we must be tactful with the Argentinians, but we have had a long connection with them, with tremendous British investment there. I am sure that if this matter is handled tactfully they will raise no objection to the Falkland Islands remaining completely British, remembering that 94 per cent. of the Islanders are from British stock.
I understood that Her Majesty's Government had agreed not to consider any change in sovereignty without the consent of the people of the Falkland Islands, but I gather that some people there are not too happy about that assurance. I urge the Government to make it clear in the strongest terms that there will be no question of the people of the Falkland Islands losing their British sovereignty unless they wish to do so.
I do not think that I can say any more because it has all been said, but I just repeat my comment that this small amount of money is really chicken-feed when we think of the vast sums that this country wastes. Here is something from which the British Government will really get a return and which will help a very patriotic people. I conclude by emphasising something which came up in the debate: we take in taxation twice what we give back in grant aid. If that is so, we should be very much ashamed of ourselves. I was surprised to hear that. I would repeat that I implore the Government not to quibble about this. Having said that, I shall sit down and hope for the best.
8.31 p.m.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: My Lords, my thanks are also due to the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, for initiating this Question, as they are to the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, for his splendid report. At the outset, I should say that, when not in this Chamber—which is most of the time —I spend my professional life as a consultant in trade with Latin America and I travel extensively in that continent.
246
For various reasons, I had not been in Argentina for some years, but I was there during the last week of March, which was most fortunate and which gives rise to my intervention this evening.
Unfortunately and unwittingly, I find myself at variance with my noble friends on this issue, because I believe that the issue of the Falkland Islands is much wider than that of island sovereignty alone. I feel that we must cut through some of the confusion surrounding the issue. In doing so, we must consider what are the real interests of the islanders in the future, which even some of the islanders themselves may not have recognised. Economic development is the key to the future. Following the promulgation of the law of the sea with the extensions to 200 miles and so on, the territorial dispute now includes a vast area of the sea and the seabed. While Britain and Argentina fail to agree on this matter, the ocean surrounding this area, which is full of riches, is being "hoovered" clean by fleets from third party countries. Neither Britain nor Argentina can do anything about this alone, but together we could do something.
As has already been said by various noble Lords, the Falkland Islands are 7,000 miles away. They are outside NATO and they are just off the Argentine mainland. Whatever may be the historical reasons for our colonisation and whatever may be the flimsiness of the Argentine claim, the fact of the matter is that the future of the islands must now be the subject of joint discussion with Argentina. Obviously, this must include representation by the islanders at all stages. It has already been said by various noble Lords that the population of the islands is now down to under 2,000 and that it is declining. It is also alleged that the islanders do not like Argentina, but I am not sure that that is correct. The fact of the matter is that there are in Argentina some 30,000 Britishers and Anglo-Argentines who all seem very happy with their lot. I believe that Argentina is our friend and I would take issue with my noble friend Lady Vickers and ask her not necessarily to accept all that she reads in the newspapers on this subject.
Argentina has undergone a spectacular economic recovery in the last year and there will be many opportunities for trade

247
in the next few years. We currently have an imbalance of trade with Argentina, in that we import more than we export. We need to have no impediment in order to take advantage of these favourable circumstances. The recent visit by the Minister of State, Mr. Rowlands, paved the way for discussions to start. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gornwy-Roberts, will be able to say that discussions on the Falklands Islands will start shortly and that full diplomatic representation at ambassadorial level in both directions will be established in the near future.
8.37 p.m.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I intend to delay your Lordships only a short while and I am most hesitant to speak after the distinguished contributions that have gone before. I feel that the importance of the Statement made in the other place by the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Anthony Crosland, cannot be too strongly stressed. He stated in February this year:
"I must make certain things absolutely clear. Firstly, any such discussions, which would inevitably raise financial questions in the relationship between the islands, Britain and Argentina, would take place under the sovereignty umbrella; that is, Her Majesty's Government would wholly reserve their position on the issue of sovereignty which in no way would be prejudiced."
By that, I understand that the Government are of the opinion that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, on the basis of history, equity and international law, is not a matter of dispute but a matter of fact and should not form a basis for discussion with the Argentine Government.
In the words of Professor J.C.J. Mitford:
"The Argentinians' claim is founded on emotion and recurrent irredendist fever."
Yet in the same Statement that I have quoted, the Secretary of State quoted his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who said in another place in January 1976:
"Given good will on both sides, Britain and Agentina should be able to transform the area of dispute concerning the sovereignty over the islands into a factor making for co-operation between the two countries which would be consonant with the wishes and interests of the Falkland Islanders."
The problem which that Statement raises is that it could well be inferred from it that
248
the disputant has grounds for dispute. It thus incalcates into the hearts and minds of the islanders the fear that the United Kingdom will negotiate behind their backs—an area which they feel should not even be the subject of discussion.
The islanders are right: there is no case to answer. The United Kingdom's case for sovereignty is irrefutable. I feel sure that your Lordships would welcome a firm statement from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, that the United Kingdom's claim to sovereignty is irrefutable and in accordance with the principles of international law and that Her Majesty's Government intend seeking international corroboration of the British case should the need arise. Furthermore, may I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, whether he can state that the sovereignty of the islands would never be transferred without the consent of both Houses of Parliament and the islanders themselves in accordance with the spirit of the reply by Mr. Ted Rowlands in another place on 30th March, when he said:
"As I have told the House over and over again, we certainly shall not bring forward any proposals which are not acceptable to the islanders and they must obviously receive the consent of this House".—[Official Report (Commons), 30/3/77; col. 394.]
Your Lordships' House has once more shown its concern for the interests of the weak and the small and can be seen to have joined itself with the islanders in their national motto: "Desire the right".
8.39 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not conceive it as my duty, as the Chairman of the survey which produced the report that we are discussing, to lead the campaign for the implementation of our recommendations. However, I could not resist intervening in this debate and I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, both for his personal remarks and from my own family's point of view. I am also grateful for the remarks of other noble Lords and for the very kind reception that has been given to our report. I was particularly interested—if I may refer to certain of the points that have been made, for practically every point of significance has been made—in the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I was very glad that he seized on the point

249
about the dependent situation and the difference between the independent-minded crofter and the really rather splendid but dependent people in the Falkland Islands.
Of course we owed a great deal to the members of our team and I pride myself on the fact that, although we did not include everybody whom the noble Lord would have wished, we did take Bob Storey who is the former development officer from Shetland and who is now the development officer of the Highlands and Islands Board, because I realised at a very early stage that it would be useful to find an analogue, and the obvious analogue was in fact Shetland. If I may say so to the noble Viscount, not much progress has been made in growing trees in Shetland. It was because of the absence of trees that I thought that it was relevant, and I do not believe that the addition of a forester, in the short time that we were there, would have solved the problem, which is dependent on many issues, including the problem of a much lower soil temperature and a continuous wind. Of course there are trees, and there is one splendid two acre forest, which is a great joy to find, at Hill Cove, in the West island.
It was a great problem for us to attempt to cover such a vast subject when only three months were set aside, and if I have a criticism of our Report it is of its over-voluminous length, 140,000 words, based on about three to four months' work only, of which only one month was spent in the Falklands. I think that I should stress to noble Lords, and again particularly to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, that much of the information on which we relied had already been published. If anyone cares to turn to the appendix he will see reference to the various reports, and I will not list the names of all the distinguished people who reported. This situation was particularly true on the agricultural side. We had two Welshmen and two Scotsmen. We had Williams the Sheep and Williams the Fiscal, and then we had two Scotsmen. What impressed me most was the ability of animal husbandry expert Huw Williams to grasp the vast amount of information that was available and update it with complicated statistics against a fairly narrow base. If we are to be condemned it is on the point that we have published
250
too much information, rather than not enough.
I should like to stress one or two points on which I believe there are misconceptions. I have heard it said by certain people who ought to have known better that there is no real future in the land of the Falkland Islands. Nothing could be less true, and the potential for development and the already high quality (not the moderate quality, as has been suggested) is very great.
But of course more needs to be done, and it has mystified us, as it mystified the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, why some of the many recommendations in the past, with which we very largely agreed and which we reflected, have not been carried out. Overhanging everything is, first, the cost and, secondly, political uncertainty, and before sitting down I should like to say a few words on the latter point. It is true that there is enormous wealth in the sea; that the krill beyond the Antarctic convergence and a long, long way from the Argentine, is beginning to be harvested by Germans and Russians and Japanese—and I am sorry to say that the British are not present. This is greatly to be lamented, because it is the largest untapped source of protein in the world. There is the equivalent of perhaps once or twice the total world fish catch waiting to be found.
Again, much of the off-shore development will call for international co-operation. I passionately desire to seek cooperation with the Argentine in these areas, but I must say that politics in the Argentine do not make this very easy. I should say to those who think that there is a short cut to viability through oil, that we made it very clear that it is in co-operation with the Argentine, with British expertise now in the matter of off-shore oil, that we can hope to see a useful development, both political and in terms of wealth.
But while we have stressed the fact that there are areas in which development will proceed much faster with co-operation, we have also indicated, as the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, made clear, that though that development could be faster, it is possible for development to proceed, with or without Argentine development, provided there is the will

251
in this country. One has only to look at the prospects in regard to alginates, in regard to tourism, to see that the Falkland Islands themselves could generate much of the wealth.
This brings me to the point about the proposals and the cost of the proposals. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will confirm that the Government were somewhat disingenuous in expounding the details that we gave in regard to cost. They added up a number of items and said that we had proposed a total recommended expenditure of up to £13 million to £14 million. This is rather misleading. As the noble Lord said, the position must be put on the record. What we actually recommended was £5·4 million over the next five years, with an exploratory fishing programme adding another £1·15 million; in other words, a total of something under £7 million. We are well aware that we cannot on the one hand ask the Government to cut public expenditure, and at the same time ask them to increase the expenditure. But we took this very much into account when we said that a further expenditure of £6 million might well take place, but not necessarily in the next five years.
I believe that it is important to get this clear, because it has been suggested by people that we have made extremely extravagant proposals, and these suggestions must have been made by people who had not studied the proposals in any detail. In fact, if one leaves out the airfield—and I want to say something about that—the actual expenditure is relatively small. Again, it has not been sufficiently appreciated that over the last 30 years the outflow of funds to the United Kingdom, largely in the form of company dividends and undistributed profits, has greatly exceeded the inflow made up of United Kingdom aid and Falkland Islands Government income from their United Kingdom investments.
Successive United Kingdom Chancellors of the Exchequer, of all Governments, have gained substantial amounts from taxes on this outflow, particularly on dividends and profits. It is estimated very approximately that between 1951 and 1973 the United Kingdom direct tax take was about £1·9 million on dividends and profits—twice the amount given as
252
United Kingdom aid to the Falklands. There are those people who think that, somehow, the Falklands have been living off the British: it is, in fact, the United Kingdom which has been living off the Falklands. Even if only a small proportion of the kind of aid which has very properly gone into the Highlands and Islands Boards and other bodies to help outlying communities in the Highlands and Islands area had gone to the Falklands, it would have made an enormous difference. Unfortunately, the Falklands, instead of being 70 miles from Scotland, are 7,000 miles from Scotland. But, of course, the analogy with Scotland is very apparent. It was very apparent when we consulted the Highlands and Islands Board. I wish, in a way, that the Highlands and Islands Board could he concerned with the administration, because they would understand it in a way which I regret to say I do not believe the Department of Overseas Development begin to understand it. It is a problem of a very special kind. These are people who are wholly British. They are not even Scots, I may say: they are indistinguishable from the kind of people you meet anywhere around, either in England or in Scotland.
My Lords, may I, at this point, turn very briefly to the subject of the airfield? We spent many anxious times considering whether or not we could justify the extension of the airfield to take larger aircraft. It is very difficult; and any one of your Lordships who has been concerned with cost-benefit studies will know the limitations in a cost-benefit study. We attempted it, but we were not entirely satisfied with it. One thing we were certain of, however, was that the prospects of success in development, particularly in tourism, in alginates, in fisheries and, indeed, in other activities, would be diminished very considerably without the expenditure on the extension of this airfield. This was not a decision to which my admirable team came lightly. It was a matter which we debated long and carefully, but we were unanimous that if there was any single expenditure which it was necessary for us to recommend immediately it was on the airfield: and I am deeply concerned that the Government will not adopt this recommendation. I stress this because we were so strongly convinced of it that we put in a recommendation ahead of the main report in order that it might be considered.

253
My Lords, there are many other areas into which it would be desirable to go, but I should like to say two more things. An important part of the report which has not been discussed as much as perhaps it might concerns the restructuring of government. It is not just a question of improving the democratic content, although we have proposals with regard to that and we regretted that the Stanley Town Council had been abolished. There is a need for more of these sort of Highland community councils. But what is needed is a different style of government. One needs the determined ability that one found, if I may say so, in the county clerk, the chief executive officer, of Shetland: in fact, someone who will be able to support and encourage the development of industry while at the same time ensuring that British traditions of law, rule and justice are maintained. Again, those sections of this report are yet to be reported on.
The other point I wanted to make was that, whereas it is for the Government to give the lead, it is also for the people of the Falkland Islands and the companies themselves to respond. I believe they will. I believe there is a will in the Falkland Islands Company, in the other companies and among the sheep-owners and sheep managers to encourage the kind of development to which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred. The most striking thing to us was the absence of what can only he called private enterprise in the ordinary sense. I am bound to say that, speaking as someone who still firmly sits on these Benches, it was a striking example of the dangers of the absence of scope for individual enterprise, whether it is in a Socialist society or a company society: and the need to provide that sort of opportunity to some of the younger and energetic people of the Falkland Islands is very necessary.
I should like to make two points in conclusion. First, I should like to express my deep gratitude to the people of the Falkland Islands. It was a most exciting and enjoyable experience. They are a hospitable, friendly people—the young man who had come out from England to get away from it all and thought it better to work on a farm, at much lower pay but still at a good standard of living, rather than on an assembly line in Coventry. The second point is that I
254
would really make a personal appeal to the Argentine Government. My family have had long associations with the Argentine; and, after all, the Argentine itself has great traditions. It was conceived in freedom, and has great traditions of democracy. I think it is important to recognise that the Argentine claim is a very long-standing one. It has been the subject of contention, and there is no doubt that many people in the Argentine are convinced that the Malvinas are Argentine. Yet the simple fact is that the people who live there are British, and are more British than you could find in any other colonial territory in the world.
I would appeal to the Argentine, although they were not very nice to me. They prolonged our stay and they called me rude names like Drake and Dampier, which actually was rather encouraging; and when they tried to arrest HMS "Endurance" they found they were shooting at our research ship "Shackle-ton". None the less, I met so many Argentines who understand the problems of the Falklands, and realise that it is not right at this moment to pursue, ultimately by some form of duress, possessing lands where the inhabitants do not wish to join. It may be that, if friendship developed over a period of 30 or 40 years, you might get the sort of development in co-operation that I hope we shall see in Europe, but at the moment I hope the Government will continue to stand firm. I say this because I believe the will is there in the Falklands, and I hope the will is here in the United Kingdom and in Whitehall.
8.58 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is almost superfluous to add anything further after listening to Lord Shackleton, and one can understand why the Report is so full of good sense. I, like my noble friend Lord Massereene, have always felt a certain affinity towards the Falkland Islands, having spent my life on an island off the West Coast of Scotland near his. I am bound to say to Lord Thurso that, if the climate of his part of Scotland is anything like that of my part of Scotland, I am surprised that he can claim that the Falkland Islands are anywhere near as warm. They certainly were not when I was there.

255
My other claim to be interested in this subject is that I can say that I am a living proof of the wool-growing capability of the islands, since I grew my beard there in 1970. I may say that the salvage operation on which we were engaged was seriously impeded by the kelp, and so far as I am concerned the alginates are welcome to it. None of these things makes me an expert; but, luckily, all the important points have already been raised this evening, I think. We owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Boyd, an ex-Colonial Secretary, for having given us an opportunity to discuss this excellent report and to seek from the Government the reassurance which I think is needed to answer the justifiable uncertainty and the doubts of the Islanders. I shall come later to some of the reasons why I believe these doubts exist.
I am therefore going to start by exhorting the Government to be both robust and realistic because I believe that honour and self-interest demand that it should be so. As my noble friend Lord Morris mentioned, there can be no historical doubt of the legal validity of the British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands which the Argentine Government resolutely refuse to test in the international courts. The Islands were uninhabited when the British discovered them and we colonised them in the 1830s. Charles Darwin is supposed to have said when he visited the Islands in the "Beagle" that he thought them eminently suitable to be a penal colony because while they appeared to provide all the necessities of life, there was no way in which they would provide any of the luxuries. I was therefore interested to hear my noble friend Lady Vickers say that the Spaniards used the islands for a penal settlement, something of which I was not aware.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in his report identified considerable economic potential, in addition to the wool and mutton which is already being produced, in the fishing possibilities, the oil possibilities, the seaweed possibilities and the tourist possibilities, to mention a number of the principal items. I think I should also again underline the point that both the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd, made; that is, that there has been a net inflow of money from the Falkland Islands to this country over the years—
256
and that in spite of this astonishingly elaborate panoply of government which one finds there, with the Governor, the Legislative Council, the Executive Council, the Colonial Secretary and 18 people in the Post Office in 1970, I think—all to administer a population of 2,000 people. So the point is well taken that possibly the system of government would stand some re-examination.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, the Post Office is, of course, one of the income earners for the Falklands and the philately side is very important.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, one of the custodians in this House was telling me before the debate that he is a passionate collector of Falkland Islands stamps which,I agree, are exceptionally well designed. The report identified these two essential preconditions for economic expansion. These were political confidence and at least adequate or improved communications. As has already been said, Lord Shackleton's Report was anxious that the Argentine workforce which was being used under the 1971 Agreement to construct the temporary airport should secure continuity of work by being allowed to carry on with the major project of building the permanent airfield capable of accepting international aircraft. This is fundamental.
May I digress for a moment to ask the noble Lord about the situation regarding the shipping services to the Islands? Am I right in thinking that under the 1971 Agreement we were responsible for providing a steamer service to succeed the service which was withdrawn in 1972? If that is so, are we not in default of our agreement made at that time?— because it must be right that, however good an air service you eventually establish, there is always going to be a need for some kind of heavy goods carriage which, presumably, must be by some kind of shipping service. I think that the important point—which has been made several times today with the mention of the white cards—is that a fully-fledged air service, free from political interference, is a necessary precondition for any development plan; and there is evidence that such an investment could, in fact, earn a return.

257
It has even been suggested that history might turn full circle and go back to the old days when the Falklands Islands was a coaling station and conceivably such an airport might be used as a refuelling stop for flights over the Southern Pole to the Antipodes. I have no idea whether what sounds like a rather far-fetched proposal has any validity. The important point is the political implication of the airfield. I would believe that the best chance of achieving an agreement with the Argentine, which is so essential, would be if we were in a position to negotiate from strength. I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Garner. We are much more likely to get agreement on the logical short-haul service on sensible terms if it is clear that we have the fallback position of direct international flights elsewhere if we need them.
This also leads us on to the crucial point which has been mentioned several times and most effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and by my noble friend, Lord Montgomery, that the Islanders have got to realise that it is in everybody's interest for us to establish a modus vivendi with the Argentine sooner or later. The very fact of the existence of commercial potential surely makes this all the more important. Meantime, my noble friend Lord Montgomery tells us that the Russians and the Japanese—and I think Lord Shackleton suggested, also, the Germans—were busy "hoovering" the oceans. This brings us to another rather worrying circumstance.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt? They have not actually got a Hoover. They are still doing only sample fishing but it is becoming significant with regard to krill.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, whether it is happening, or is about to happen, the situation is one that we should be worrying about. I am concerned about whether or not, in the course of paring down our defence forces, we have now got ourselves into a situation where one wonders how we should be in a position to assert our sovereignty in the area and what forces we could deploy if it became necessary to do so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I realise how careful we must be in advo-
258
cating commitment to increases in expenditure at a time when we are urging the Government to economise; but I notice in some of the debates in another place there was mention of the Ministry of Overseas Development undertaking expenditure on some of these projects, anyway. So it seems to me that the first point is that probably some of this expenditure is envisaged as being in the pipeline, anyway.
Secondly, as has already been said, the amounts of money are small. This is always a rather dangerous argument. But more important is the fact that the time scale appears to be relatively long, and that it might be in fact some time before we started incurring expenditure, and I hope that this nation does not have to face an indefinite sentence of abject poverty such as we are going through at the present time. So might there not be a case for giving a commitment to undertake the development of the airfield against possibly an extended time base? I believe nothing would do more to engender confidence in potential investors, and to set at rest some of the doubts of the Islanders on their political future.
Against that background, one might hope that we could explore with the Argentines how best to co-operate in exploiting the resources of the area to the mutual interest of both countries and with due regard to the Argentine sensibilities about the Malvinas. This in turn would open up the re-establishment of proper, sensible diplomatic relations so that we can pursue the revival of the once extensive trade that we used to enjoy in that country, which is a very old-established tradition between our two countries.
Here I have to express some misgivings, because if we examine against these possibilities some of the recent Government Statements I think we are entitled, to ask the Government for a clear reassurance. On 14th January 1976, Mr. Callaghan asserted in another place, to applause, that the inhabitants of the Islands must be free to choose their own destiny. On 27th January, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, told my noble friend Lady Vickers that there would be no change against the wishes of the Islanders. On 2nd February of this year, the late Mr. Crosland said that any

259
changes must be acceptable to the Islanders. Then in March Dr. Owen was invited to give an assurance that there can be no question of handing over sovereignty without consent, and that consultation involves consent. Dr. Owen specifically refused to give those reassurances, even when pressed several times. That hardly seems consistent with some of the earlier pronouncements that I have mentioned.
In a recent letter from no less a convert, as we had hoped, than Mr. Rowlands, writing to one of his colleagues in the House of Commons (Mr. Brown), he said that there would be full consultation with the Islanders during the course of any negotiations. That is not quite the same as some of the earlier statements which were being made. One does not have to be a graduate in diplomatic studies to suspect that there seems to be a gradual shifting of the ground away from the initial very firm position which the Government were taking.
May I also ask the noble Lord what exactly is meant in this context by words like "consent" and "consultation"? How is consent to be determined? For example, are we going to have a referendum in the Falkland Islands before there is a change of status in the way we have described? Unless we have reassuring answers to some of these questions, it is inevitable that the Government will be suspected of deliberately muddying the waters so that they can subsequently use these muddied waters to wash their hands of what one noble Lord described, in a rather happy phrase, I thought, as a "geographical inconvenience".
I have to ask these questions in what I hope is not an over-contentious manner. Is it the Government's intention to ignore the Shackleton Report? Do they intend to erode our defence capacity to the point where we are manifestly seen to he incapable of asserting our sovereignty, either overland or on the sea? Are they further going to claim that the prospect of continuing poverty precludes any possibility of our ever being able to invest in the colony, and that therefore they are gradually preparing the Islanders for some inevitable deal whereby they will become vassals of the Argentine without their consent? If those are their intentions, then I believe the Government should own
260
up and admit to them. But I sincerely hope that the noble Lord is going to be able to tell us a very different story when he answers this debate.
9.14 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, for initiating this debate. His great experience of British overseas territories and his distinguished contribution to their development over the years make it most appropriate that he should have raised the matter of the Falkland Islands. Other noble Lords with experience of, and a deep interest in, the Falkland Islands have made valuable contributions to the debate. I think we were all particularly interested to listen to my noble friend Lord Shackleton, whose wide-ranging, erudite and truly invaluable report your Lordships have been discussing this evening. His contribution to the debate confirmed the impression of great dedication, immense knowledge and balanced recommendation which the report itself presents.
I think it was on 2nd February that I repeated to your Lordships what my late right honourable friend Mr. Anthony Crosland said about the report. His statement made clear that, because of current financial constraints—which I would not describe as abject poverty, and I certainly would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, that it is a temporary phase in our history—and the more urgent claims of poorer countries, the Government would not find it possible at the moment to accept the more costly recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
At this point I should like to join my noble friend in clearing up a misunderstanding relating to the financial statistics which that Statement put forward. I think it is absolutely fair to say that when my late right honourable friend referred to the "total recommended expenditure as being some £13-£14 million, he was endeavouring to indicate in broad terms the overall scale of expenditure which might be necessary in the long term. It was not possible for him to relate that figure to any time scale, as that depends on the degree of co-operation with

261
Argentina that we can establish. But the Government agree that, if this overall expenditure were to be related to time scales, a distinction would have to be made between the figure of £5·4 million recommended for a development programme over the five years, which my noble friend mentioned, and the further expenditure of £6 million, or rather more, which would be related to a further period, which cannot be as closely defined in time as the period to which the £5·4 million clearly would be devoted. I therefore join with my noble friend in clearing up the misunderstanding and I hope that what I have said will be welcomed by him and by the House as a genuine contribution to the clarification of what my late right honourable friend wished to convey to Parliament.
When I refer to "the more costly recommendations", I mean such investment as might be needed to build up nontraditional industries such as fishing and tourism. In general, we would expect the capital inputs to come from the private sector. Other recommendations, such as organisational changes and improvement in investment and banking, which were specifically mentioned from the Liberal Benches, are mainly for the Falkland Islands Government to implement. But that leaves a number of proposals—some for technical co-operation and others involving capital expenditure—which I believe my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development is willing to investigate, and to support if on investigation they are found to be justified. There is, as the noble Lord reminded us, an ODM programme which is continuing, and one would hope that on investigation a number of the proposals made in the report, which are within the first category of development proposals, will be found to justify financial support.
My honourable friend the Joint Minister of State who deals with Latin American matters, Mr. Rowlands, said in another place on 1st March that he had found that the Islanders placed great importance on the problems of internal communications; also, on facilities like better schools and small local industries. The Falkland Islands Government have now submitted project applications for a road linking the capital, Stanley, with the large settlement of Darwin; for radio communications
262
between Stanley and the settlements; for an oil landing jetty and for a school hostel. All these projects, if brought to fruition, would certainly improve the quality of life in the Islands, an improvement to which Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance, for reasons which we have heard mentioned in this debate tonight.
My right honourable friend Mrs. Hart, the Minister for Overseas Development, is now considering setting up the necessary feasibility studies into all these matters, especially one into the improvement of internal communications, on which the Islands as well as we ourselves place very great store, and this would include a study into the improvement of the vital internal air service. As a first step, my right honourable friend is appointing a fiscal adviser whose prime task will be to look into the possibilities of increasing revenue, so avoiding the burden of extra recurrent costs which all these projects could generate. In the long run, aid funds must be used to help the Islanders develop their own economy so that they will eventually be able to afford from their own resources—which are considerable, as we have heard—better communications, more social amenities and higher standards in the medical and social fields.
A number of speakers have made extremely interesting, and, shall I say tentatively, for the most part constructive, suggestions for the development of the resources of these Islands. I have noted the emphasis placed by a number of speakers on the need for an extension of the airfield and the terms and manner employed by my noble friend in making this point. My honourable friend the Minister of State in the other place has said that the viability of such an extension would depend on a development of the major resources of the area, and the islanders themselves accept that the development of offshore resources depends very much on Argentine co-operation. This is noted. I have no doubt that what has been said in this debate will be taken very carefully into account as our consideration both of the report and, indeed, of our relations with that part of the world develops in the near future.
At this point may I welcome very much a number of speeches which related to what we regard as an essential key to a

263
viable and secure future for the community of these Islands—that is, the replacement of the threat of confrontation by the practice of co-operation between them and the mainland. Two points have been emphasised in this debate: the need for an assured economic future and the need for an assurance as to the constitutional position of the Islands. The one is underlined by their proximity to the mainland and the other by their distance from the homeland. It must be the duty of the British Government to work for the attainment of the one—economic development—and the maintenance of the other; a sense of assurance as to their constitutional position. I will come to that point in a moment.
The right climate of co-operation which we are seeking to promote in the whole region of the South-West Atlantic is, I believe, a key to what we wish to assure for the Falklands. As I said earlier, my honourable friend who visited the Islands found that they were aware that the present deadlock was inhibiting their economic and social development. With this in mind, the Islands' Councillors approved my honourable friend's visit to Buenos Aires to try to work out with the Argentine Government terms of reference for future negotiations aimed at breaking this deadlock. They accepted that it would be unrealistic to exclude the discussion of sovereignty from such negotiations. The question was bound to be raised, at least by one side, and realistically they accepted that it might figure in the discussions. When terms of reference for negotiations have been agreed, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will wish to inform Parliament. However, the Councillors also accepted the assurances of Her Majesty's Government that any negotiations would be without prejudice to present British sovereignty over the Islands.
This brings me to a point made by a number of noble Lords. From the distinguished speech which initiated this debate right through the discussion, there has been the request that I should confirm —I borrow the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Morris—that there will be no transfer of sovereignty except as stated (I am using his words) by my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Rowlands, in another place in the terms
264
of the quotation which the noble Lord read from his speech. I have a number of quotations of reassurance which I could give, and perhaps the best thing to do is to set them out in a fair list. I will not bandy them with the noble Lord. He quoted the firm assurances on this point which have been given by the Prime Minister and by myself. There is no need to prompt any of us, least of all me, on this point. However, I will make this point on one quotation of a remark made in a speech given by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary when winding up the last Foreign Affairs debate in another place—the question of the word "consent".
We might indeed have a prolonged debate about the respective meanings of "acceptability", "consent" and a great many other words. I have learned to avoid these tautological involvements. What is clear can clearly be said. I believe the phrase quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, from my honourable friend's speech puts it exactly. I do not want to embroider it. What my right honourable friend was stressing was the role of Parliament and the special meaning of "consent" in the Parliamentary sense, because there was nothing between him and my honourable friend in the same debate on our intentions: first, that nothing will be put to Parliament unless it is acceptable to the islanders; secondly, it will be put to Parliament, and I should imagine to both Houses. Certainly as my right honourable friend said, "to this House", referring to the other place, and I would add "and to this House also" referring to your Lordships' House.
There is a certain danger if we over-argue this point of assurance. There is absolutely no doubt in this country in legal or Government circles about where sovereignty lies. It is here, in the United Kingdom. Having made that clear in every discussion we have had with the Argentine, we propose to go on making it clear as and when necessary. Successive Governments have made it clear, and all Ministers in this Government have made it clear that there will be no transfer except in the terms which my honourable friend used in the other place. If we go on too much about this, we may reinforce uncertainties both in the Falkland Islands and possibly on the mainland. I will

265
leave it at that on the record. It is clear enough, and I confirm tonight what my honourable friend said in the debate on foreign affairs when he wound up in the other place.
The noble Viscount raised the question of representation of the Islanders at substantive talks. I confirm two things: there have been no substantive negotiations with the Argentines yet. If and when there are, I now confirm that should the Islanders desire it arrangements will be made to ensure their presence at any substantive talks. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and a number of other speakers asked me to make that point clear. I know of no way of making it clearer than I have put it.
I hasten to cover the more important points. If I omit a point of substance relating to the detail of life on the Islands, I am sure noble Lords will forgive me. A great many details were raised and I shall be ready to make available information on specific points in some other way if time runs on.
Some noble Lords have referred to the question of human rights in Argentina. I must repeat that this country and this Government, successive Governments in this country, of all Parties, deplore the violation of human rights wherever this occurs and we have made this clear on every possible occasion to the Governments concerned. Nevertheless, the welfare and interests of the Islanders require that we discuss with the Argentine Government and authorities economic co-operation and indeed all other matters having a bearing on the future of the Islands.
I was impressed by a number of speeches, that of the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, that of my noble friend Lord Garner, as well as that of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who stressed the need for an understanding for mutual benefit between the Falkland
266
Islanders and the Argentine Government, a tripartite understanding between us, the United Kingdom, the Islands and the mainland. This is quite essential. The noble Lord, Lord Garner, put it like this: it is necessary to have at least a degree of understanding with Argentina; otherwise we cannot move forward to develop the Islands, to give a fuller and more attractive life to the Islanders. They are within 300 miles of the mainland, after all, and they are 7,000 miles away from us geographically. I was grateful to Lord Garner for emphasising the extreme delicacy of the diplomacy needed to move forward on these lines. It is not enough to assert, not today; there is need to concert, to persuade, to attract into consensus. There is every need to be robust on principle and resilient on tactic. So far I think successive Governments have conducted these very difficult negotiations with reasonable success. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, also made a plea for this co-operation, and so did a number of other speakers.
My Lords, I think the debate has been extremely useful in bringing out essential points on which I think this House, and I believe this people, are agreed. Again to quote the winding-up speech in another place—not that all the best speeches are made in another place—first, there will be no sell-out of the Islanders; secondly there will be an attempt to put into practice at least some of the recommendations made in this invaluable report, and there is no rejection of any of the recommendations; it is a matter of pace and of capacity. It is on that note I should like to end, thanking once more the noble Viscount for initiating this debate in a speech to which it was a pleasure to listen and which put the case so cogently and so effectively.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.