Sitting of 10 December 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Oral Answers to Questions

    Enterprise Zones and Trusts
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement on the progress of enterprise zones and trusts in Wales.
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: It is estimated that the three enterprise zones have attracted some 1,700 jobs so far and that the trusts have created or saved some 4,000 jobs. I regard this as excellent progress.
    Mr. Hooson: I have gained the impression that Powys Self-Help has been one of the most effective trusts. Does my hon. Friend have information to back that impression?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I most certainly do. I understand that Powys Self-Help is making good progress. To date it has helped 80 new businesses to start and 60 existing firms to expand, and it has helped to create or save 300 jobs.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the Welsh Office try to learn from the experience of the first enterprise zone in Swansea and, in particular, consistent with current regional policy, could not the benefits be more job-related? How does the Welsh Office see the future of retailing in the enterprise zones, given the effect in adjacent areas, and can we still support the idea in principle of having retailing enterprises within the zones?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Swansea has been identified as one of the more successful enterprise zones in terms of completed floor space, attraction of firms, employment and provision of service sites. I am aware of the views expressed about the retailing side. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of this, as he keeps in close touch. We have recently made a modification which, having consulted both sides in the matter, I can say will be welcomed generally.
    Mr. Raffan: In view of the recent tragic announcement of redundancies amounting to nearly one third of the work force at Courtaulds green field, will my hon. Friend seriously consider any applications from Delyn borough council for an extension of the land included in the Delyn enterprise zone and treat sympathetically any request for financial aid to meet the problems created by those redundancies?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am aware of that concern. The Government regret the redundancies that have been

    719
    announced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the plant last year and knows of the efforts that have been made to make it profitable. The redundancy decision must be for the company in the light of its assessment of future commercial prospects. However, I have taken note of my hon. Friend's point and will give serious consideration to any proposal that is put forward. For understandable reasons, I can give no guarantee of the outcome of the deliberations, but at the same time I must warn that statutory procedures would have to be gone through.
    Mr. Coleman: Is the Minister aware that rumour has it that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has some goodies to announce today? Does he agree that the efforts of trusts, such as the Neath Development Partnership, which on its own has created about 900 jobs in the past five years, have done a great deal to reflect the status of Wales as a place for people to come to?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I pay tribute to the efforts of the Neath partnership, which is a very good example of how well both the private and public sectors can work together. I have visited that partnership, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will visit it later this week to provide encouragement for the good work that it is doing.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not absurd to impose tolls on the Cleddau bridge, in the enterprise zone in the Secretary of State's constituency, which restrict movement from one side to the other, thus defeating the object of the exercise? In view of the astronomical figure of unemployment in the Secretary of State's constituency, does it mean that the right hon. Gentleman has forsaken those people as well?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: My right hon. Friend forsook them to the extent that the Government provided a £4 million interest-free loan. Furthermore, as this matter affects a private Bill, I am sure that it would be out of order to make any further comment.

    Nurses
    Mr. Hubbard-Milesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many nurses were employed in Wales per 1,000 population on 31 March 1978 and 31 March 1984.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Monthly data were not collected in 1978. However, according to the annual census at 30 September 1978 the National Health Service in Wales employed 8·1 whole-time equivalent nurses per 1,000 population. The figure at 31 March 1984 was 9·3 whole-time equivalent nurses per 1,000 population.
    Mr. Hubbard-Miles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Can he say how that substantial increase in front-line workers in the NHS has affected the number of inpatients and outpatients being treated?
    Mr. Roberts: Certainly. The increase in the number of inpatients being cared for between September 1979 and September 1983 was 10·9 per cent. The number of day cases cared for increased by 11·2 per cent. and outpatients by 12·6 per cent.—a very creditable performance.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that that increase reflects the increase in demand, particularly through the growth of the geriatric population? Does he also accept that the increased pressure on hospitals comes
    720
    from a cut in resources for local government and a failure to maintain home helps, which means that people who would otherwise be helped in their own homes have to go to hospital?
    Mr. Roberts: No, I do not accept that. A certain element of the increase in the number of patients treated is a result of demographic change, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there has been a comparable increase in the amount of money spent by local authorities on personal social services.
    Sir Raymond Gower: In view of those significant figures, can my hon. Friend explain the extent of the propaganda to the contrary?
    Mr. Roberts: It is very difficult. One can only hope that truth will triumph eventually, and I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that it does appear to be triumphing at long last.
    Dr. Marek: If the Minister wishes to take credit for those numbers, perhaps he will supply the House with further information. For the dates that he has mentioned, what were the average numbers of hours worked per nurse, and what was the ratio of SENs to SRNs?
    Mr. Roberts: On the last point, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question I shall answer it. I am sure that he will not expect me to carry those figures in my head. During the period about which we are talking there was a reduction in the number of hours worked by nurses, but, even so, there was an increase in the total number of nurses over and above that required to compensate for the decrease in their, working hours. There was also an increase in the total number of front-line staff for the Health Service.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been lost in Wales as a result of the coal mining dispute; and how much the total cost of the dispute has been to the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Terlezkiasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his assessment of the impact on the Welsh economy and on the prospects for employment in Wales of a further prolongation of the coal mining dispute.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): It is not possible to give detailed figures in respect of Wales, but there is no doubt that jobs are being lost, particularly in businesses with direct connections with the coal industry. The longer the dispute continues, the greater will be the threat to those businesses and to economic development.
    Mr. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this represents a shameful and tragic waste of human resources in Wales? Will he urge Welsh miners to follow the excellent example set by Bersham colliery workers in going back to work?
    Mr. Edwards: As I said at the CBI dinner on Friday, I agree that the most tragic aspects of this dispute are the waste of the resources involved, the destruction of coal faces, and the loss of markets and of resources that would be going into new productive industry.
    Mr. Terlezki: Have we not lost the order for 600,000 tonnes of coal that were to be exported to France because

    721
    of this violent and undemocratic strike? At the same time, will not British Rail, the National Bus Company and, in particular, small businesses suffer because Mr. Scargill and his subordinates are denying their members a free and democratic ballot?
    Mr. Edwards: Undoubtedly, jobs and exports are being lost, and industries and markets are being affected. For example, I know that the National Bus Company had to lay off about 20 people at its Bridgend depot as a result of the dispute.
    Mr. Ray Powell: I do not understand why the Minister did not couple question 14 with these questions. Is the explanation that he is pandering to his Conservative colleagues? Has he read the January edition of Accountancy, which clearly states that the National Coal Board's accounting system needs to be thoroughly investigated? Is he aware that in this magazine five accountancy experts said that it was time the system was changed? Is he further aware that if this system of accountancy had been operated in the Wyndham Western colliery in my constituency, which closed on 7 January, in all probability it would still be open?
    Mr. Edwards: I did not couple the hon. Gentleman's question with the other two because it is a different question. The taxpayer knows from the amount of money being paid to loss-making pits that, no matter what form of accountancy is used, substantial losses are being made by several pits and that the cost of producing coal in the best pits is very much less than in the most expensive loss-making pits.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: At the end of the Scargill strike, which surely cannot be far away, will British Rail be able to win back all the coal traffic that it previously carried, particularly between Port Talbot and Llanwern?
    Mr. Edwards: That will be a matter for the customers to decide. I understand that the cost of road transport has proved comparable and sometimes competitive with that of rail transport. Thus, some changes may take place, but that will be for the management of the steel industry and others who use coal to decide.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are fewer miners working today in south Wales than last week? Does he not understand that there is no possibility of the striking miners in south Wales going back to work, other than on the basis of a negotiated settlement that suits them and the NUM? Will the right hon. Gentleman at last begin to take his responsibilities seriously? Last Thursday the Leader of the House told the House that he wanted further talks on the basis of the NACODS settlement. Given the Secretary of State's responsibility for the turmoil in south Wales, will he tell Welsh Members what he is doing, at Cabinet level, to bring about the resumption of those talks?
    Mr. Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear statement that the leaders of the NUM are apparently interested only in negotiating on their terms, and not in considering the interests of the nation as a whole, of other industries, of the consumer, or of the future of the coal industry.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to repeat in the House the remarks that he
    722
    made at the CBI dinner in Cardiff on Friday? Those remarks were considered deeply offensive by 100,000 miners and their families in south Wales.
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot see how anyone could have found offensive my condemnation of violence, my view that the terrible waste was destroying markets and job prospects, or my appeal that people should be allowed to return to work without the threat of violence and should be able to hold a ballot, as is their natural right
    Mr. Grist: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that record investment of more than £100 million is earmarked for the south Wales pits if they return to work, and that Mr. Sid Moore, the marketing director of the NCB in south Wales, has stated that the threat of massive closures in south Wales is political bunkum?
    Mr. Edwards: I noticed that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) threatened that more jobs would be lost in south Wales than now exist in the south Wales coal industry. That would seem to suggest that he has been exaggerating his case, as so often happens. It is known that the NCB is anxious to get on with considering investment in west Wales, at Margam and elsewhere, and that its plans are being held up because of the dispute.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of the Government's incompetence and bigotry the financial cost of the dispute stands at between £2·5 billion and £4·5 billion and that the social cost cannot be calculated? The attempt to bribe miners back to work has failed dismally in south Wales. The right hon. Gentleman should be trying to negotiate a decent settlement instead of confirming losses and attempting to exaggerate the situation.
    Mr. Edwards: I would welcome negotiation on the basis of the NACODS settlement, but it is very difficult when the leader of the NUM says that he is not prepared to negotiate on the central issue in dispute.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the only way to resolve the dispute for the Government to get the parties to the negotiating table before Christmas? Otherwise, the dispute will last well into 1985. Will the Secretary of State urge his Cabinet colleagues, specifically the Secretary of State for Energy, to involve themselves in negotiations? Does he agree that he should bring more statesmanship and a little less contemptible behaviour to the issue?
    Mr. Edwards: There can be little point in proceeding with negotiations if the president of the National Union of Mineworkers says that he is not prepared to negotiate on the central issue of the strike—whether uneconomic pits should be closed, as they always have been under every Government.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Bestasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current activities of the Welsh Development Agency.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The agency is vigorously implementing the strategy set out in its published corporate plan. Its activities are aimed at regenerating the Welsh economy and improving the industrial infrastructure and the environment. Particular importance is attached to

    723
    securing more inward investment and encouraging technological development, and every effort is made to harness private sector funds.
    Mr. Best: Is the Welsh Development Agency in a position to help locally by paying particular attention to local needs and problems, such as those in Holyhead?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend has recently met the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency and discussed local problems with him. He will know that as a result of recent difficulties the agency's regional office is about to launch a series of informal sessions and seminars with WDA tenants and other local business people. Such local consultative activity will be helpful.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to encourage Welsh local authorities to take advantage of the investment fund set up by the Welsh Development Agency and urge them to examine their own investments, and pension funds investments, in order to gain practical benefit from their capital resources?
    Mr. Edwards: I welcome that suggestion. The closest co-operation between the agency, local authorities and the private sector is the key to success if we are to make the best use of resources.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will not the cuts in regional aid make the WDA's job that much more difficult? Has the Secretary of State forgotten that, following the slimline operation, thousands of steel workers are still unemployed? As a recent survey in Port Talbot shows that one fifth of them are still out of work three years after that exercise, does that mean that the Secretary of State and the Government do not appreciate the desolation over which they are presiding?
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that south Wales will remain competitive as a result of the regional changes. The combination of the regional incentives, the work of the agency, the advantages of the European coal and steel loans and the other packages of assistance will ensure that, as before, the Newport area and the steel closure areas will continue to attract new inward investment and jobs.

    Milk
    Sir Raymond Gowerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cutback in milk production in Wales and in the area of the Vale of Glamorgan, respectively, from the date of the introduction of milk quotas up to the latest convenient date; how the proportionate cutback in each case compares with the United Kingdom proportion; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The cutback of 10·3 per cent. in Welsh production between April and October 1984 compared with the same period last year is as much a consequence of the long dry summer as it is a response to the imposition of milk quotas. The comparable reduction in England and Wales is 9·3 per cent., and it is at present unlikely that supplementary levy will be payable. The United Kingdom reduction is 8·7 per cent. I regret that figures for the Vale of Glamorgan are not available.
    Sir Raymond Gower: I appreciate that it is too soon to make a final judgment, and I accept that the drought might have caused special problems, but will my right
    724
    hon. Friend take account of the fact that the figures underline the importance of milk production in many parts of the Principality, including the Vale of Glamorgan?
    Mr. Edwards: I understand the importance of milk production. In the period up to October the United Kingdom was about 3·9 per cent. below the estimated dairy quota, although I judge that the gap will have closed considerably by the end of the year. The five local panels have completed their examination of special case claims and the main tribunal, which has been substantially enlarged, is considering with all possible urgency appeals against local panel decisions and the exceptional hardship cases.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will go to Brussels and make a special plea on behalf of Welsh dairy producers for an extra milk quota for 1985?
    Mr. Edwards: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government, in considering their stand in Brussels when they receive the Commission's proposals in the new year, will consider carefully the special circumstances that affect different parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales.
    Mr. Best: My right hon. Friend will know that he and I represent many farmers who have been hit hard by the milk quota proposals. Will he have a word with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and ensure that when he goes to Brussels he makes certain that no European country gets away with undercutting the quotas, so that Britain bears a fair burden of the problem and not a disproportionate one?
    Mr. Edwards: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 20 November:
    "My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it quite clear to the Commission that, with regard to the super levy, either all of us collect it or none of us do so. We shall not be in a position in which Britain keeps the rules while others do not."—[Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 143.]
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Is it not evident that there is still much dissatisfaction about milk quotas? The Secretary of State should know that from experience, bearing in mind the fact that only a week or two ago local dairy farmers stormed into his office. Why did he not keep faith with his people and at least insist on a deal similar to that obtained by the Irish dairy farmers?
    Mr. Edwards: It is hard to believe that the Opposition are arguing, against the background of the CAP and CAP expenditure, that Britain should have had an increase in its milk quota. That is a remarkable revelation of the Opposition's agriculture policy.

    Regional Industrial Policy
    Mr. Ron Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Government proposals for regional industrial policy in Wales.
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the implications for Wales of the recently announced changes in the Government's regional aid policies.
    Mr. Edwards: The Government's new regional policy arrangements are designed to create genuine and lasting

    725
    jobs cost-effectively. The revised assisted areas map covers nearly 90 per cent. of the working population of Wales and provides support both for needy areas and for key centres of growth. Wales will continue to offer an effective level of support and a comprehensive package of advice and assistance to all qualifying firms looking to invest in the Principality.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Secretary of State direct his attention to mid-Glamorgan and confirm that in two constituencies—Caerphilly, and Ogmore—and the area of Taff-tly the grant to large areas will be reduced from 22 to 15 per cent. and that they will no longer qualify for automatic grants? Given the desperate need to attract employment into those areas, how does the Secretary of State expect us to compete on an equal footing with areas in the midlands, such as Birmingham or Coventry?
    Mr. Edwards: The entire Heads of the Valley area of industrial south Wales, as a coherent block, receives the most assistance available in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is in an especially good position to compete with other areas, including the west midlands. In the southern belt, where unemployment is lower and the attractions to incoming industry are already substantial, I am satisfied that the combination of assistance available — the selective financial assistance package, the European coal and steel aids, the Welsh Development Agency package and the assistance for small firms—will ensure that it continues to be a competitive and attractive area, and that it will continue to attract a disproportionate share of inward investment.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new arrangements command general assent, on the ground that they are likely to be more cost-effective in bringing jobs to the area? However, can he give any reassurance to the areas that have lost assisted status that they will not thereby forgo any call on EEC investment funds or other forms of aid?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend will recall that after the downgrading of mid-Wales we had discussions with the European Commission, and ERDF assistance was later available in that area. I shall be having discussions with the Commission about the other rural areas that have been downgraded, but I can give no undertakings now on the outcome of the discussions.
    Mr. Foot: What was the exact calculation of the sum that would be saved by the removal of special development area status from various areas in Wales? What account did the Government take of employment consequences when they embarked upon their policy? Have not the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, agreed to hitting even harder the areas that have already been hit the hardest? What was the exact calculation of extra unemployment at which he connived with the Government?
    Mr. Edwards: I do not agree that the result will be extra unemployment. I believe that the regional package will be extremely effective. When it is combined with other Government measures, including lower interest rates and cuts in the job tax, which the right hon. Gentleman and the previous Labour Government imposed, it will attract investment. The right hon. Gentleman has taken an extraordinary position in the area which he represents, which has the highest level of assistance that is available
    726
    in the United Kingdom. That assistance has been extended to the Abergavenny area, which will be especially attractive for high-tech industry. He is, apparently selfishly, begruding areas to the west of Blaenau Gwent a level of assistance that is equal to that in his constituency.
    Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that changes in regional policy will not put us at a disadvantage when they are set against aid packages from other European competitors, and will not prevent us from holding on to companies such as Laura Ashley, which has said that it might go to Holland because of the attractive aid packages on offer there?
    Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend's part of Wales remains an area with the highest level of assistance and — [Interruption.] The Opposition always hate good news. I am pleased to tell the House that Laura Ashley Ltd. is today announcing that its major new textile finishing project is to be undertaken in Newtown. Associated with this development will be a new garment-making unit in the north Wales development area. The two projects will together result in several hundred additional jobs, and the investment will consolidate and further develop Laura Ashley's British and Welsh operation. There was strong competition for the project from Holland and I am especially pleased that various authorities in Britain were able to put together a package that was attractive enough to persuade Laura Ashley to undertake the project in Wales.
    Mr. Barry Jones: The news on Laura Ashley must be welcome, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he put himself into a ministerial flat spin on the issue by recklessly removing assisted status from mid-Wales in 1980. That is why he found himself in a mess, and that is what caused him to go cap in hand around Whitehall to get moneys for Laura Ashley. If the worrying £60 million cut in aid in last week's regional development announcement is not a public expenditure cut, will he tell us where in his budget he proposes to spend another £60 million?
    Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman appears to miss the point that if an area that does not have development area status is able to compete with a development area in Holland and attract major investment of the Laura Ashley sort, it means that in areas that have development area status we shall compete extremely effectively. I am satisfied that we remain competitive in Wales and will continue to obtain a good share of the investment that will be attracted there.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed people there are in Wales compared with 1979 as a total and as a percentage of the total population; how many are long-term unemployed; and what percentage of the unemployed total is the long-term unemployed total.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 8 November 1984 there were 179,643 unemployed claimants in Wales, compared with a figure of 78,297 in November 1979. As percentages of the employee population they represent 16·8 per cent. and 7·1 per cent. respectively. It is estimated that 73,334 or 40·8 per cent. of the total for November 1984 had been unemployed for over a year.
    Mr. Jones: Against the background of those doleful figures, the £60 million cut in regional aid is deplorable. I expect the Secretary of State to tell us today about new jobs from Japan and the United States of America. Having told us of those terrible figures, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to surrender weakly the skillcentres in Llanelli and west Gwent? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the loss of 230 Courtaulds jobs is a severe blow to the economy of north-east Wales? I remind the Secretary of State that in Clwyd there are 12,810 jobless people in the Flint, Rhyl and Deeside area.
    Mr. Edwards: I was glad to see the MSC press notice issued on 4 December, which reported that there had been a sharp upturn in the number of jobs available in the Shotton area and that the number of job opportunities in the area was increasing. The savings of an estimated £60 million in the regional policy announcement will not occur until 1987–88. It is expected that there will be an increase in regional policy expenditure in the two years before that time. I must set those figures against the fact that Welsh industry is benefiting by more than £120 million a year from the abolition of the Labour Government's job tax. As for skillcentres, what is at present a proposal put by officials has not yet been considered by the Commission, nor have the Commission's proposals been considered by Ministers.

  PAYMASTER GENERAL

    Staff
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Paymaster General how many staff are employed in his Department; what is the nature of their responsibilities; and what is the size of the budget he administers.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): On 1 November there were 834 staff in post in my Department.
    My Department acts as banker for Government Departments; provides the Treasury with up-to-date information on central Government expenditure: and pays public service pensions. Its administrative budget for 1984–85 amounts to £12·3 million, of which about £400,000 is recovered from other Departments.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the appalling suffering and inconvenience caused to pensioners by the DHSS strike at Newcastle? What effect has that strike had on DHSS payments?
    Mr. Gummer: The strke has caused considerable distress. I am pleased to say that two of the unions have now agreed that their members should go back to work, and I hope that the third union will encourage its members to return. It is sad when the plight of the least able in our society is used to press home wage demands. There has been a considerable diminution in the number of payments that we have been able to make, amounting to about £500,000. I am sorry that that has happened, because we want to make those payments to the people who deserve them.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those figures hardly deserve the appointment of someone of Cabinet rank to overseer them? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that his role in the Cabinet really rests upon his chairmanship of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman's facts are incorrect, perhaps it would be unsuitable for me to answer his question.

    Official Duties
    Mr. Winnickasked the Paymaster General what proportion of the working week he spends on his official duties.
    Mr. Gummer: I would expect to devote as much time to my duties as Paymaster General as is necessary to do them well.
    Mr. Winnick: I must confess that that was an apt reply. Since the hon. Gentleman's main function is to be chairman of the Conservative party, does he not feel that he could have kept the Prime Minister somewhat better informed about the strong feelings of Conservative Back Benchers over student grants and other sensitive issues? When changes are made, will the hon. Gentleman not feel a sense of relief at having given up the job as chairman of the Conservative party, after all the stick that he has received?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has forecast that event so many times over so many months that I hope to continue to disappoint him year after year.

    Cheques (Authorisations)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Paymaster General how many cheques he authorised for signature last month in his official capacity; and how much they totalled.
    Mr. Gummer: Although my duties as Paymaster General include the oversight of the handling of payable orders drawn on my Office by Government Departments and others, they do not include the authorisation of cheques for signature.
    Mr. Adley: In view of the answer that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) earlier, may I, on behalf of many of my constituents, express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, and, through him, the appropriate Ministers, for ensuring that pensions keep ahead of the rate of inflation? I assure him that for most of my constituents living on fixed incomes the control of inflation remains the most important priority.
    Mr. Gummer: While thanking my hon. Friend for those remarks, may I point out to him—I am sure that he will agree—that it would help a great deal to keep inflation down if people did not push for wage rises above the level of inflation or for wage rises that have not been earned by better productivity?

    Ministerial Functions
    Mr. Murphyasked the Paymaster General if he will list the ministerial functions of his office.
    Mr. Gummer: I am responsible for matters affecting the running and administration of the Paymaster General's Office at Crawley. I also hold certain offices connected with the Royal hospital, Chelsea; the Duke of York's school; the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation; and the Drouly Officers' widows' fund.
    Mr. Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the broad breadth of experience that he will gain from his appointment as Paymaster General. Does he feel that there are areas for privatisation within his remit?
    Mr. Gummer: I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for privatisation. On my visit next week to the computer works at Crawley, I shall consider that matter carefully. I believe it unlikely that there is scope for privatisation, because we are an efficient operation that has to be kept under Government control because we are paying out Government money.

  WALES

    Labour Statistices
    Mrs. Clwydasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of men and women employed in Wales between the ages of 16 and 21, 22 and 55, and 65 years, respectively.
    Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Information is not available on the basis requested. The most up-to-date information relates to the 1981 census of population. For the age groups nearest to those requested the information was as follows:
    16–20 years—104,898; 21–54 years—783,709; 55–64 years—143,726.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Those people are fortunate, but what about the 27·3 per cent. of men in my constituency who are unemployed? That is the highest male unemployment rate in Wales. Surely the duty of the Secretary of State for Wales is not to come to the House and wring his hands with counterfeit anxiety, but to put pressure on the Government to change their blitzkrieg policies towards the people of Wales and their industries.
    Mr. Edwards: I am glad to see that over the past past two or three months there has been a small fall in the number of unemployed people in the industrial areas of south Wales. We are beginning to see the results of the massive inward and other investment that has been taking place recently. The tragedy is that in the hon. Lady's constituency those prospects are being blighted by the continuation of a strike which she encourages.
    Mr. Hubbard-Miles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the protestations coming from Opposition Members representing Welsh constituencies would be a little more credible this Monday afternoon if one or two of them had been in their seats last Friday morning when an important debate on unemployment and tourism took place in the Chamber?
    Mr. Edwards: I am aware that hon. Members often have important engagements on a Friday, and I should not wish to condemn them on that account. My hon. Friend is right to mention tourism. It is an industry that provides an important and growing source of new jobs.
    Mr. Abse: As there are 5,500 unemployed people in my constituency, 2,500 of whom have been unemployed for more than a year, will the Secretary of State try to relieve the gloom felt in my constituency by removing the prevalent present speculation, which has arisen as a result of planning applications, so that we may know whether there is hope of early large inward investment at Cwmbran? Is he aware of our concern that the recent changes, and any regional package being considered, should in no way adversely affect the attraction of inward American investment?
    Mr. Edwards: I can certainly confirm that the recent changes in regional policy in no way affect the offer to the company concerned. I confirm that negotiations are indeed taking place with an American company with a view to its setting up in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that it will be possible to give news of the conclusion of those negotiations before long. There are still detailed matters to be resolved.

    Bus Services (Deregulation)
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local authorities and local authority associations which have protested about the Government's plans for the deregulation of bus services in Wales.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: Representations have been received on various aspects of the White Paper, "Buses", from more than 40 local authorities and local authority associations in Wales. With permission I shall circulate the full list in the Official Report.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister say who was in favour of the proposals? Is it not a serious accusation for experts in the transport section of the Association of District Councils to express doubts about the knowledge of the industry of those responsible for drawing up the White Paper? In view of all the public disquiet and the anxiety of pensioners, the disabled, women's institutes, and so on, not to mention local authorities, does the Minister agree that there must be more consultation before legislation is introduced?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: There is, of course, consultation. Many of the respondents have expressed concern at various aspects of the Government's proposals. Any form of change is always met with a certain amount of concern, but not all authorities oppose deregulation. Powys county council, for example, is in favour, subject to certain safeguards.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Why?
    Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. It is because the consumer and the customer also come into this, and the Welsh Consumer Council has welcomed our proposals.
    Following is the list.

    Bus Services (Deregulation)

      LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND LOCAL AUTHORITY ASSOCIATIONS IN WALES WHICH HAVE MADE REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS FOR THE BUS INDUSTRY
      Associations

      1. Welsh Counties Committee

      2. Standing Conference on Regional Planning in South Wales

      3. Welsh Office of the Association of District Councils

      4. Association of District Councils South Wales Passenger Transport Region

      5. Welsh Association of Community and Town Councils Ceredigion Area Committee

      6. Clwyd Association of Local Councils

      7. National Association of Local Councils

      County Councils

      1. Clwyd County Council

      2. Dyfed County Council

      3. Gwent County Council

      4. Gwynedd County Council

      5. Mid Glamorgan County Council

      6. Powys County Council

      7. South Glamorgan County Council

      8. West Glamorgan County Council

      Borough Councils and District Councils

      1. Aberconwy Borough Council

      2. Afan Borough Council

      3. Alyn and Deeside District Council

      4. Arfon Borough Council

      5. Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

      6. Cardiff City Council

      7. Carmarthen District Council

      8. Ceredigion District Council

      9. Colwyn Borough Council

      10. Delyn Borough Council

      11. Glyndwr District Council

      12. Islwyn Borough Council

      13. Meirionnydd District Council

      14. Monmouth District Council

      15. Neath Borough Council

      16. Newport Borough Council

      17. Preseli District Council

      18. Rhondda Borough Council

      19. Rhuddlan Borough Council

      20. Rhymney Valley District Council

      21. Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council

      22. Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

      Town Councils and Community Councils

      1. Cwmbran Town Council

      2. Llanfoist Fawr Community Council

      3. Penarth Town Council

      4. Prestatyn Town Council

  THE ARTS

    Private Sponsorship
    Mr. Proctorasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what encouragement Her Majesty's Government give to private sponsorship of the arts; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has recently launched an incentive scheme designed to encourage companies to look into the benefits of arts sponsorship. The first 12 winners, who raised more than £500,000, have just been announced.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern of certain companies and corporations at the activities of the Inland Revenue "hit" squad in its office, which is examining their accounts with specific regard to sponsorship of the arts? Will he make representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about this and also about the general need for tax reform to encourage private sponsorship of the arts?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have not seen those representations, but I shall look into the matter. On the broader point, the Select Committee made some recommendations, which are still under consideration. I remind my hon. Friend that the Government have made some reforms, especially of the covenanting regime, which have given a great deal of help in this matter.
    Mr. Pavitt: In discussing this issue, will the hon. Gentleman give special attention to sponsorship by tobacco companies leading to the sale of lethal cigarettes, which cause nearly 100,000 premature deaths per year? Will he discuss with the Chancellor the fact that a further 1p tax per packet of cigarettes would provide enough money to cover not just arts sponsorship, but all sports sponsorship?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Unfortunately, the tax regime is not the responsibility of my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts.
    Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that private sponsorship of the arts should be regarded as a welcome addition to support for the arts and not as a substitute for proper public patronage?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I thoroughly endorse that view. We know that a range of arts have to rely on continued public sponsorship. Nevertheless, pluralism in funding is vital. That is why we are keen to see more private sponsorship.
    Mr. Buchan: In view of the wise words of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) and of the Minister's reply, is it not disgraceful that public subsidy has fallen so short under the present Government that, after one of the most brilliant years in the history of the British theatre, a desperate crisis faces the English National Opera, the Royal Exchange theatre in Manchester and even the National theatre itself? Is that not an indictment of the disgraceful level of funding provided by the Minister for the Arts?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No, it is not. Those three situations are all different. However, it is not the fault of the Minister for the Arts that the English National Opera, for instance, is in difficulties. Arts funding under the Government has kept up with inflation at a difficult time. That has been a considerable achievement.

    Eastern Arts
    Mr. Freudasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what is the per capita Arts Council grant for Eastern Arts; and how this compares with funding for other regional arts associations.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The figure is 14·9p, compared with an average of 27·7p for other regions of England.
    Mr. Freud: In view of those figures, will the Minister attempt to encourage the Arts Council to place demographic criteria high on its list of priorities when deciding future levels of funding for the eastern region?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is a formidable lobbyist for his region, but I always have to give the same answer. The Arts Council funds projects it considers worthy of funding. It does not try to spread money on a demographic basis. However, I will once again draw to the attention of the Arts Council what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Greater Manchester
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that adequate provision will be made for the arts in Greater Manchester if present proposals to abolish the Greater Manchester council are implemented.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the North-West Arts Association does not share his view? The association has written to hon. Members representing north-western constituencies, pointing out that it fears that there will be a shortfall in spending after the abolition of the Greater Manchester council and that over £750,000 of arts subsidy that is currently paid will not be guaranteed. Does the Minister accept that he is relying on the hope that Labour authorities such as Manchester will bail out Conservative authorities such as Trafford, which have no record of spending money on the arts, and no intention of doing so?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that both Conservative and Labour metropolitan districts will undertake their responsibilities. I pay tribute to the work done by the Greater Manchester council, some of which has been most useful. The arts budget will have considerable additional funds to help to meet the shortfall, and I am sure that if the districts play their proper role there should be no long-term difficulty.

    Works of Art (Export)
    Mr. Robert Sheldonasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what discussions he has had concerning the export of works of art.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The export control system for works of art and antiques is kept under continuous review. My right hon. and noble Friend meets the chairman of the reviewing committee on the export of works of art as appropriate.
    Mr. Sheldon: Most of our artistic heritage was acquired in the 18th and 19th century when our prosperity, compared to that of other countries, was much greater than we are ever likely to achieve again. Is it not clear that the net effect of events during the next few decades is likely to be the export of some works of art that are of great importance to us? Should not there be a ban on selling a special category of works of art which we cannot keep in this country by raising the requisite money? We have no objection to people selling their works of art, but there should be a ban on the export of certain works of art.
    Mr. Waldegrave: All those matters are kept under consideration. However, I take the point made in the annual report of the National Heritage Memorial Fund that Britain has greatly gained from the free trade in works of art over the years and that it would not be in our long-term interests to do away with it. We have great public collections. What is important is that we should try to ensure that private owners do not have to sell in the first place.

    Museums and Galleries (Entrance Charges)
    Mr. Murphyasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what is the current level of revenue from entrance charges to museums and galleries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Of the national museums and galleries in England, only the National Maritime museum makes a general admission charge for its main collection. Its forecast gross income from charges is £353,000 in the current financial year. Information is not readily available on the national museums' and galleries' revenue from admission charges at special exhibitions and out-stations as distinct from their other non-Exchequer income sources.
    Mr. Murphy: Does my hon. Friend agree that such charges could be a valuable additional source of funding for the arts? Will he therefore tell us whether he and his right hon. and noble Friend intend to encourage this movement in the future?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's policy is that the trustees of the collections themselves should come forward with proposals if they think it right to do so. They know their own markets better than we do.
    Mr. Buchan: With respect, that is hardly the Government's policy. The Government are doing everything that they can to encourage museums and other institutions to charge. When opening a library in Ealing in April, the Minister for the Arts said how admirable it was for people to pay, as they would enjoy things all the more as a result. That argument, as I have said before, is the argument of the prostitute, and I wish that the Minister would disclaim it.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes that joke every three weeks and it never seems any more apposite. The policy is, I think, as I have stated it. Indeed, it is as I have stated it, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in this matter.

    English National Opera
    Sir David Priceasked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in conjunction with the Arts Council to ensure the future of the English National Opera.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and noble Friend is in touch with the Arts Council, which is keeping the situation under review.
    Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the English National Opera's financial difficulties arise largely because of its recent American tour? Is he further aware that that raises wide issues of whether nationally

    735
    sponsored companies should tour abroad, bearing in mind the risks involved? What are my hon. Friend's thoughts on this matter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The English National Opera's difficulties arise from an American tour and especially because of the failure of some promises in America to find money for the company. It has always been the case that Arts Council money cannot be used for touring abroad. Such tours are undertaken at the risk of the companies concerned. I understand that the tour was a triumphant artistic success, which is why my right hon. and noble Friend is keeping closely in touch.
    Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you have any discretion in regard to a Minister coupling questions? You will have noted that the Secretary of State for Wales today coupled two questions tabled by Conservative Members. That resulted in the exclusion of 11 out of 22 questions, most of which had been tabled by Labour Members. The Secretary of State coupled question No. 4 with question No. 17, the latter of which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki), and question No. 10 with question No. 7, which was also tabled by a Conservative Member. At 3.10 pm Welsh Questions were delayed until after questions relating to public accounts had been dealt with. After question No. 11 had been taken we proceeded to questions on the Arts, with the result that questions Nos. 12 to 22 were not asked.
    736
    Such coupling is not unusual. The Secretary of State has previously coupled five or six questions, especially when they relate to the coal mining dispute. Today, he should have coupled at least my question No. 14 with question No. 4 and he could have taken more questions with question No. 7, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies).
    I do not want to delay the House unduly, but there is another important point that arises out of Question Time today. Is it in order for a Conservative Member who rarely attends the House, but when he does so on a Friday complains about other Welsh Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's latter point—it is not a matter for me. I note his point on the linking of questions. That is entirely a matter for the Minister concerned. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noted that I called him immediately after the supplementary questions of the hon. Members who tabled questions Nos. 4 and 17.
    Mr. Powell: I am very grateful.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has any grouse, has he? Moreover, all hon. Members who tabled a question that appeared on the Order Paper today were called to ask a supplementary question. We got through the whole list of 22 hon. Members, at least in supplementary questions.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
3.35 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into allegations of telephone tapping and interference with the mail of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): No, Sir. I am satisfied that the arrangements set out in the White Paper "The Interception of Communications in Great Britain" are strictly applied by all concerned.
The complaints about the provision of postal and telephone services are matters for the Post Office and British Telecom whose duty it is, in the first instance, to investigate any allegations of improper conduct on the part of their staff.
Mr. Kaufman: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman been in contact with Sir Ronald Dearing following the disclosure that Sir Ronald has established that Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament correspondence has been tampered with substantially? Will he join me in paying tribute to Sir Ronald Dearing for acting so promptly and for taking these inquiries with appropriate seriousness?
The Home Secretary says that he is satisfied that no surveillance or interference has taken place. Will he categorically assure the House that he himself has approved no warrant authorising the telephone tapping of CND members and will he tell us how he is so sure that covert action, unknown to himself, has not been taken? Will he condemn and repudiate any possibility of interference with or surveillance of the CND? Will he state clearly that the CND, whatever he may think of its views, is a legitimate organisation, openly pursuing legitimate objectives, and will he make it utterly clear that the CND is not being pried into or listened into by Big Brother, or, for that matter, by Big Sister either?
Mr. Brittan: I join the right hon. Gentleman in complimenting Sir Ronald Dearing on dealing, as one would have expected, in a responsible way with the complaints made about the Post Office services. With regard to interception, I shall follow exactly the practice followed by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), and by previous Governments, irrespective of party, in neither confirming nor denying the existence of authorised interception in a particular case, whatever the circumstances. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I would authorise interception only in those cases where the criteria set out in the White Paper were clearly met. I have no evidence or reason to believe that unauthorised interception was carried out. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is a matter which would not be said lightly.
So far as the legitimacy or otherwise of CND is concerned, I do not think it is for me to legitimise it or otherwise. There is no doubt that peaceful political campaigning to change the mind of the Government and of people generally about the validity of nuclear disarmament, whether unilateral or otherwise, is an entirely legitimate activity which does not fall within the very strict criteria of the 1980 White Paper.
Sir Anthony Grant: In view of the sensitivity of the CND over illegal interference, has my right hon. and learned Friend received any assurance or undertaking from CND that it will not itself indulge in any illegal interference with the rights of the people at the Molesworth cruise missile site which is near to my constituency? If not, is this not another example of double standards by this increasingly hypocritical body?
Mr. Brittan: I have received no such assurance.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is hardly anyone in the country who believes that what occurred over the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's mail was due to some kind of administrative mistake? Is it not time for the Home Secretary to become far less complacent over this issue and to recognise his duty to defend and not undermine civil liberties? What has occurred over the mail to CND members and other kinds of operations which have taken place demonstrate how justified is the current inquiry into the special branch by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
Mr. Brittan: I do not know that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak for the overwhelming majority of the country in the way that he purports. I would have reservations about accepting him as a spokesman to quite that extent. The inquiry into the special branch is a matter for the Select Committee and is proceeding in the normal way.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the general secretary of the CND earlier this year, in a speech at Malvern, called upon soldiers to refuse to obey orders which, on the face of it, would appear to be an offence under the Incitement to Disaffection Act 1934? Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that Mr. Kent was meant to be taken seriously on that occasion, or was it more of a publicity exercise? Should we view today's private notice question and demands in the same vein?
Mr. Brittan: I shall not seek to penetrate motives. but I shall try to answer the questions, as I have done.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Secretary of State has said clearly that what has gone on is outside the guidelines, will he confirm also that it is outside any permission given by the European Court? If that is right, will he accept the responsibility of investigating what has clearly gone on because the investigation carried out by the Post Office has not got to the bottom of the matter?
Mr. Brittan: As I understand it, the Post Office inquiries have not been completed. Some test postings have taken place. I have said what I have had to say about the criteria and I cannot usefully add to it in any way.
Mr. Robert Adley: As CND appears to pursue policies which, in some respects, are indistinguishable from the objectives of the Kremlin, can my right hon. and learned Friend think of any organisation that could better be kept under surveillance?
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his views and comparisons.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Since it is known that the number of people engaged in the phone-tapping

739
operation is not much smaller than the number of taps authorised by the Home Secretary, are we to conclude that each of those persons carries out only one phone-tap per annum? If they carry out more than that, who is authorising the others? If they are not carrying out more than that, should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something about increasing the productivity of the operation?
Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman has shown his customary ingenuity and speculative qualities in asking that question, but it does not arise from the question asked by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it is most unwise to leap to conclusions before the Post Office has completed its inquiry? When that inquiry is complete, will my right hon. and learned Friend at least recommend to Sir Ronald Dearing that he should publish its findings so that the full facts, and not the travesties that have been put about, are made clear?
Mr. Brittan: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Post Office would wish to make the position clear. It has been entirely candid about it up to now as far as it goes. When its inquiries are completed, I am sure that the same will continue to be the case.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I accept what the Home Secretary has said, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that nothing has changed my belief over the years, and certainly nothing said today, that CND is not a subversive organisation? The fact that an organisation says things with which many disagree does not make it a subversive organisation. But something did go wrong and to clear up the matter there is to be a report by the Post Office. That should be presented to the House of Commons. Compensation has been paid. As long as the aura of what went wrong is around, people will not agree with the Home Secretary or with me. Let us clear up the matter.
Mr. Brittan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that I put accurately the position when he was Home Secretary and under successive Governments. I entirely agree that, plainly, something went wrong. The Post Office would not have paid money if it had not. Therefore, I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the inquiries that the Post Office is completing into what went wrong are worthwhile and important. It is clear already that two of the things that went wrong were a Post Office machine and the CND's quality of packing.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend invite Opposition Members to come forward with all the details of times, places, and so on, for the allegations so that a proper inquiry can take place rather than broad-brush smears which are too regularly becoming the tactics of the Opposition parties?
Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Gorton will decide in his own inimitable way whether and how to pursue the matter further.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Home Secretary give an assurance, if she can, that no hon. Members who are members of CND have their mail interfered with or their telephone calls intercepted.
Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many phone taps or mail interceptions he has authorised for supporters or members of CND? What comfort can I offer to the people in the N4 district of London, which contains the head office of CND and where both I and my constituents reside, that their phones are not also being tapped and their mail interfered with because they may or may not be CND supporters? Do any of the authorised phone taps on supporters of CND include Members of this House or any other House?
Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I can take the matter much further forward other than to repeat — which I welcome the opportunity to do — that it is not the practice of Governments—as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South confirmed, to disclose whether interceptions have taken place, for reasons that are perfectly clear to anyone seriously concerned with these matters.
I also welcome the opportunity to make it perfectly clear that peaceful political campaigning to change the mind of the Government and the people generally about nuclear disarmament is a legitimate activity and does not fall within the strict criteria.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is not within the current guidelines that he operates in respect of telephone tapping to authorise the tapping of individuals' telephones merely because of their membership of an organisation?
Mr. Brittan: That would depend on the organisation and its activities.
Later—
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like a ruling on a reply by the Home Secretary to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). When asked whether hon. Members' phones were tapped or their mail intercepted because they were supporters of CND or of the peace movement in general, the Home Secretary declined to give a categorical answer one way or the other. Will you, Mr. Speaker, rule on whether it is in order for the Government to interfere with the private correspondence of Members of Parliament and their constituents—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. The hon. Gentleman put a question to the Home Secretary and received an answer.

Council of Environment Ministers
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting on 6 December of the Council of Environment Ministers, at which I was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The Council expressed its sense of shock at the recent disaster in Bhopal and conveyed its deepest sympathy to the Government of India and the people affected. The Council discussed lead in petrol, other vehicle emissions, the limitation of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, the establishment of a Community information system on the environment and draft directives on emissions from large combustion plants, emissions from the titanium dioxide industry, the recycling of beverage containers and environmental assessment.
On lead in petrol, the Council reached agreement on a directive that provides for the introduction of unleaded petrol throughout the Community not later than 1989 or earlier if individual member states wish. The minimum octane levels of premium grade unleaded petrol will be 95 RON, 85 MON, at the pump. The octane number of any additional unleaded regular grade was left for member states to fix. Formal adoption of that directive must now await receipt of the opinion of the European Parliament.
On other polluting emissions from cars, the Council agreed that a high-level working group of officials should report by the end of January on the alternative routes available to secure further reductions in these emissions. That work will provide the Council with an assessment of relevant technologies and examine whether there should be different solutions for cars of different sizes. It will take into account energy and production costs and European traffic conditions.
A directive on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide was agreed with minor amendments, and subject only to a parliamentary reserve by the United Kingdom. Agreement was reached on the funding and legal basis of the first phase of an information system on environmental data in the Community.
The four other proposed directives — on emissions from large plants, emissions from the titanium dioxide industry, the recycling of beverage containers, and environmental assessments were not agreed. The United Kingdom had objections to the first three, and in no case were we alone in having such objections. Denmark maintained its reservation on the fourth proposed directive.
The Council accepted a proposal by the United Kingdom that the Commission should be invited to consider, and report on, ways of ensuring that environmental concerns are taken into account in the Community's agricultural policies. I also recorded our concern that the Commission's recently proposed directive on motor cycle noise does not go far enough in dealing with the smaller-engined machines or in setting a sufficiently early date for reductions.
Dr. David Clark: I should like to associate myself and my colleagues with the Minister's
742
sentiments about the tragic and devastating accident in Bhopal. I trust that the Government are making all necessary help available to the Indian authorities. That accident serves as a timely reminder of how dangerous modern chemical plants are, and that in our constant efforts to monitor nuclear plants we must be for ever vigilant over conventional plants, too.
The Minister's statement contained many important points, and I should like to ask him specifically about several of them. In a slightly offhand manner—I know that he did not mean it that way — he talked about establishing a Community information system. That is very important. What does it mean? Are the Government and the Community now going along the same road as the Americans in arguing for assessment of environmental impact? There seems to be quite a lot of credit in that proposal.
With regard to the recycling of beverage containers, can the Minister give us an assurance that experiences in research will not be restricted to the EEC and that we shall take into account the experiences in America, where the Americans have had those schemes for many years? Also, outside the Community, there have been such schemes in Denmark and Norway.
I was puzzled by the agreement on nitrogen dioxide. Will the Minister explain why NO2 was considered separately from other acidic emissions such as sulphur dioxide? How does the Minister justify taking NO2 separately? Does it mean that we shall have a debate on NO2? Furthermore, may we expect a debate on acid rain before long, as we have been promised?
I welcome the Minister's decision to ask the Commission to investigate ways of taking the environmental impact of agriculture into account in the common agricultural policy. However, we expect it to be more than a token gesture. It must be more than a cosmetic exercise because it goes to the heart of the CAP. Many people regard it as completely indefensible that we are producing for the sake of producing when we cannot even distribute that production to the Third world countries and while we are destroying our own environment.
We welcome the fact that agreement has been reached and that lead-free petrol will be available by 1989. However, the Minister omitted as much as he told us. For example, is it still the Government's intention to reduce the level of lead in petrol to 0·15g per litre by 1985? Can the Minister give us an assurance on that specific point? The hon. Gentleman also said that lead-free petrol would be available by 1989
"or earlier if individual member states wish."
I understand that the West German Government will introduce it earlier. Have the Government any idea when they will introduce it?
The key point about lead in petrol is related to new cars. There was a key omission from the Minister's statement. Without clarification on that point, I am afraid that the statement is utterly meaningless. Unless we know when new cars will be required to run on lead-free petrol, not when lead-free petrol will be available, we cannot be convinced that the Government are prepared to agree to the introduction of lead-free petrol, thereby protecting the health of a great many young people up and down the country.
Mr. Waldegrave: The reason why I had nothing to say about the type approval and about the time when new cars

743
would be required to run on lead-free petrol is that we were not making that directive. What we debate is not up to individual Ministers; it is up to the Commission. There was no directive before us on that matter. That is in a separate directive, and the Government's position remains what it has always been: we shall try to ensure that there is no slippage from the date of 1989. We can hardly be blamed for not discussing it at the previous Council meeting if it was not on the agenda.
I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that the Government intend to reduce the level of lead in petrol from 0·4g per litre to 0·15 next year, as we have always said. As to whether lead-free petrol will be available earlier, the Government believe that the oil industry and the motor car industry need the octane number, which we have obtained for them, in order to plan sensibly. If they can introduce lead-free petrol earlier—some companies are likely to do so—the Government will welcome it.
The information scheme is separate from the environmental impact assessment. The latter has been agreed, except for a constitutional reserve by Denmark, and we hope that the Danes can agree it at the next Council meeting. The information scheme, which was discussed at the previous Council meeting, establishes the Commission as the gatherer and holder of environmental information across Europe, which is sensible, and we have provided the legal basis and funding for that.
As to the recycling of beverage containers, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I met a distinguished group of Labour Members from south Wales, including the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who emphasised to me the difficulties and dangers for the tinplate industry in south Wales. I hope that they will welcome the fact that we heeded their advice and have not agreed to a directive, although we would agree to a recommendation.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about nitrogen dioxide, but the individual countries have no responsibility for the order in which matters are introduced. This directive is about the effects on health of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, not about acidification, and it has separate roots. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the agriculture directive. The principal negotation is for the Agriculture Council, but the Environment Council must do all that it can to emphasise its importance to the Community.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Although we are gratified that the Government accepted all but one and a half of the nearly 20 recommendations of the report on acid rain by the Select Committee on the Environment, those outstanding leave grave concern in some quarters. May we have an urgent debate on the report and the Government's reply, if not before Christmas at least soon thereafter?
Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in the Chamber and will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. There will be such a debate, but the timing has not been decided.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister accept that the dreadful tragedy in India suggests that we should make a much more vigorous and penetrating appraisal of modern chemical industries? That being so,
744
will he assure the House that when the promised pesticides legislation is introduced it will serve a real and modern purpose and will offer more protection than do present arrangements?
Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that legislation is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The terrible disaster in Bhopal has reminded us of the good safety record of our chemical industry. [An hon. Member: "What about Flixborough?"] Flixborough was our worst disaster; bad though it was, it was two orders of magnitude fewer than the disaster in India.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend obviously agrees that the Bhopal incident was an appalling tragedy. Does he also agree that, prima facie, the tragedy could have been avoided if the same standards had been applied in India as were applied in America? Does he agree that Britain should advise its chemical companies that when they trade overseas we expect them to treat overseas lives with the same respect as they treat lives here, and that they should never set up plants overseas with lower safety standards, thus endangering lives, whatever the profits, or business may be?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's question goes a little wider than the Council meeting, and it would be wrong for me to comment on the responsibility for the disaster. My hon. Friend's latter point was sensible. British Governments of both parties have taken the lead in the EC in considering the external effects of trade in dangerous products, including chemicals, and we shall maintain that lead.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy for the people and Government of India. However, given that in Britain there is manufactured and stored some materials that are reputedly 10 times as toxic as that which escaped in India, what steps are being taken to inform people living in the vicinity of the factories producing toluene diisocyanate of the fact that these products are being made next door to them? Is the Minister satisfied with the safety measures, and, if not, what will the Government undertake to do to reassure the people of Britain that there will be no such disaster, which would be of a potentially larger scale here than in India last week?
Mr. Waldegrave: As soon as that disaster took place, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked for an inventory of all such similar substances in the United Kingdom, and he was right to do so. My advice is that the substances are not manufactured in the United Kingdom, but are stored here. We are checking on all the security arrangements. I repeat that, terrible though the disaster in India was, it reminds us that our chemical industry has a good safety record over the years, and I am sure that we shall be anxious to maintain it.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome the prospect of an early debate on the important subject of acid deposition. Can my hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the environmental data? For example, is it the case that the Government intend to extend the range of air quality monitoring stations and to feed that information to the EEC Commission? Secondly,

745
is it still the Government's intention to proceed with an early and comprehensive Bill to improve the measures against air pollution?
Mr. Waldegrave: On the first question, the answer is yes; we intend to extend the monitoring network both in rural and urban sites. As to the second question, we must in due course have a new Clean Air Act, because the framework directive that we agreed earlier in the year in the European Community will require it. Its timing has not yet been settled.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that the Government will be exempting three water authorities from the EEC nitrate pollution rules as a result of pressure from farmers who want to save money on the back of the environment? In the light of the Minister's statement, which effectively ducks the issue of acid rain, is it not fair to say that the attempts of the Conservative party conference to paint that party as green on environmental issues was a disaster, a failure and a misrepresentation of the truth?
Mr. Waldegrave: There was no substantive discussion at the Council meeting of the large plant directive, which is what I imagine the hon. Gentleman is talking about, although it is only part of the story about acid deposition. The representatives of three or four countries spoke briefly on it, and three or four countries were against the directive as presently drafted. The hon. Gentleman should remember the other side of the question. It is not only the Central Electricity Generating Board that is against the additional costs involved. We have had similar representations from the TUC.
On the matter of nitrates in water, every application for a derogation in the Community procedure will be looked at individually on its merits. There will be no question of putting at risk the health of anyone in this country.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of lead in petrol on children has been causing increasing concern in recent years? Therefore, is not the best thing to come out of this meeting the fact that the Common Market countries have agreed to follow the excellent lead given by this Government and have agreed to phase out lead in petrol in the foreseeable future?
Mr. Waldegrave: I did not expect to be congratulated by the Opposition, but the day was important for those of us in the European Community who have campaigned against lead. The Community has finally agreed a directive, which I know will be welcomed by my hon. Friend and by many people both inside and outside the House.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that several well-informed authorities in this country believe that there are no technical problems to prevent lead from being extracted from petrol at a much earlier date than 1989? Will he treat this matter with far more urgency than the Government have shown hitherto in the light of the continuing threat to children's intellectual and mental health?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman forgets that there will be a 60 per cent. improvement next year because the Government are moving to 0·15 instead of 0·4. We have to take into account, as we are often rightly urged to do by Labour Members, the employment prospects of people in the motor car industry and elsewhere. We think that the measured progress which we are agreeing, and which has achieved the unity in Europe that has been a major objective all through, is right. We have nothing to apologise for in this matter.
Mr. Sydney Chapman:I generally welcome my hon. Friend's statement. When he refers to nitrogen dioxide, is he referring just to what is colloqually known as NO 2 or to all oxides of nitrogen?
Mr. Waldegrave: The directive refers to NO 2 only, and deals with concentrations at a level that may be considered a risk to health. It has nothing to do with the acidification issue.
Mr. Donald Anderson: On the recycling of beverage containers, the Minister will be more than well aware, from the representations that we have made to him, of the importance of this matter to south Wales, and therefore of our pleasure at the lack of progress. What are the next steps? Is it proposed that the draft directive be returned in a diluted form, or will it come back in the form of a recommendation?
Mr. Waldegrave: It is up to the Commission and the Presidency to decide what will be on the agenda at the next Council meeting. Our position remains the same—that the recommendation is more suitable for this particular legislation. It is worth remembering that hon. Members say that we must go faster on every environmental issue, but the Labour party is not united on this matter.
Mr. Derek Foster: I accept what the Minister said about Bhopal. However, is he aware that the health and safety inspectorate has for some time been operating at one third below its target? Is that not a terrible risk to take just to save money?
Mr. Waldegrave: The Health and Safety Executive is not the responsibility of my Department. I am certain that the inspectorate is working at levels necessary to carry out its statutory duties.

Sunday Trading Laws
4.7 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the deliberate flouting of the Sunday trading laws by major companies yesterday".
Yesterday several major stores opened for trading in deliberate violation of the Shops Act 1950. They did so knowingly and blatantly. This is a matter that the House should debate urgently. These stores took their unlawful action in anticipation of the enactment of a Bill which will be based on a report on which a White Paper has not yet been issued.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the Carlton club:
"Now that democracy has been won, it is not heroic to flout the law of the land as if we still struggled in a quagmire where civilisation had yet to be built."
Does that apply to Heals as well as to the National Union of Mineworkers? Does it apply to Habitat as well as to the Transport and General Workers Union? That happened yesterday and those who flouted the law have said openly that they intend to do so again on a number of subsequent occasions before Christmas. It is now after 4 o'clock, but the Prime Minister has not yet condemned this breach of the rule of law. The Home Secretary is in the Chamber today. He has not yet condemned this breach of the rule of law. The House needs to establish clearly whether there is one law for the miners and another for merchants.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the deliberate flouting of the Sunday trading laws by major companies yesterday".
The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. I have listened with care to the right hon. Gentleman, but I regret that I do not consider that the
748
matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Later—
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: I did not realise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would raise the subject of the shops legislation, but I had intended to raise a point of order on the matter anyway. You, Mr. Speaker, and the whole House will recall that the Prime Minister is constantly lecturing everybody on the need to obey the law. May we ask the Leader of the House through you, Mr. Speaker, to advise her to come to the House tomorrow to make a statement condemning Debenhams, Habitat and so on for flagrantly disobeying the law?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Later—
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order arising from your decision on the Standing Order No. 10 application, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your decision because you are dealing with the business of the House for today, but may I seek your guidance? When will it be possible for the matter to be debated in the House?
On Thursday 29 November on Question No. 1 to the Prime Minister, I referred to the Employment Act 1980 and the Shops Act 1950. I asked the Prime Minister about double standards. I said that the Government were using their influence to ensure that the Employment Act 1980 was obscenely used by the courts and magistrates, resulting in the sequestration of trade union funds. Is it possible for the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House to consider providing time for the Shops Act 1950 to be considered seriously along with the action by business people who are openly defying the law? What sequestration can be operated against these firms for taking the liberty of flouting the law? The Government are deliberately ensuring that the courts enforce one Act but not the other. We want an explanation and a debate on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman heard what I said about the Standing Order No. 10 application. I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman on tactics, but there are such things as Adjournment debates and I am sure that Question Time will provide opportunities to refer to the subject.

Representation of the People Bill
4.10 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I rise on a point of order at this stage.
On Thursday, the Leader of the Opposition inquired about how I proposed to take the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill. I then said that the usual channels were reviewing what aspects of the Committee stage would be suitable for discussion on the Floor of the House. However, I was unable to conclude those discussions last Friday and thus a Government motion was tabled committing the majority of the Bill to the Floor, while sending other clauses and schedules upstairs. Since then I have taken account of further expressions of opinion. Thus, I have concluded that it would be appropriate to take the entire Bill on the Floor of the House. The Government will, therefore, be moving a motion after the conclusion of the Second Reading tonight, suggesting that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his volte face, but might it not have been for the convenience of the House if he had raised the subject not as a point of order but as a business statement? He could then have been questioned on the reasons for the change of mind and on the way in which the business is to be conducted. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is a motion on the Order Paper stating that only clauses 1 to 12 and schedule 1 are to be taken on the Floor of the House. We now find that all 27 clauses and all three schedules are to be debated on the Floor of the House. Surely there should have been a business statement rather than a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding any comments one might have about the manner of announcing the decision, perhaps you will allow me to thank the Leader of the House for coming to that decision rather than being the first Leader of the House to send a
750
Representation of the People Bill to a Committee instead of having it taken on the Floor of the House. May I express to the right hon. Gentleman the hope that that desire for all-party agreement on the procedures for the Bill will extend further into its substance, thus making its passage easier?
Later—
Mr. Williams: May I return to the point of order that I raised earlier about the announcement by the Leader of the House? This is a matter not of propriety but of practicality which affects the way in which we are to conduct today's business.
Had the Leader of the House made a business statement, as he should have, we would have been able to ask him whether he intends to introduce a timetable motion for the Committee stage of the Bill. If he had said that his intention was to introduce a timetable motion you, Mr. Speaker, might have been influenced in deciding whether to apply the 10 minute rule today. If debates were to be curtailed in Committee you may not think that debate should be curtailed on Second Reading.
Mr. Speaker: It is not my intention to apply the 10 minute rule today because the number of hon. Members who have so far expressed their wish to take part does not justify it.
Later—
Mr. Williams: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to pursue the matter, but, as we discovered during Scottish questions last week, when a Minister does not perform his duties properly you are put in an invidious position. It is important to know whether a timetable motion on the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill is to be moved. As the Leader of the House found it necessary, on a point of order, to announce his change of mind, will he come to his feet again and say whether there is to be a timetable motion for the Committee stage?
Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am always happy to help the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). When I said that the Government would move a motion after the Second Reading tonight that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, that is exactly what I meant and no more. Of course it does not refer to a timetable.

Coal Industry Dispute (Supplementary Estimates)
4.13 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's Supplementary Estimates 1984–85, the note by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury states:
"The Revised Supplementary reflects token provision which is sought in respect of a contingent liability arising under an indemnity given by the Attorney-General for unrecovered costs and other expenditure incurred by the sequestrators appointed by the High Court as officers of the Court in enforcement of the Court's order in the case of Taylor and Foulstone against National Union of Mineworkers (Yorkshire Area) and National Union of Mineworkers."
In effect, that means that the Government will underwrite any costs that arise in the meantime and that are incurred by the sequestrators. Without any precedent, the Government will interfere directly in a court judgment in which they are not in any way involved.
My point of order is that there is no statutory authority in principle with regard to this issue. Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill and will they make an early statement to the House? It is outrageous that Mr. Bernard Ingham gave a full press briefing at No. 10 this morning, but the Government have not had the guts to come to the House to make a statement. I ask that the maximum pressure be brought to bear on the Government so that they make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a matter for me, but the Government Front Bench will have heard what he said.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that we
752
raised a point of order about the increasing of the supplementary benefit deemed payment from £15 to £16 and that within a few hours we almost had a statement in the House. How can we get the Government to make a statement on this issue, especially as it looks like nothing more or less than political interference in a court action? It is vital that hon. Members should have the right to hear a statement and to ask questions of the Treasury about how once again it has managed to interefere in this industrial dispute.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman, but the House well knows my view that it should always be told first of what is going on.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the use of the words
"the Revised Supplementary reflects token provision"
mean that this matter should be debated either during the debate on the Consolidated Fund or on a Supply day dealing with Supplementary Estimates? Is it not within the power of the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on this subject, particularly when he knows that any matters affecting the interests of mineworkers should be brought before the House in the current sensitive situation? Is not it an affront to our procedures for the right hon. Gentleman to fail to respond in the way expected when he knows what our orders require?
Mr. Speaker: Of course this issue is debatable during the debate on the Consolidated Fund. However, it is entirely open to the Opposition to choose the subject for a Supply Day—or Opposition Day as it is now called—if they so wish.

Commonwealth Citizens (Entry Clearance)
4.22 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you prior notice of my point of order, but it concerns something that has arisen this afternoon. You will recall that on 22 November the Government announced their intention to introduce a charge for entry clearance. I made inquiries of the Library as to the procedure that the Government intended to use, and was advised that the provision for the fee for entry clearance for Commonwealth citizens is to be achieved by a new order under the consular Fees Act 1980 to amend the Consular Fees Order 1983. In paragraph 22 of the schedule to the order, it is proposed to add the phrase "for entry certificate". I made further inquiries this afternoon and was told that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. is to consider a new order this afternoon. However I am specifically advised that the words "for entry certificate" are not included.
Will you initiate inquiries of the Foreign Office, Mr. Speaker, to find out how it intends to proceed? Many of us believe that a statutory instrument that imposes a charge on Commonwealth citizens is ultra vires. We further believe that a statutory instrument cannot diminish a right conferred by statute unless the legislation under which the statutory instrument is made expressly provides for such a diminution. The Consular Fees Act 1980 does not do so. We are advised the Parliament can never have intended the Act to be construed in a way that deprives people of a widely debated right preserved by the Immigration Act 1971, and which was reaffirmed in the House by Lord Whitelaw, as he now is, as recently as 11 November 1982. I am further advised that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. meets next Tuesday and that it would be in order for that Committee to consider a statutory instrument including the words "for entry certificate". If that were to happen I am further advised that there would be no opportunity for Parliament to express its approval, nor would there be an opportunity for any of us to pray against such an order.
754
Widespread concern is felt about the matter. Early-day motion 200, signed by mysef and 29 other hon. Members, expresses concern and
"requests reconsideration of the proposal made on 22 November to introduce, for the first time, a charge for entry certificates for Commomwealth citizens, and points out that refusal of an entry certificate, simply because the fee cannot be paid, would not be lawful under the Immigration Act 1971."
I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would make inquiries about which procedure the Foreign Office intends to pursue so that Parliament and others concerned about such matters have the opportunity to make representations against the introduction of a charge which we believe to be illegal and a diminution of rights conferred by statute on Commonwealth citizens and their families.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not give me notice of that point of order. It is a complicated subject. From what I heard the hon. Gentleman say, surely this is a matter for the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee. The Government Front Bench will have heard what has been said. The content of a statutory instrument is not a matter for me. I cannot make a decision what is in a statutory instrument.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four Questions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the Fishing Vessels (Aquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1879) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Orders of the Day

  Representation of the People Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.27 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to implement the proposals for changes in electoral law set out in the White Paper on the Representation of the People Acts, published last January. The White Paper took the form of a reply to the report by the Home Affairs Select Committee, the great majority of whose recommendations we accept. The House had an opportunity to debate the White Paper in June. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I then announced some modifications of the original proposals. In addition, the Bill includes a substantial number of lesser changes in electoral law. Wherever possible these changes have been the subject of consultations with the political parties and local authority associations.
  The Bill has three main themes. The first is an extension of democracy. The Bill establishes the principle that British citizens may have the right to vote even if they are not resident here on the qualifying date. We are one of the few democracies which make no provision at all for our citizens to vote while resident abroad.
  Secondly, the Bill seeks to ensure that, so far as circumstances permit, every person who is given the right to vote is able to exercise it in person at the polling station, or, if he cannot reasonably be expected to do so, by post or by proxy. Every hon. Member knows the frustration of the elector who is at present disfranchised because he is away on holiday on polling day. I have long thought it a scandal that the penalty for going on holiday should be to lose one's basic democratic right.
  Thirdly, our aim has been to modernise our electoral machinery. Many of the features of our electoral system were introduced in the 19th century and have scarcely been changed since then. The Bill deals with a variety of detailed defects and problems which have come to light over the years and which there has not been opportunity to resolve before.
  The Bill applies to parliamentary elections throughout the United Kingdom and to local government elections in England, Wales and Scotland. It does not affect local government or Assembly elections in Northern Ireland; these elections are governed by separate legislation. Nor, in general, does it affect elections to the European Parliament. There is an exception in clause 3 of the Bill, to which I shall turn in a moment. The European Assembly Elections Act 1978 gives me power to apply the provisions of the Bill to European Parliament elections through regulations. We propose to exercise this power in due course so as, for example, to give holidaymakers the right to a postal or proxy vote at a European Parliament election.
  Clauses 1 to 3 extend the franchise at parliamentary and European Parliament elections to British citizens resident abroad. I believe that this change will be warmly welcomed. Many British citizens working overseas are making a major contribution to this country. It is quite wrong that they should be disfranchised for doing so.
  756
  That said, problems immediately arise in how to limit the extension proposed. Attempts to separate British citizens into groups according to their occupation, tax status or country of residence pose considerable problems. Moreover, we wish to preserve the crucial link between electors and individual constituencies. Consequently, while we are proposing to extend voting rights by proxy or post to British citizens abroad, wherever they are, we propose a seven-year cut-off point after the elector leaves the 'United Kingdom. That is bound to be an arbitrary period. I know that some of my hon. Friends would like to see it longer or to remove it entirely. The Government believe, however, that this first—though not necessarily last—major step represents a sensible compromise, and I commend it to the House. It would enfranchise over half a million new electors.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does that not facilitate the right to vote to those whose clear long-term intention is to leave the United Kingdom? Why should they retain the right to vote when they are leaving indefinitely?
  Mr. Brittan: As I have explained, I do not think that the basis of deciding which of our citizens living overseas should be allowed to vote would be workable if it were determined on long-term intentions. That would be an idle and useless distinction to seek to make. For that reason, we have proceeded in the way that I have described.
  Clause 1 allows a British citizen to qualify as an overseas elector if he fulfils various conditions.
  First, he must have been resident in the United Kingdom. I think there will be general agreement that it would be wrong to give someone the vote who has never lived in this country.
  Secondly, the person must have been registered as an elector. The reason for this is to provide a simple test of whether the person really was resident here at the material time. But, as we suggested in the White Paper, a person who was too young to be registered while resident here may still qualify.
  Thirdly, the right to vote lasts for a period of seven years after the elector leaves the United Kingdom—or, to put it more precisely, for the duration of seven electoral registers after the register in which the elector is last included on the basis of his residence here.
  Mr. Ron Davies: The Home Secretary has said that the inclusion of a name on an electoral register is proof of residence. Will he reconsider that? The inclusion of a name merely indicates that an individual was resident at an address on one day and completed a form to that effect. Surely he cannot accept that as proof of residence?
  Mr. Brittan: I do not think that that is quite right. One can never be sure that the law has not been broken. The test for registration is residence. I do not think that we are saying that the law might not be broken. The assumption has to be that the register has that effect.
  Clause 2 deals with the practical arrangements. It allows a person who qualifies as an overseas elector to make a declaration, modelled on the service declaration made by Crown servants and members of the armed forces. The declaration has to be attested in a manner to be prescribed in regulations. As we said in the White Paper, this job would be undertaken by consular staff in

  757
  the overseas elector's country of residence. If—and only if — the consular staff are satisfied that the person making the declaration is a British citizen who is resident outside the United Kingdom, they will attest the declaration. When the registration officer receives a declaration which has been properly attested at the consulate, he will check that the declarant's number was in the appropriate electoral register and, if so, enter the name in the draft register or electors' lists. Once registered as an overseas elector, the person has the right to vote either in person at the polling station or, under clause 6, by post or by proxy.
  Clause 3 extends the new arrangements to European Parliament elections. Both the Select Committee's report and the White Paper were mainly concerned with parliamentary elections—elections to this House. So far as European Parliament elections are concerned, the Council of Ministers is discussing proposals for a Community-wide franchise, and we and the other member states have formally resolved to renew our efforts to reach agreement in time for the 1989 elections. But it is not yet clear what form the agreement will take. It would clearly be indefensible to extend the franchise at parliamentary elections while leaving the European arrangements as they stand. That is why clause 3 gives overseas electors the right to vote at European as well as parliamentary elections. However, further primary legislation on European elections only will probably be needed if agreement is reached in the Council.
  Clauses 5 to 10 deal with our proposals on absent voting. We propose to simplify and rationalise existing provisions. We propose also to deal with an injustice which provokes a storm of protest at each election—the denial of the right to vote to holidaymakers. With holidays more and more spread throughout the year, and more people taking them, it is high time for the position to be changed. We therefore propose an extension of absent voting to all those who cannot get to the poll in person, and we also propose some strengthening of the safeguards to prevent abuse. We envisage that this could enfranchise some 600,000 more electors.
  Since the House debated the White Paper in June, we have received a wide range of comments on our proposal that applications for absent votes in respect of a particular election should be countersigned by someone registered as an elector, though not a member of the applicant's immediate family. Some have suggested that this safeguard is not adequate. Others have suggested that it should be removed altogether. It remains the Government's view that the principle whereby the normal way of casting a vote is to cast it in person is a sound and necessary one. But we shall certainly consider seriously comments made by hon. Members in the course of the passage of the Bill. I stress that provisions on countersignature would be in regulations made after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
  As at present, two basic categories of absent voter are proposed; those who may apply for an absent vote for an indefinite period; and those who may apply only in respect of a particular election. The indefinite period category is dealt with in clause 6. It includes most of those who are in it under the present arrangements, including those who may apply because of the general nature of their occupation, service or employment. To this category are added those who qualify as overseas electors under the Bill. Clause 7 deals with the right to apply in respect of
  758
  a particular election and clauses 8 and 9 deal with proxies. As at present, the Bill entitles them to vote by post in some circumstances.
  The main change is brought about by clause 7(1), which extends the right to apply for an absent vote at a particular parliamentary or local election in Great Britain to all those who, whatever the grounds, cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station. I shall say something about Northern Ireland in a minute. This provision is intended to benefit not only holidaymakers, but other voters who find themselves disfranchised under the present arrangements. As at present, there is a requirement that the applicant must satisfy the registration officer that he is entitled to an absent vote, and the registration officer has a discretion to reject the application if he is not so satisfied. The Bill also confers a power for further requirements to be spelt out in regulations.
  These clauses make a number of further changes in the present provisions. First, the Bill gives all absent voters the right to chose between postal and proxy voting. The present position is that absent voters must in general vote by post; certain categories, including those who might be expected to be outside the United Kingdom during the election period, have a right to vote by proxy. Most voters prefer postal to proxy voting, but there are circumstances in which someone might want to appoint a proxy even if he or she is in the United Kingdom at election time The Bill gives the voter a choice.
  Secondly, we have not sought to re-enact—except for Northern Ireland—the provision which at present stops a postal ballot paper from being sent outside the United Kingdom. Obviously, there are many parts of the world where proxy voting is the only realistic option. That would be the case, for example, in most countries outside Europe. But for many places in western Europe and on the east coast of America, the election timetable already allows the week or 10 days needed for the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers, provided there is not undue delay in sending them out.
  We live in an adult world and it seems right that the voter should again be given the choice. Of course, there can never be a guarantee that a postal ballot paper will get back in time, whether posted from somewhere in this country or abroad. It must be up to the elector to make his own decision in the light of his own knowledge of the postal services. To allow a little more time, paragraph 73 of schedule 3 extends the parliamentary election timetable by one day. This means that at a general election the dissolution of Parliament will in general be the Tuesday rather than the Wednesday just over three weeks before the poll. Paragraph 78 of the same schedule confers a power to prescribe in regulations a last day for the issue of postal ballot papers.
  The third major change is that the Bill allows absent voters to vote by post or proxy at all local government elections in Great Britain, including parish and community council elections in England and Wales. This deals with a point raised during the debate on the White Paper by both the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I think that there is a widespread feeling that absent voting should be allowed at parish and community council elections, and I hope that this provision will be generally welcomed.
  As it stands, the Bill does not make any major changes in the right to apply for an absent vote at a particular

  759
  parliamentary election in Northern Ireland. The view we took in preparing the White Paper was that particular difficulties in Northern Ireland, including the systematic abuse of postal voting on a large scale, made it unrealistic to think in terms of making postal votes available to any new categories of elector there.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I understood him to say that no existing right of absent voting in Northern Ireland was withdrawn. One interpretation of the Bill is that it withdraws the right to an absent vote on a change of residence.
  Mr. Brittan: No doubt we shall have the opportunity to examine that specific point as the deliberations continue. I should correct the right hon. Gentleman. I said that the Bill does not make any major changes in the right to apply for an absent vote at a particular parliamentary election in Northern Ireland.
  There are already various differences in the law of parliamentary elections as it applies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Most importantly, the franchise at parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland is considerably more restrictive than it is in Great Britain. In Great Britain, an elector needs to be resident in a constituency on the qualifying date, but in Northern Ireland an elector must also have been resident in the Province for the whole of the preceding three months. Not all people who qualify as parliamentary electors in Great Britain—in particular, those who move into a constituency shortly before the qualifying date — would therefore qualify in Northern Ireland.
  It gives the Government no pleasure to increase the scope and number of those differences, but it is right to point them out. I do not think it would be right to hold up a reform simply on the basis that it cannot at present be applied throughout the United Kingdom if that reform, for example, in relation to holiday voters, is otherwise justifiable and necessary.
  Clause 12 increases the deposit to be made by candidates at a parliamentary election to £1,000 and reduces the threshold for its forfeiture to one twentieth of the total number of votes cast in the constituency.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—and I listened with great care to the various arguments put forward on this issue in the debate last June. Many hon. Members have raised points on it since.
  Not many would argue that anyone should be able to stand at a parliamentary election without risk of penalty, even if they clearly have no prospect of support within a constituency. The cost of running elections has increased over the years, and parliamentary candidates have important and valuable rights which are properly conferred on them. They are entitled, on average, to £8,000 of free postage. They gain the opportunity of publicising their views and interests, and some candidates have abused that right for clearly commercial purposes. They have the right to exercise a veto on radio and television programmes relating to the election in which candidates take part. The activities of freak candidates have not just provided innocent entertainment; on occasions, they have been seriously disruptive.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this will be one of the most contentious parts of the Bill? Is he further aware that it would appear to cut across established convention because substantial changes of that kind were made by all-party consensus? Does he appreciate the fact that, having set this precedent, in future other parties might make similar changes?
  Mr. Brittan: This aspect may not necessarily be the most significant in terms of the changes that it makes compared with those measures giving the vote to substantial numbers of people who do not at present have it. None the less, I readily accept that this has been one of the most controversial and debated sections of the Bill. I do not believe that it is right in today's circumstances to suggest that, after a careful process of consultation, there must be unanimity before we can take any steps forward. To do so would provide an opportunity for anyone to impose a veto on all change. I believe that, on reflection, the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) would not think that that was justified.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Sir Philip Goodhart rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I must make further progress. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) in a few moments.
  The Government have no wish to be killjoys. If people want to stand at Speaker's corner or hold peaceful meetings to put across their views, that is their right. But the purpose of parliamentary elections is to give people a chance not just to air their views—however interesting or worthy — but to choose Members of Parliament. Serious candidates are people who not only have serious views, but have some serious prospect of representing the electors. That is why, in spite of all that has been said in its favour, we are not attracted by the option of increasing the number of signatures required as a substitute for the deposit.
  The signatures option has serious drawbacks. It creates even more work for agents and returning officers, whose work is also being increased by other provisions in this Bill. Several hundred signatures would be necessary if they were to be even a possible substitute for the deposit as a test of potential support. The greater the number of signatures, the greater the amount of checking required and the greater the opportunity for forgery and other malpractice.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that a serious candidate is a person who not only puts forward serious views but has a serious prospect of being elected. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore confirm that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) was not a serious candidate when, on behalf of the Conservative party, she stood as a candidate in the Glasgow, Central by-election?
  Mr. Brittan: That is not a worthy interjection. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am talking not about any restriction on people standing for Parliament, but about the level of the penalty that should be forfeited, which has been agreed and accepted by Parliament for a long time. That is the aspect about which I am talking—no more than that.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that a number of small parties, such as the Communist party, the Ecology party and the National Front, are unlikely to get one twentieth but may get one fortieth of the vote in some constituencies? Will my right hon. and learned Friend look sympathetically at the suggestion that half the deposit should be returned when a candidate obtains one fortieth of the vote?
  Mr. Brittan: We shall have to deal with that matter when we come to consider the Bill in detail because, necessarily, any numerical provision has in a sense to be arbitrary. The Select Committee unanimously took the view that the deposit should be forfeit if less than 7·5 per cent. of the votes were secured, compared with 12·5 per cent. at the moment. In the Bill, the Government have put forward a figure of 5 per cent., which involves a considerable liberalisation of the present arrangements.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I must make progress, and the hon. Gentleman has already intervened once.
  Even hundreds of signatures would be an imperfect test. Many signatories—all experience with petitions suggests this—would sign out of general interest or often even just in order to get rid of those who ask them for their support. Moreover, it would still be possible for extreme candidates, who would obtain minimal support at the polls, to find enough highly committed supporters, supplemented by a number of simply curious people, to reach the number of signatures required.
  The test for standing at elections has always been a financial one, for reasons which still hold good today and which have nothing to do with squeezing out legitimate minor parties. A number of hon. Members, I know, would agree that we need a deposit and that we need it at a sensible level, but feel that £1,000 is too much. The Government have listened carefully to their views. We accept that there is no figure that is clearly and absolutely right and that can be defended against all other figures, but the sum of £1,000 was that recommended unanimously by the Select Committee. It already represents a significant reduction from one which would fully reflect the decline in the value of money since the sum of £150 was established in 1918. That figure would be over £2,000. I do not find it surprising, therefore, that the Select Committee should have come to a unanimous view in favour of £1,000.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—
  Mr. Brittan: The reason why the increase seems so large is that successive Governments have failed to take action for such a long time—perhaps, in truth, for too long.
  Mr. Wilson: Does the Home Secretary realise that it comes as no surprise to those on the Opposition Benches that the Home Affairs Select Committee came to a unanimous conclusion? The reason is that it did not have any representatives from smaller parties which might have had a vested interest in the matter.
  Mr. Brittan: Evidence was taken from people who were not represented on the Select Committee, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I welcome the opportunity to make it clear-if it were unclear—to anyone—that there
  762
  is no question of his party having supported the Select Committee's recommendation at any stage. I am not suggesting that it did.
  The figure should be studied as part of a package with the threshold. As such, I believe that it is a fair proposition, because, as I have said, we are proposing a reduction of the present 12·5 per cent. threshold not to the 7·5 per cent. recommended by the Select Committee but to a mere 5 per cent.
  Some have argued that the smaller political parties could not raise £1,000, even if they subsequently obtained the votes needed to avoid losing the deposit. I do not find that argument convincing. The interest payable to a bank on a sum borrowed for two weeks between the close of nominations and the day after the result is declared would be £6. We are also proposing—I think that this is a help —that returning officers should have a statutory duty to return deposits to those who have saved them the day after the result is declared.
  Having said that, I fully acknowledge, as I did during the debate in June, that there will be different opinions on this matter which will need to be considered further. I certainly do not claim that £1,000 is a magic figure—only that, all things considered, it seems the the right one; but we shall listen with care to what is said as the Bill proceeds through the House.
  Our proposal for the very substantial reduction in the threshold from 12·5 per cent. to 5 per cent. has often been overlooked by some critics. The 5 per cent. threshold, which in most seats is still 2,000 to 3,000 votes, means that smaller parties will in future have a much more realistic target to aim for. I do not think anyone can argue that it is unreasonable to expect a candidate for election to aspire to poll 'one vote in 20 in order to justify the considerable benefits that accrue from candidature.
  I shall deal more briefly with the remaining clauses.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Home Secretary go back to the—clause that he seemed conveniently to be missing when he was running through the clauses -clause 11? It creates offences in respect of overseas electors' declarations and absent voting applications. It provides a maximum fine for offences at level five—currently £2,000—on the standard scale. How does the Secretary of State intend to enforce the penalty of a fine on a person who is resident abroad and whose intention is to stay abroad?
  Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but we are talking about people who retain a connection with this country. If there is a conviction by a court, a penalty could arise. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that point during our deliberations, I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to consider it.
  Clause 13 raises various minor expenses limits to the levels which already apply to European Parliament elections.
  Clauses 14 to 16 introduce a general system for the combination of elections which are held on the same day. The problem here is that if two elections coincide—as happened with the European Parliament general election and the parliamentary by-election in Portsmouth. South last June—different polling stations, ballot boxes, and so on, ought strictly speaking to be used. The Bill allows the returning officer to combine the two elections and to use the same facilities for both. We have also taken the

  763
  opportunity to give permanent statutory effect to the special provisions introduced in 1979 to combine parliamentary general elections with ordinary local government elections.
  Clause 17 postpones ordinary local government elections in 1986 from the first to the second Thursday in May, to avoid the last day of the Passover.
  Clause 19 repeals the provisions of the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 which require the old Parliament to reconvene in the unhappy event of a demise of the Crown after the Dissolution of Parliament at a general election. Under the Bill, polling day is postponed for two weeks if the demise occurs before it; otherwise the new Parliament meets in the usual way.
  Clause 22 and schedule 2 rationalise and, where appropriate, increase the penalties available for offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
  Clause 23 and schedule 3 make a large number of relatively minor amendments to existing law. I shall not detain the House with all of these, but just point out the ones that I think will be of the greatest interest. Paragraph 2 of the schedule allows the name of an elector who has wrongly been omitted from the register to be added nearer the time of an election. Paragraph 34 gives candidates at parliamentary elections the right to have their election communications sent post-free without having to address the envelopes. Paragraph 73 provides for the polls at a parliamentary election to close at 9 pm rather than at 10 pm. That was recommended by the Select Committee. The extra hour was added in 1969, but it is not used a great deal. According to one of the Select Committee's witnesses, it is used by fewer than 5 per cent. of the voters, most of whom would no doubt vote earlier in the day; if they could not, the Bill would allow them to vote by post or proxy. That was the Select Committee's unanimous recommendation.
  Mr. Kaufman: What is the relevance of that?
  Mr. Brittan: We shall come back to these matters, so the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps contain himself. The relevance is that, whatever other parties may have to say, there were Labour party representatives on the Select Committee, and that was what they voted for. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to change his mind. We shall consider these matters as the Bill proceeds, but I should now like to bring my remarks to a close.
  Mr. Kaufman: On a different but related matter, the Government said in the White Paper that they planned to arrange for polling stations to open at 7 am in local government elections. As the Bill does not include such a provision, do I take it that it will be covered by rules to be issued after the Bill becomes law, and, if so, when
  Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This will be done in new local government election rules, which I shall make after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that that will be to the satisfaction of the House.
  Paragraph 82 allows the returning officer to begin counting the votes before all the ballot boxes have been received. That could produce a significantly earlier result in many constituencies. Finally, paragraph 87 gives me the
  764
  power to make regulations giving the political parties the right to obtain electoral registration data in computer compatible form.
  The proposals in the Bill, represent an important extension of democracy. They extend the right to vote at parliamentary and European Parliament elections to British citizens overseas and to holidaymakers. We are also—at last—dealing with the question of the deposit, and a wide range of desirable, if sometimes unexciting, changes are being made to improve our electoral arrangements. Against the background of the Select Committee's valuable recommendations, we have taken a critical look at the whole of election law, amending provisions which in many cases have not been reviewed for a century or more. This Bill strengthens our democracy. As such, I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. To avoid narrowing the debate, the Chair will call the amendment to be moved formally at the end of the debate.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: That this is a constitutional measure can be in no doubt and we have a motion on the Order Paper calling for it to be handled as such. We are pleased that, however belatedly, the Govenment have changed their mind and agreed to move a similar motion of their own. I hope that before the end of the debate the very much sotto voce response of the Leader of the House to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) will be reinforced with absolute clarity to the effect that the Governmet have absolutely no intention of moving a timetable motion on the consideration of the Bill. For that to be done on a measure of this kind would be an outrage.
  One of the reasons why we question the Government's plans and motives in that regard is that right up to this Second Reading debate the Government have not handled this measure in a manner appropriate to a constitutional measure. As a result, it contains proposals that will have a profound and dangerous effect on the electoral process. That is the reason for our motion and that is why, if that motion is not carried, we shall vote against Second Reading.
  There is no more important or precious legislation than that affecting the franchise. From the result of the exercise of that franchise all other parliamentary measures flow. I do not suggest that to proceed with a Bill of this nature the Government must in all circumstances obtain the agreement of every other party in the House. That would be to impose a veto on legislation which no Government could be expected to acccept. The Government must, however, be especially careful to seek to obtain as wide a measure of agreement as possible, but in this instance they have not exercised such care. The Home Secretary referred to consultations with Opposition parties since the White Paper appeared. In fact, Her Majesty's Opposition were consulted on one matter affecting a small aspect of the Bill and on no other matter since the debate on the White Paper six months ago.
  The Government ought to exercise such care, because Ministers themselves acknowledged the need for it in the

  765
  debate on the White Paper from which the Bill stems. On several items they undertook to reconsider their proposals in the light of the debate. In winding up that debate, the Under-Secretary of State specifically and categorically stated:
  "We are not saying that we have reached the end of the line; these are our proposals, and we shall expect to force them through Parliament."— [Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1083.]
  The Government have gone ruthlessly ahead with the proposals that they promised to reconsider and they are now, to use the words of the Under-Secretary of State, forcing through the House a package of which many of the most important ingredients are to some extent opposed by significant elements in the House and one deeply controversial change which is opposed by almost all the Opposition parties as well as by Members of the Government's own party. Even when a proposal has wide support, as in the case of absentee voting for holidaymakers, which the Labour party certainly supports, the Government are proceeding in a manner that shows minimal regard for the electors of one part of the Kingdom.
  In legislating on the franchise, Parliament must have regard to three fundamental criteria. First, does the Bill protect the right of any citizen to be a candidate in an election? Secondly, does it protect the secrecy and incorruptibility of the ballot while making it as simple and convenient as possible for electors to use the ballot? Thirdly, does it treat with scrupulous equality and impartiality all those eligible to use the ballot? Judged on those standards, the Bill fails miserably and ominously.
  The Bill provides absentee votes for holidaymakers and there is no doubt that that provision satisfies a justified demand from voters which most of us have repeatedly encountered in election campaigns. At the same time, however, it does nothing to rebut the allegation that providing such a right means introducing postal or proxy voting on demand. The Government have solved the problem by ignoring it — except for residents of Northern Ireland.
  In the debate on the White Paper, the Home Secretary gave an undertaking about absentee votes for electors in
  Northern Ireland. He said:
  "I have given an undertaking to reconsider the proposals for Northern Ireland to see whether we can find a way of meeting the concerns that have been put to us. That undertaking remains." —[Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1024.]
  Those concerns have simply not been met. Nor, so far as I can see, has much genuine effort been made to meet them. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has shown me the dossier of what passed for consultation between the Home Secretary and himself, beginning with an insulting approach from a junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office—a characteristic example of the Government's celebrated insensitivity.
  A new right is being introduced for electors in Great Britain but it is not available on equal terms to electors in Northern Ireland. Speaking of absentee votes, the Home Secretary has said today that we are living in an adult world. Apparently, that does not apply to Northern Ireland. The phrase "second-class citizens" is often fairly loosely used. The basic exercise of citizenship is the franchise. That right is now to be denied to voters in Northern Ireland on the terms available in the rest of the United Kingdom. They literally become second-class citizens.
  766
  Such prejudicial treatment of electors in one part of the United Kingdom is unacceptable to Her Majesty's Opposition. It is grotesque that a Northern Ireland elector on holiday for two weeks in Spain during an election campaign will be denied a vote, while lying next to him or her on the beach there may be a Northern Ireland citizen who has left Northern Ireland permanently and who will be able to cast a vote. Indeed, if one part of the Bill demonstrates more clearly than any other the fatuity of legislating without forethought to fulfil a dogmatic aspiration, it is the provision in clause 1 that those who have left this country, perhaps for good, should be given the right to vote for more than eight years after they have left Britain. That is what the alleged seven-year provision for expatriate voting entails.
  The whole notion of expatriate voting was conceived in muddle. During the debate on the White Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), with his customary acuity, asked the Home Secretary when the seven-year qualifying period would start. The Home Secretary replied:
  "the seven years would start from Royal Assent"— [Official Report, Wednesday 27 June; Vol. 62, c. 1021.]
  It now turns out that the Home Secretary misled the House, either deliberately, or through sheer ignorance. With the present Home Secretary one can never be sure which it is—although one can always be sure that it will be one or the other.
  No part of the Bill comes into operation on Royal Assent. It will be triggered by commencement orders. That fact, which is apparent to anyone who reads the Bill, was made clear to me in a parliamentary answer last Friday in which the Under-Secretary of State was forced to repudiate the Home Secretary—no doubt to his secret relish.
  Again, there is the question whether the electoral registers of previous years will be available so that applications for expatriate votes can be properly checked. The Home Secretary admitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr that there is no legal obligation to keep out-of-date electoral registers. Furthermore, the Bill imposes no such obligation. I have made inquiries today of a number of returning officers and have found that the practice differs from area to area. Some officers keep registers for many years. One officer in Epsom believes that he has the registers for the past five or six years. However, the Bill imposes no obligation. Especially after the massive redistribution of parliamentary boundaries last year, there must be doubt whether old registers will be available in some parts of the country where completely new constituencies have been formed.
  Those, however, are only the first of numerous absurdities consequent upon the decision to introduce expatriate voting. Under the Government's dotty proposals, not only former electors get the vote but former non-electors too. Children who left Britain at the age of 11 and have had no contact with this country since then will have the right to vote and to help to decide this country's future, which they may never return to share.
  Indeed, the provisions for expatriate votes for children reach an apotheosis of idiocy of clause 3(5)(b), which relates to elections to the European Assembly. The Bill does not refer to the European Parliament. There is no statutory basis for the European Parliament, and the Bill refers to that body as the European Assembly. The provision in subsection 5(b) caters to the potential whims

  767
  of precisely four lads — if I may be forgiven for describing so crudely the scions of noble families. The Government are meticulously providing for the contingency that under-age peers at present resident in Britain may leave the country and yet still want to vote in European Assembly elections. They have a subsection all to themselves. There are only four of them—Baron Fermoy, aged 17, Baron Wrottesley, aged 16, the Earl of Hardwicke, aged 13, and Viscount Dillon, aged 13.
  zIt is touching to know that the potential absentee voting rights of those noble striplings are to be protected by their own personal legislative subsection. On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of Northern Ireland electors who are deprived of holiday ballots may take the view that the Government are taking too far the doctrine of kind hearts and coronets.
  However, teenage peers are not the only beneficiaries of the Government's largesse. Fugitives from justice will benefit too. We have read with fascination of the unsuccessful efforts of the police to get their hands on five British citizens wanted in connection with robberies worth £32 million, who are now sunning themselves in Spain on what has become known as the Costa del Crime. All those gentlemen will be able to claim an absentee vote, and will accordingly be able to exercise their influence on the provisions of the next police and criminal evidence Bill. Among them is Mr. Clifford Saxe, who modestly disclaims the description "Mr. Big". Speaking a few days ago from one of his two villas on the La Capellania estate at Benalmadena, he said:
  "Life goes on as normal here."
  The normality of life for Mr. Saxe—whether he is Mr. Big or only Mr. Average Size—will soon be enhanced by the right to vote.
  So, together with the teenage peers benefit clause, we have the escaped fugitives benefit clause. Who says that the Government do not reward enterprise-especially free enterprise—Those provisions make altogether ridiculous the nonsense of the penalties laid down in the Bill for expatriate voters who make false declarations. Clause 11(1) solemnly states:
  "A person who makes an overseas elector's declaration or a declaration purporting to be an overseas elector's declaration—

  (a) when he knows that he is subject to a legal incapacity to vote at parliamentary elections (age apart), or

  (b) when he knows that it contains a statement which is false,

  is guilty of an offence."
  Subsection (4) states:
  "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."
  How on earth are the authorities to get their hands on such people in order to fine them up to
  "level 5 on the standard scale"
  or any other level on the standard scale or on any other scale?
  The Home Secretary shows no signs of taking action against the traders who yesterday blatantly broke the Shops Act in London. That demonstrates the truth of the statement that there is one law for the miner and another for the merchant. How will the Home Secretary punish those who violate the legislation from the safety of Spain or South America? This is one of the silliest innovations
  768
  brought in by any Government, yet it is also one of the most obnoxious. The Home Affairs Select Committee was unanimous in rejecting it. It rightly warned that it
  "might have the effect of altering the whole character of British elections."
  The proposal breaches three fundamental tenets of electoral law. First, it breaches the universality of the franchise. For citizens who live in the United Kingdom, registration for the franchise is obligatory and failure to register is an offence. For expatriates, registration is optional. Secondly, it breaches the doctrine of no representation without taxation. Thirdly, it breaches the residential qualification, which forms the very basis of the franchise in Britain. However, these optional votes by expatriates might decide what Government we have.
  In the 1964 general election, 84 such votes — the Home Secretary said that there might be 500,000 —located in three constituencies could have deprived the properly elected Government of their majority. It is quite unacceptable that the votes of tax exiles should decide the taxes of people working in Britain. It is quite unacceptable that the votes of people who are sunning themselves in tropical climes should decide the heating allowances of pensioners shivering in Britain in the cold of winter. That is not the only proposal in the Bill that could unfairly change the result of a general election.
  Mr. Gary Waller: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the doctrine of no representation without taxation? I am not sure where he gets that notion from. Would he argue that nobody should be able to take part in local government elections unless they were ratepayers?
  Mr. Kaufman: Not at all. They all pay taxes. Under this Government, if people buy a newspaper or a book they will soon be paying value added tax, unless Back Benchers force the Government to change their mind once again.
  The proposal that I have described is not the only one which could unfairly change the result of a general election. The same is true of paragraph 73 of schedule 3, which provides that polling in general elections should end at 9 pm instead of at 10 pm, as at present. The Government, who are so lacking in compassion for the sick, pensioners and the unemployed, are distressed at the plight of polling staff. The White Paper on which the Bill is based says that the final hour of polling
  "adds to an already long day for returning officers and their staff."
  My heart bleeds. In a Parliament of normal length there are more than 43,000 hours. Are the Government really saying that one hour out of 43,000 is too much to spare for the supreme exercise of democracy—the choice of a Government in a general election?
  Mr. Brittan: As the right hon. Gentleman is so exercised by this proposal, could he explain whether there is any problem for anyone in not being able to vote between 9 pm and 10 pm and why they cannot get a postal vote? Moreover, in view of the extreme terms in which he puts is case, why did the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), who sits with him on the Opposition Front Bench, vote in favour of that change in the Select Committee?
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) has a perfect right to state his view in a Select Committee. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to impose some form of guilt on my hon.

  769
  Friend for stating his mind in a Select Committee, I regard that as offensive. I am saying on behalf of the Opposition that we oppose this provision.
  Mr. Brittan rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way when I have finished my answer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to arrange his day on polling day to his own convenience, as candidates do, but people who go to work in my constituency—when they have jobs to go to—do not know precisely when they will go home. There are traffic jams, people get caught in buses and they are expected to work late — long after the possibility of applying for and receiving a postal vote. As I shall demonstrate, that final hour is extremely important for many people.
  Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands me. I was not criticising the hon. Member for Battersea—he was perfectly entitled to register his view. If the hon. Member for Battersea took that view, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is unlikely that he put his name to a proposal which is as monstrous a restriction of the franchise as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Kaufman: I fear that, in this case, my hon. Friend and I disagree on that point.
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has not consulted his Back Benchers.
  Mr. Kaufman: Well, we have here a Home Secretary who told the House something false in June and who had to be repudiated by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in December. We have here a Cabinet Minister who has been repudiated by his junior Minister, yet he tries to open a division between me and my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the junior Minister did not agree with his right hon. and learned Friend about the need for intimate body searches when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was going through the House, according to something that I read during the weekend?
  Mr. Kaufman: We all know that there is a terrible split in the Home Office. We shall have to live with that. The only problem is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to open a rift between me and my hon. Friend when there is a chasm between him and the Under-Secretary of State.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Get on with it.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: He talks, that one.
  Mr. Kaufman: I knew that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) had learned to crawl but I did not know that he had learned to speak.
  Are the Government really saying that one hour out of 43,000 is too much to spare for voting in a general election? Evidence given to the Select Committee showed that, in the 1979 general election, 4 per cent. of the votes were cast between 9 pm and 10 pm. That might not sound much until it is remembered that one hour represents 6·7 per cent. of the 15-hour polling day. Therefore, 4 per cent. of the votes being cast in 6·7 per cent. of the time available is perfectly creditable. That 4 per cent. might not sound
  770
  much until it is remembered that 4 per cent. of the votes cast in 1979 totals 1,250,000. A great many people find that final hour useful. The 4 per cent. might not sound much until it is remembered that, in the 1979 election, 70 hon. Members were elected to the House by majorities of less than 4 per cent. Removal of that final hour could affect the results in enough constituencies to change the national result. Perhaps that is what the Government want. I must tell the Home Secretary that we find this provision utterly unacceptable. I advise him that the Bill cannot expect an easy passage through the House if he insists on retaining it.
  If the Bill makes it more difficult for electors to vote, it makes it more difficult for citizens to seek votes as candidates, through the increase in the deposit to £1,000. The Government's attitude on this matter utterly violates the assurance given to the House last year by Lord Whitelaw when he was Home Secretary. On 31 March 1983 he said:
  "Many people think that the deposit is unsatisfactory at its present level but the changes should, as they have in the past, be made on the basis of all-party agreement in the House. I think that that is important." —[Official Report, 31 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 458.]
  I believe that if Lord Whitelaw had stayed, that is what he would have done. In the debate on the White Paper, it appeared that the Government intended to adhere to the principle laid down last year by Lord Whitelaw.
  The Under-Secretary of State assured the House:
  "That is why I say in all sincerity that we shall consider, in the light of what has been said today, the proposals that we have brought forward for the level of the deposit. I give that assurance to those hon. Gentlemen who have spoken".—[Official Report, 27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1089.]
  In that debate, out of 13 Back Benchers who took part, eight opposed the £1,000 deposit proposal. Only two supported it. Of the Conservative Back Benchers who took part in this debate, two supported the £1,000 deposit and two opposed it. Yet ignoring the parliamentary opinions to which they had promised to listen, the Government insist upon driving through this increase in the cost of candidature.
  Mr. Max Madden: My right hon. Friend earlier told us about the characters residing on the Costa del Crime. Assuming that they would have the right to vote, as my right hon. Friend said they would, and assuming also that they have £1,000, am I right in thinking that they would also be able to stand as parliamentary candidates in any election under the Bill?
  Mr. Kaufman: One assumes that they would be able to do so, if they were on the electoral register. A candidate does not have to present himself in a constituency in order to contest it. Very happily, my Fascist opponent at the last general election did not turn up at the election, although my Conservative opponent voiced many of the opinions which he would have voiced had he been present. It is true that a Government cannot accept a veto by Opposition parties, even on constitutional matters, yet on an issue upon which the Government are opposed by almost every Opposition party, as well as by some of their own Back Benchers, it is quite intolerable that they should insist on proceeding in this way. Let me make it clear—
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I shall proceed for the moment.

  771
  The Labour party does not oppose this proposal out of self-interest. Indeed, self-interest would impel us to support it. On the basis of the proposed 5 per cent. threshold, the Labour party would have lost only six deposits at the last general election. But democracy does not consist of making it comfortable and convenient for Labour or Conservative candidates to stand and making it impossible for others with less support or organisation to offer themselves as candidates.
  The Government say that they wish to discourage frivolous candidates. This afternoon we had a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation and definition of "frivolous" from the Home Secretary, yet many of the candidates who are nominated, even though they may get very few votes indeed, are putting forward far from frivolous views. In this week's Southgate by-election there is a candidate who is advocating shifting freight from road to rail. Is that a frivolous point of view? Another candidate is campaigning for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus. Is that a frivolous point of view? It may be that neither of these candidates will poll many votes. Indeed, I hope they do not poll many votes and that every sensible person in Southgate will vote for the excellent Labour candidate, Peter Hemming — [Interruption.] We may have forgotten the Conservative party's candidate before the end of the week. Nevertheless, it would be completely wrong to price minority or even eccentric candidates out of contesting elections, for it is the price which will decide.
  A rich eccentric will be able to stand and will be able to afford to use all the appurtenances of candidature, including free postal delivery. A candidate without ample means will be prevented from standing by a provision that is literally a tax on democracy. These limitations on the right to vote at elections and the right to contest elections are baneful manifestations of this Government's repressive approach to the right to dissent in a society which grows less and less democratic day by day. As the symbolic year of 1984 draws to a close, what we have in Britain is a Government who mouth the clichés of democracy while suppressing the free exercise of democracy.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No, I said not now. I did not say that I would not give way later—[Interruption.] All right.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As he is aware, I have a great deal of sympathy for the remarks he is making about the deposit, but before he concludes his remarks I should like him to explain to us why, if the Bill is so constitutionally important that the Committee stage should take place on the Floor of the House, there are so few of his hon. Friends sitting behind him. There are only 10 by my count at the moment.
  Mr. Kaufman: I knew that I was wrong to give way. The electorate have already had one go at throwing out the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that they will take another as soon as they can.
  Two weeks ago the Prime Minister made a speech at the Carlton club. Her lecture demonstrated an intellectual impoverishment and a pinched, petty spitefulness which
  772
  were not only entirely appropriate to the venue, but demonstrated conclusively that the Prime Minister wrote the lecture herself. In that lecture the Prime Minister made this statement:
  "If there is a national debate and a constitutional vote about some matter, and if a recalcitrant minority says, 'The vote be damned, we are going to do our level best to stop the majority having its way', then it's no good saying 'We must seek consensus, we must negotiate'. Such a group will never consent, whatever the majority thinks, until it gets what it wants."
  Only the Prime Minister's almost sublime insensitivity can have blinded her to the realisation that here, above all, she was talking about herself. For who is it, if not the Prime Minister, who shrilly proclaims, "The vote be damned, we are going to do our level best to stop the majority having its way"? Who is it, if not the Prime Minister, who will never consent, whatever the majority thinks, until she gets what she wants?
  It is the Prime Minister who bans trade unionism at GCHQ in violation of the wishes of the majority of the people. It is the Prime Minister who continues to force confrontation in the coalfields, in violation of the wishes of the majority. It is the Prime Minister who insists on trampling underfoot the elected majorities in our local authorities who seek honourably to carry out the policies on which they were elected. It is the Prime Minister who this very week is steamrollering through this House legislation to abolish seven elected majorities in the metropolitan counties and the GLC because they insist on doing what their electors want rather than what the Prime Minister wants. It was the Prime Minister who, on the issue of student grants, even tried to thrust aside the wishes of the majority of her own parliamentary party.
  It is the Prime Minister who, unchastened by this experience, intends, according to today's Daily Telegraph, at Thursday's meeting of the 1922 Committee to warn her Back Benchers not to use their own minds again. It is reported that she will tell them that they must revert to behaving like Lobby fodder instead of freely elected Members of Parliament. In this procession of repression she is now—
  Mrs. Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the right hon. Gentleman straying very far indeed from the subject matter that we are discussing?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Kaufman: As I was saying, in this procession of repression, the Prime Minister has now, with her faithful lapdog the Home Secretary, turned her attention to the electoral system itself. Now she asks Parliament to make it more difficult for more than 1 million voters to vote. Now she asks Parliament to make it almost impossible for candidates with minority views even to seek votes. The Prime Minister, who once gloried in the title "The Iron Lady", has now become the lady with the iron heel. It is in the assertion of the rights of a free democracy that we shall be voting against this Bill tonight.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Derek Spencer: In a sense, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in calling me as the first Back Bencher in this Second Reading debate the natural order of things has been reversed, because the last has been made the first. I am the tail-end Charlie of this Parliament. My majority

  773
  is seven votes. On 9 and 10 June 1983, I had good cause to see the workings of our electoral system at first hand and over many hours, beginning at about midnight and going on to 6.20 am.
  The first time the votes were counted, I had lost by two votes. They were recounted a number of times. The perforations were examined on about 52,000 votes on one occasion. The result was declared at 6.20 am. I was firmly of the opinion then that our electoral system was firmly rooted in the horse and buggy age. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on giving the old nag a smack on the backside and propelling it into the second half of the 20th century.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to the way in which some parts of the Bill are likely to operate if it becomes law. I always go past one house in my constituency with a wistful smile, because during the election campaign the owner told me that he would not be able to vote for me on polling day, although he would be in this country, because he had an important business engagement and would not be able to get back to Leicester until after 10 pm. Much has been said about the desirability of having absent votes for holidaymakers, and that point has been taken on board, but little has been said about the disfranchisement of those who are kept out of the constituency for other reasons. I am pleased that the principle that has been enshrined in the Bill will go much further than giving votes to absent holidaymakers and will enfranchise those who, through no fault of their own, have to leave the constituency during voting hours on polling day.
  I listened to the extravaganza of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), which soon left behind any pretence at keeping in touch with reality and ascended heights of fantasy which, even by the standards that he sets himself, must almost be a record. Voting hours can profitably be reduced by one hour at night. My electors were as anxious to vote as anybody else. No doubt some of them did set out at breakfast time. Although I have heard stories about many misfortunes that befell electors on the way to the polling station—one broke his leg and had to go to hospital to have a plaster applied before being taken to the polling station in a wheelchair—I have not yet heard it suggested that anybody who set off at breakfast time was still struggling to get there at 9 pm. The suggestion that we cannot profitably cut down the hours by one at night totally lacks any merit whatever.
  The officia1 mark on the ballot paper does not usually concern most people. However, during the count in my constituency at the election, my opponent asked for each ballot paper to be scrutinised in order that it might be seen that each had an official mark. That mark is put on by a machine before the ballot paper is handed by the polling clerk to the elector. When that scrutiny was carried out and about 50,000 pieces of paper were held up to the light at about 4.30 am, it was found that some 27 votes cast for me and 17 of those cast for my opponent did not have the official mark upon them. Under rule 43 of the polling rules, which every candidate in Leicester must keep in his hip pocket when he goes to the count, they were properly disqualified. If they had been added to the count, I should have more than doubled my majority.
  Therefore, I read with interest paragraph 86 of schedule 3, in which it is proposed that
  "the form of directions for the guidance of the voters in voting"
  774
  is to be simplified. If one compares what is there written with what appears in the existing rules, one sees that the former rigmarole has been replaced by something which is much simpler and much more intelligible, and which the vast majority of electors, when they see it in the polling booth, will be able to read.
  The directions say that the elector should make sure that the ballot paper is stamped with the official mark. It also places upon the presiding officer the duty of checking the official mark and its presence on the ballot paper before the ballot paper is put into the box. Therefore, provided that that is carried out, at the next general election in Leicester, South, we can look forward to fewer ballot papers being disqualified because they lack the official mark.
  While that worthwhile reform is being implemented, it might be useful to do something about the machines which make the perforation marks in the ballot paper. Some of them are antique contraptions. On polling day, riot in Leicester, South but in Leicester, East, some of those machines were taken out of commission because they were not putting the perforation mark into the ballot papers correctly. No such decision on the machines was taken in Leicester, South, although, with the benefit of hindsight, it is obvious that they were just as defective as the machines in Leicester, East.
  It is completely unsatisfactory that the enfranchisement of members of the public should depend on whether the polling clerk is so tired that he or she does not lean hard enough on the machine to put the perforation mark m the paper. Will my right hon. and learned Friend try .co ensure that some more visible mark is put into the ballot paper rather than those fine perforations, which look rather like a teabag on occasions, so that they can been seen both by the elector and by the presiding officer? In that way, we shall not have a repetition in Leicester, South, or elsewhere, at the next general election of the sort of experience that we had at the last election.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that in the 1974 election in Carmarthen the successful candidate had a majority of three. Some 70 ballot papers were disqualified because they did not have a mark on them and they came predominantly from one or two booths. The overwhelming majority of those ballot papers were in favour of the unsuccessful candidate. The question that was raised was whether there is room for fraud in the system in small communities where people recognise which way people vote.
  Mr. Spencer: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  I suggested to the Home Office that, rather than have a machine, some sort of franking mark should be put down the side of the ballot paper. To give full faith and credit to the principle that ballot papers should be seen to be genuine and inviolate, it is necessary to have some contraption that puts on a mark. The machines are kept in operation for a number of years. As hon. Members may know, the official mark put on for postal votes is different from that for voters voting in person. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider my point about machines and to ensure that they, like some of his other proposals, are brought up-to-date.
  Much has been said about the proposal to increase the deposit to £1,000. If self-interest were the only criteria,

  775
  like the right hon. Member for Gorton, my view might be to the contrary. Three fringe parties stood in Leicester, South during the last election, each of which polled less than 1 per cent. The Ecology party polled 495 votes, the Workers' Party for a Workers' State polled 161 and something that was pleased to call itself the British National party polled just over 100.
  Mr. Kaufman: Two hundred and eighty.
  Mr. Spencer: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. As he would no doubt be quick to point out, those figures are many, many times my majority. Merely because two of those parties could be classed as parties of the Left is no reason why they should be kept in the political ring so that persons casting their votes for them are not tempted to cast them for my opponent. All I ask is that the political system should be fair.
  It is right in principle that there should be a penalty for a failure to obtain a significant share of the vote. The only argument up for grabs is the meaning of a significant share of the vote. No one is suggesting that persons or parties should be disqualified from standing. We are merely asking for answers to the questions: what are the criteria for deciding the point at which a penalty should be exacted and what level should be set for votes not being achieved? I do not regard the argument as being about an article of faith. I take my right hon. and learned Friend's point that if we grossed up the amount to take account of the fall in the value of money over the years, we would be discussing a much larger sum. I take on board his remark about the amount of money spent in providing facilities for those who put themselves forward as candidates during a general election. However, it is all about electing someone to Parliament — it is not about a circus. If certain individuals want to take advantage of the facilities that are provided at public expense, there is nothing wrong in exacting a penalty for a failure to obtain a significant share of the vote.
  It must be noted that that significant share of the vote has been considerably reduced. Naturally, I have thought long and hard about the proposals that fix the deposit at £1,000. It may be a little on the high side, but if we view it together with the other proposals, overall they are beneficial improvements which I—even if it should cost me my seat at the next general election—feel it to be my duty to support.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I believe that very much larger principles are involved in the Bill than those stated by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). It would be a disservice to the House if we reduced the matter of dispute between us—and there are great disputes about the Bill—to the level stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt that he was concerned about the matters that he raised, but he distracted the House from the major questions that we should be debating.
  There was a sharp and comprehensive contrast between the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and that of the Home Secretary. The sooner that my right hon. Friend is transferred to the Home Secretary's office the better for the freedoms and liberties of this country. That must be the
  776
  view of anyone judging the two speeches — not only because of the sheer merit in my right hon. Friend's speech, which is customary and normal, but because of the degradation of the Home Secretary's speech, which is also customary and normal.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman did a grave disservice to the House in not attempting to justify the way in which he has brought the measure, which involves many major questions, before us. Indeed, objections are being made to all parts of the Bill, as can be seen from the Order Paper. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a great obligation to attempt to justify what he is doing.
  We must all remember that representation of the people Bills are of great importance to the House. Indeed, over the centuries they have been more important than almost any other Bill. The way in which people are elected to the House is of paramount importance, not only to the House but to the survival of democracy. After elections in the 18th century, the House of Commons would spend many hours, days and even years trying to clear up the mess of the last election or trying to stash advantages for themselves for a later election. We escaped from that over a period, but the Government now seem to be returning to some of the old traditions. Almost every week, and certainly every Session, we are presented with a Bill that helps the electoral position of the Conservative party and injures that of the Labour and other opposition parties. Not a single Session passes during which we do not have to discuss these matters. During the last Session the Government introduced a Bill that injured the finances of the Labour party. It was one of the obvious purposes of the Bill. I am not suggesting that every major proposition in this Bill is designed to assist the Conservative party and injure the other parties, but that might be the result. One of my main grievances is the procedure that the Government have followed.
  The major question is how the Government have approached this important measure. Representation of the people Bills should always be regarded as of paramount importance. This Government, even before they proposed to take part of the Bill in Committee, said in their White Paper that they would bring forward a major representation of the people Bill. Even the Government admit that it is a major Bill. It was outrageous that the Government should even contemplate the idea of a major representation of the people Bill being presented to the House without all the details being examined on the Floor of the House.
  I shall elaborate on the way in which the Government have gone about presenting a major representation of the people Bill to the House of Commons. The details add up to very important questions. There is the question of giving the vote to expatriates or people living in other parts of the world. It is an important principle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton ridiculed that idea, and it will be interesting to see how the Government reply. What would have happened if that had been applied in years gone by? I am not sure whether the Home Secretary was here when one of the major matters that the House was discussing was what was to happen to the country then known as Rhodesia. If the Bill had been in operation, many people in Rhodesia would have exercised their right to decide what would happen in this country. A famous rhyme went as follows:
  "True patriots we; for be it understood,
  We left our country for our country's good."

  777
  Quite a lot of so-called patriots of that nature left their country, and under the Bill they would have taken their votes with them. Therefore, that part of the Bill opens up new principles, which should be examined with great care. If they are to be introduced at all, they should be introduced with some agreement with the Opposition parties, but in the case of the expatriate vote, that has not been done or even attempted.
  I entirely agree with what was said today and on previous occasions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton about the £1,000 deposit. It is a powerful case against the way in which the Government have been proceeding on the matter, which is wrong. I know that figures can be quoted and comparisons can be made with 1918. We have been able to accommodate these matters since then. It is wrong that a figure of £1,000 should now be imposed, particularly when it is imposed through a Government decision and not by agreement between all the parties concerned on how we should proceed.
  There is also a proposal for cutting off the hour of voting at 9 o'clock instead of 10 o'clock. The ridicule poured on the present system by the Home Secretary does not bear any relation to the facts—
  Mr. Brittan: But that is what the Select Committee proposed.
  Mr. Foot: I shall come to the Select Committee in a moment. All these matters lead to the Select Committee and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, like others, might have been misled by it.
  I remember the 1945 election, when voting finished at 8 o'clock. At that time, we still had a comfortable majority, but even so, at 8 o'clock there were people standing in queues outside the polling stations. Many were unable to get in, and many votes up and down the country were lost. That was remedied by agreement between the parties — by discussion. We altered the time to 10 o'clock. I should have thought that the figure of 1·5 million people voting between 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock by itself was a conclusive reason why the time of 10 o'clock should be retained. Therefore, I hope that that proposal will be altered in Committee.
  There is also the issue of principle of how people in Northern Ireland are to vote on a different basis from that which will apply to people in other parts of the country. That is intolerable. There must be a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom. I do not mean to say that the people in Northern Ireland treasure the vote more than we do, but they treasure it very much, as something that protects them against violence and all the thuggery of the IRA. Their whole future depends upon the ballot box. Great honour is paid to the ballot box in Northern Ireland, perhaps even more than anywhere else, although all our lives depend upon upholding the authority of the ballot box. For the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on his own whim and without discussion with the parties affected, to say that there will be a different principle in Northern Ireland from the one that operates in other parts of the country, is insulting. It will not work. I hope that that proposal will be destroyed in Committee. At the end of tonight's debate, the Government should accept that.
  With regard to the holiday provisions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton rightly said, it is just and proper that there should be workable arrangements in that respect. However, the other measures amount to a major
  778
  change in the way in which representation in the House is carried through. It is outrageous that the Government seek to introduce a measure of this character—what they themselves call a major representation of the people Bill —without the normal processes of consultation.
  The Home Secretary referred to the Select Committee. However, Select Committees are not a substitute for the normal procedure. Many of us had discussions about the establishment of the Select Committees and said that one of the dangers was that some unwise Ministers who did not pay proper attention to the genuine and well-established traditions of the House would say, "We can take account of what a Select Committee says on the matter." That is the trouble with Select Committees. Governments can pick and choose. This Government pick and choose. They do not agree with every Select Committee. If they think that a Select Committee such as the Select Committee on Home Affairs agrees with them, they say that it has made the recommendation. But they did not accept all the recommendations of even the Select Committee on Home Affairs. They pick and choose. They say that they will take half a dozen of the Committee's proposals and perhaps they will be able to get them through the House.
  I dare say that the old-fashioned habit of discussing representation of the people Bills in Cabinet is still preserved, but perhaps that is carrying things a bit far. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to persuade the Cabinet—if he had to—I dare say that he said, "We have the Select Committee on our side." Why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the normal traditions? They are even in his own White Paper. He could have read the paragraph before the one that mentions the major representation of the people Bill, which says that on all such previous occasions when there have been major changes there was a Speaker's Conference. That was not so in the old days. In the 18th century, parties would try to wrest their own advantage from their majority in the House, which might be a temporary majority. It took years to establish incorruptible processes of election in the House. It was one of the major fights for democracy. However, we are returning to those old corrupt days, when Ministers used their majority for their own purposes. Why did not the Minister stop to ask himself, "Why should there be this tradition of having a Speaker's Conference on the matter?" The reason is that he did not discharge his responsibilities properly.
  Mr. Brittan: If the right hon. Gentleman hastens to import motives to people, which I would not do in this case, I should tell him that the position is clear. He must be aware that the way of handling these matters by a Speaker's Conference has been subject to an enormous amount of criticism, most cogently by Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd, who, after he was involved in such an operation, came to a firm view as to its unsuitability as a means of handling these matters today.
  Mr. Foot: That is a new principle that has been enunciated. Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd may have said that in an off-beat comment, but is it Government policy that we have no more Speaker's Conferences? If that is the Government's view, they should have said so in a proper declaration. We should have been told when they introduced the Bill that the reason why the Government would not have a Speaker's Conference was that they mistrusted Speaker's Conferences. That should have been

  779
  stated clearly if it was the Government's view. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have his opportunity to say that he believes that Speaker's Conferences are not the proper way to deal with these matters and that that was the Government's decision although, carelessly, they have not announced it until this moment.
  Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I have said publicly that I do not believe that a Speaker's Conference is the most appropriate way. As the right hon. Gentleman is so enthusiastic about Speaker's Conferences, will he explain why, when he was Leader of the House in 1969, the extra hour's polling time was introduced, contrary to the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference and against the wishes of the Conservative Opposition at the time?
  Mr. Foot: The Secretary of State had better take a little more time to check his facts. So far from it being the case that the Labour Government believed it wrong to have a Speaker's Conference to deal with such matters, and so far from us having adopted what the right hon. and learned Gentleman now calls the "Selwyn Lloyd" principle—that one pushes Speaker's Conferences to one side because they are not fit to deal with such matters—the Labour Government insisted on a Speaker's Conference to deal with the most critical representation of the people Bill that we have had to deal with, which related to Northern Ireland. We said that it must go to a Speaker's Conference because we believed that it would then command much more support in the House and throughout the country, as events proved.
  The Opposition have never accepted the doctrine that Speaker's Conferences are not fit to deal with such matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in a document presented to the House, explained how Speaker's Conferences were used to do so previously. Even if some believe that a Speaker's Conference would not be the best way to do it, what has happened on this occasion proves the case. Instead of introducing a measure that could have commanded universal support because it had been examined properly, the Government have made the grave mistake of saying that they will not have a Speaker's Conference, but that they will take instead portions of a Select Committee's recommendations. That is why not only the right hon. and learned Gentleman but the House of Commons is in such a mess.
  Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a mess. Does he believe that the 1969 Government were wrong to reject the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, which had decided against extending polling hours? The 1969 Government insisted on that change, against the wishes of the Conservative Opposition. If the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on Speaker's Conferences, he has some explaining to do now.
  Mr. Foot: I did not notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman apologised to me at the beginning of his remarks. I was not Leader of the House in 1969. I was performing the functions, which I am now performing, of contributing to debates from the Back Benches. I should be happy, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's benefit, to look up everything I said then, and treat him to a full survey of it on a proper occasion.
  780
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Minister and should be responsible for such matters. He made the wholly unjustified charge that I was opposed to dealing with such matters by a Speaker's Conference, but I have already given him a clear example that in the Parliament when I was responsible for those matters I said that the House could deal with them properly only by having a Speaker's Conference and letting everyone from different sides give evidence. Such a procedure now would have provided a real chance of getting the Bill through the House of Commons.
  The Secretary of State has failed in his duty to the House. He has produced a squalid little measure that may have advantages for the Conservative party, but which has not been thought out properly. He may discover that, as with the trade union legislation introduced by the Government—which is designed to injure the finances of the Labour party—some of the measures in the Bill, which are designed to assist the electoral processes of the Conservative party, will not succeed. The debate on the Representation of the People Bill, which includes major changes, should have been introduced in an entirely different way. If the House of Commons becomes bogged down in constitutional procedures, the responsibility will rest with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and with the Cabinet who were foolish enough to listen to his advice.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: Contrary to what we have heard in the debate from Opposition Members, most people will welcome the Bill. Its proposals show that the Government are sensitive to public opinion, and I am glad that they have been introduced. In a democracy it is desirable that electoral arrangements should have consensus support from the parties generally, and I am sorry that the Opposition parties have not seen fit wholeheartedly to welcome the proposals. The amendments on the Order Paper show that they are very much out of touch with public opinion.
  I was a member of the Joint Committee that considered the consolidation of the several Acts relating to electoral law which became the Representation of the People Act 1983. We were responsible for consolidating the law, not for making new law. Our biggest problem was deciding how the requirement for urgent messages to be conveyed to the returning officer by telegram should be dealt with following the abolition of Post Office telegrams. However, it was apparent during our consideration of that consolidation that the existing electoral law was badly out of date and that changes were necessary. I am glad that the Government delayed for no longer than was necessary following the publication of the report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Government's answer in the form of a White Paper.
  Although I welcome the Bill generally, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will forgive me if I devote some of my time to concentrating on ways in which the Bill can be improved in Committee.
  It is right that those who, by their decision or that of others, live and work overseas for a time should not be deprived of their votes. It is unfortunate that the Opposition attach disreputable motives to those United Kingdom citizens who spend time abroad, when many of them do so in the service of the country.

  781
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said, some believe that the right to vote in such circumstances should not be qualified by a time limit. It is argued that, as United Kingdom citizens, such people still have close contact with this country even after many years. But those who argue that have forgotten that votes are given not for Governments but for candidates. Due to the processes of electoral registration, the limit of seven years could sometimes be extended to more than eight years from the time when the individual went overseas. We must ask ourselves whether, after such a long period, it would be likely that someone would still have a close connection with his previous constituency and whether he or she would be likely to return to that place. For that reason, I believe that there should be a time limit, and the limit specified in the Bill of seven years is by no means unreasonable.
  If an election takes place during the summer—my right hon. and learned Friend said that the period during which people take holidays has spread—many people are likely to be prevented by their holiday arrangements from voting. Justice demands that they should not be deprived of their vote through no fault of theirs. The greatest difficulty lies in the definition of those circumstances in which a postal vote should be allowed, and this is obviously a problem with which the Home Office has had to grapple. I am concerned about the wide latitude written into the Bill, which seems almost to provide for a postal vote on demand. The numbers seeking to take advantage of the new provision may be considerable, and the extension of the postal vote provision can be, if we are not careful, an invitation to abuse. It should be noted that the absent vote has been extended to local government and to parish council elections, where the majority of people tend not to use their vote. It is not difficult to imagine that this will encourage abuse when combined with the widening of the absent voting provision.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be so critical of the extension of the postal vote to parish councils, where the polls are generally much higher than they are for district and county council elections, and where the total exclusion of postal voting has been unreasonable.
  Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me. I am by no means opposing the extension of the postal voting provisions to parish council elections, but the turnout varies considerably, and in many parish council elections the vote is extremely small. I know of parish council elections where it has been well under 20 per cent.
  Penalties are available, and the Bill provides for those penalties to be increased where such abuse is detected, but detection and enforcement, although they may exist, may in reality become almost imposible. The requirement that anyone applying for a postal vote should have to obtain the counter-signature of another elector provides effectively no protection at all. I hope that, at the very least, the Bill will be amended so that the declaration needs to be made in front of a Justice of the Peace. This should be considered in Committee.
  It has already been argued in the debate that the candidate's deposit should be replaced by an increase in the number of signatures required on a candidate's
  782
  nomination paper. The figure of 500 signatures has been suggested, but it is interesting to note that the Ecology party, which has been in touch with hon. Members has suggested that the figure of 100 might be more suitable. This may reflect the difficulty with which that party might be faced in obtaining 500 signatures.
  However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, in many instances people are prepared to sign nomination papers without giving any commitment to candidates. Therefore, the need to obtain 100, or even 500, signatures will not provide any great obstacle. A financial deposit has been traditional an this country, and there are good reasons for continuing with it, although the exact figure is open to question, and again this is an appropriate issue to be considered in Committee.
  Schedule 1, part III, concerns municipal elections in the City of London, and I am surprised that it has not been mentioned already in the debate. I shall refer briefly to certain aspects of the procedures there. I strongly believe in the importance of tradition and I support the City's right to retain its ancient traditions. However, tradition ceases to be a virtue and becomes a threat when it becomes incompatible with democracy. One of the great strengths of Parliament arises out of the fact that it has combined a respect for tradition with a willingness to change its procedures when it has been obvious that that has been demanded. Unfortunately, this has not always been such an obvious feature of the City of London.
  The danger of electoral abuse is greater in the City because the wards have remained unaltered since medieval times. For example, there is one ward with only just over 30 electors, while another has over 2,500. To be an elector in the City, one needs to be neither a resident nor someone who works there, because partners may vote in those wards where their firm has its offices. Despite the Bill's intentions, a partner may vote more than once in a local government election in the City because each ward is a separate electoral area. Just as one of the partners in a large stockbroking or accountancy firm can vote more than once, so he can appoint a proxy to vote in each of those wards where his firm has an office, regardless of whether or not he works in the City.
  Although I understand that the Home Office undertook to look at the question of applications for personal votes by power of attorney, no provision relating to the power of attorney has been included in the Bill. At present, there is the unsatisfactory position that all the partners of a professional firm in the City of London can appoint one of their members as attorney to apply for postal votes on behalf of each of them.
  There are several reasons why this matter is important at this time. The abolition of the Greater London council will mean that the City will be a unitary authority and the only local government authority that those living in the City can look to for the provision of services. Many changes are taking place in the City at the moment, involving the takeover of firms, which I feel are tantamount to the opening of a Pandora's box for future elections. I wonder how many people are aware that elections to the Court of Common Council in the City can, in the case of some wards, be controlled by a very small number .of individual firms.
  Years ago, changes in the City's electoral practices would have been easier to implement than they are today.

  783
  Today they will be easier to implement than they will become in the future, and I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, some essential reforms will be introduced.
  It is right that electors should not be deprived of a vote because they are living abroad or are on holiday. It is obvious to me and, I think, to most people in the country that a deposit of £150 is completely out of date and more suited to the last century than to this. I look forward to the early passage of this legislation, and to its improving our form of democracy.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I agree with a number of the anxieties that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about the Bill in its present form. I think it a thousand pities that the Government, whatever may be our view as to the absolute validity of a Speaker's Conference, did not have the benefit of such a conference before the Bill was introduced. There is no substitute for it in the form of a Select Committee. A Select Committee is not capable of delivering to the House or the Government the agreement of the several parties represented here. That is so for one reason that is worth stressing: individual hon. Members do not sit on Select Committees as delegates or representatives of their respective parties, and it will be an ill day when we hold them, in the deliberations of a Select Committee, to be committing their respective parties.
  The Bill, in its major provisions, undermines some of the most fundamental characteristics and principles of parliamentary representation, and notably three. The first is the significance of place or locality. The second is the importance of uniformity throughout the country. The third is the importance of simultaneity of voting. I shall take those points briefly and then consider how they relate to the Bill.
  The House is a geographical representation of the kingdom. We come here sent from our respective places. We do not have a mass poll of the citizenry to elect a Government or a Prime Minister: instead the electorate of the several places send one person to Parliament, to use his discretion on their behalf. That is one of the profound characteristics of the House of Commons. It is at variance with the principles on which other deliberative assemblies are founded; but it is certainly something that goes to the roots of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed, it is the reason why the House of Commons has its name. It is the House of the "communities" Indeed at times in the middle ages it was called the communitas communitatum—the place where all the communities, through their representatives, gathered together.
  As for the principle of simultaneity, that does not perhaps have so long a history. Indeed, in the days before the ballot Act it was not uncommon for elections to last not merely for several days but for several weeks. Yet I do not think it can be controverted that since the prevalence of the ballot, and certainly since universal franchise has prevailed, simultaneity is one of the essential characteristics of our elections and is the principle that gives validity to the composition of the House of Commons as determined at a general election.
  It requires only a moment's thought to see the importance of the simultaneous vote by the whole electorate in person—in principle—and upon the same
  784
  day. Events happen, things are said, promises are made and broken during the course of an election campaign, that influence and sway large bodies of the electorate. If a substantial proportion of that electorate can be shown to have voted before such and such an event occurred, doubt is inevitably cast on the outcome of an election in which not all electors have been voting in the same circumstances, in the same position and upon the same proposition. Therefore, simultaneity is an essential validating character and quality of the principle of election, whereby on one polling day the whole nation goes to the polls—in principle—in person.
  I accept that to some extent we have modified that principle in the provisions hitherto made for absent voting. We have made provision for absent voting, notably in two important areas. The first is where a person, by removing from one place to another, is unable to exercise his vote in the only place where, by reason of our emphasis upon locality, he can do so. That is a very important aspect of the absent vote hitherto. The second involves what I might almost call the compassionate consideration—that those persons physically disabled from going to the poll should nevertheless not thereby be prevented from voting.
  Although those modifications to the principle have been made, the principle remains important, and we should be exceedingly jealous and careful of any extension of that proportion of the electorate that votes at a different time, in different circumstances and faces different facts, indeed what one might almost call a different world, from the rest of the electorate.
  The third principle has already been mentioned, and it is that of uniformity. All Members of Parliament, who are equals one with another, should be elected by an electorate constituted and qualified in the same way, and having the same rights, the same opportunities to cast their votes. Indeed, the unity of the realm, which is expressed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, ultimately depends on the unity of the electorate.
  All those fundamental characteristics of a valid electoral system are undermined by the Bill.
  The principle of locality as well as of simultaneity is undermined by the provision for overseas voting, whereby a person who had a connection seven or eight years ago with a locality is held to be on an equal footing with those who still reside there, who hear the candidate's speeches, who know the circumstances of the area and who have, during the past seven or eight years, lived through the experiences of that locality. That is a serious breach in the integrity of our electoral process, and we should seriously qualify it or reconsider it before we allow the Bill to reach the statute book.
  Even more serious, certainly quantitatively, is the principle of absent voting by choice which is now introduced for the first time. One has only to read the staggering wording of clause 7(1) (a) to understand that that is no exaggeration. It states that the registration officer shall grant an application for an absent vote if
  "he is satisfied that the applicant's circumstances on the date of the poll will be or are likely to be such that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted".
  I do not know whether to call that arbitrary or ad lib. From the elector's point of view, there is virtually no limit to the grounds upon which he can argue that it would be inconvenient to the degree of impossibility for him to turn up at that place on that day. We have already had the example of a business man who was unable to return to his

  785
  home before the poll closed at 10 pm. Does a business man say to the registration officer 10 or 20 days, or even more than that, before the date of the poll, "Look, I'm a business man and I occasionally make trips to London. For all I know, I might have to make a business trip on the day" — [Interruption.]Does the Under-Secretary of State wish to intervene?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I am sorry that I appeared surprised. I would happily have left my rebuttal of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—so far as I am capable of rebutting it—until later. But he might recall that it has been possible since the 1940s for those who think that they might be away on business to obtain a postal vote.
  Mr. Powell: I do not quite think so. That is the case where the nature of a calling or occupation is such that the contingency has to be reckoned with; but we are dealing here with something different. After all, even the limited opportunities still to be left for the electors in Northern Ireland will allow them to consider the character of the occupation of the peron concerned. But there is an immense range of other circumstances in which anyone can legitimately claim that he might well find it inconvenient or impossible to get to the polling station on a given day. There is always an invalid aunt in Halifax—as all who have been candidates will know, our key workers tend to have invalid aunts in Halifax who take it into their heads to die during the last stages of an election campaign. That is surely a ground upon which the applicant's "circumstances are such that he will be, or may be likely to be," unable to go to the poll. His aunt is a close relative and ill, and he argues that, in case of bad luck, he had better have a right to vote—an absent vote "just in case". So on the one hand there is an open invitation and a menu card for absent voting, on the other there is an extraordinary responsibility placed on a registration officer when the definition is so wide.
  The Home Secretary may say, "Don't you worry about that, because I am going to put a much closer definition into the regulations." I hope that he will not say that, because it would not do. It would not do for the House of Commons to pass something such as clause 7(1)(a) on the understanding that after the Bill is passed the words will be narrowed and defined in some unforeseeable way, perhaps by regulations subject to affirmative or—who knows?—negative resolution.
  Therefore, we are confronted with an inadmissible and indefinite extension of the potentialities of absent voting. In many a constituency that scope is sufficient to cast grave doubt on the validity of a particular outcome that might be crucial to the composition of the House and so to the nature of the Government.
  I come to uniformity. The Home Secretary says that there are respects in which the electoral law in Northern Ireland is not identical with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. So there are and when a Bill that has just gone to the other place receives the Royal Assent, a further extension will have been given to that variation, over the — parliamentarily speaking—dead bodies of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. The Home Secretary quoted part of the Representation of the People Act—section 1(2) — which creates in Northern Ireland a residence qualification different from the residence qualification in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  786
  Incidentally, it is a United Kingdom Act passed by this House: let there be no question of it being a relic of the Stormont Administration in Northern Ireland; it is something that the House thought it right and appropriate to enact and apparently thinks it right and appropriate still to keep on the statute book, though that perhaps should now be debated again in view of the great importance that I am at this moment stressing of uniformity of qualification and of electoral process in all parts of the United Kingdom.
  Two things are happening in the Bill. First, a new opportunity to vote is being created in the rest of the kingdom but that opportunity to vote is being withheld from my constituents and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. That is one thing that is happening. But something more atrocious, which I cannot believe that the House will suffer, is also happening. A right to vote which is already possessed is being withdrawn silently by means of omission from a list in clause 7(2). Without any paraphernalia or publicity, the right for a person removing from one place to another to cast his vote during the validity of that register in the place where he is registered is being silently withdrawn in Northern Ireland.
  I cannot believe that there can be any justification for that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, or on any other grounds. Indeed, I have reason to suppose that this is a conclusion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary has come to with considerable hesitation. I rely much on expressions that have fallen from him at various stages, both in correspondence and on the Floor of the House.
  We are told that in Northern Ireland there is abuse of the electoral process, that there are many electoral offences committed there, and that we must not open a wider field for the commission of those offences. Well, we are talking about absent voting either by post or by proxy. Now, I have not heard it seriously stated that widespread serious abuse can occur in voting by proxy. In effect, therefore, it comes down to voting by post.
  I concede that postal voting for the disabled or for the sick is open to abuse—not only in Northern Ireland. Not only in Northern Ireland are certificates given lightly, collected and filled up batchwise to confer votes upon people who might, on a strict interpretation, not be entitled to vote by post by reason of physical disability.
  Still, I concede that it is possible for evilly minded and militarily organised people, as in some areas of Northern Ireland those persons are, to abuse the availability of ballots in the homes of those who have been certified to be physically disabled.
  I do not deny that. However, in what circumstances could the most fantastic organisation—evil no doubt, determined no doubt—abuse ballot papers sent to the new addresses to which persons removing have gone either in a distant part of the same constituency — that is possible under our Ulster election rules—or in another constituency 50 miles, 100 miles, 200 miles away? It is unthinkable that the facility which is being taken away from Northern Ireland is one which could seriously be the subject of abuse. That simply cannot be argued.
  As for the absent voter, if an address has to be specified—the address will be specified in the list of postal voters that has to be published by the registration officer —the degree of organisation necessary to commandeer the ballot papers from the various addresses to which they

  787
  have been posted in the crucial period so as to ensure that intimidation is brought to bear in filling them up is beyond all imagination.
  So, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds himself doing — I have chosen my phrase carefully because I cannot bring myself to believe that he would regard what I have described as just or justifiable—is refusing to confer a new right and withdrawing an existing right, both of which, whatever might be said of other voting rights, cannot imaginably be the subject of widespread abuse.
  As in all matters, the ultimate guarantee, the ultimate safety net, for the people in the Province where I represent a constituency lies with this House. This House is the ultimate safeguard of all minorities, of whatever kind they may be, in whatever part of the country they may be. It is to this House, before the Bill passes, that we confidently look to see that an injustice is not imposed upon a part of the United Kingdom which has all too much reason, real or imagined, to consider itself the victim of injustice. It is to this House that we appeal.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Matthew Parris: It is always challenging to follow the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). I was interested in his remarks about the need for uniformity throughout the kingdom. I remember a debate some years ago about the extension of the laws governing homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in Northern Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke fervently in favour of differences in practice across the United Kingdom. I think that he used the phrase "rich diversity" and said that the differences should be cherished.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Not only did I vote, first, in Scotland and then in England for the repeal of those laws, but I never concealed in Northern Ireland that that was my view.
  Mr. Parris: I must have misunderstood the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in that debate, which I attended throughout.
  It is encouraging to be told by the right hon. Gentleman that my constituents voted for me rather than for the Conservative party. I should like to believe that. It might be true for some. At least I shall encourage my constituents to believe that there might be some difference between voting for me and voting for the, Conservative party if I vote against Second Reading tonight.
  I was determined to do that before I heard the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). To say that he overstated the case would be an understatement. The right hon. Gentleman so overstated the case that I was all but convinced to change my mind.
  It is not fair to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) suggested, that the increase in the deposit to £1,000 is part of the Conservative party's plan to improve its own voting figures. I disagree with the increase and I shall say why later. I do not think that there is any sectarian party purpose in it. The Labour party would probably stand to gain most from the disappearance of the small fringe parties. I do not think that the Conservative party would
  788
  gain anything. It is more likely that we would lose something, because sometimes fringe parties enable our candidates to squeeze through.
  When the parliamentary deposit was set at £150, it was a large sum. It was an enormous sum. It was intended to prevent people who were not of substantial means and could not be confident of achieving a substantial vote from standing for Parliament. That was not right then, and the fact that a custom is old does not necessarily make it a custom that we should want to follow.
  The deposit was set in an age when money talked in politics even more than it does now. Money talked in the running of a politial party, in the securing of a candidature and sometimes in securing a seat in Parliament. That was an age when poor men did not stand nearly so often for Parliament. It was much more difficult for them to do so and there was no prevailing belief that they should. Society took a robust view of the political advantages that money could buy. It is no accident that no attempt has been made over the intervening years to maintain the deposit at that high level. It is not due to inattention that we have allowed the financial penalty for electoral defeat to diminish. The diminution has come with increased sensitivity about links between wealth and political power. I am sorry that in some senses the Bill goes back on that increased sensitivity.
  The passage of time has eroded the financial value of the penalty and my right hon. and learned Friend is right to remind us of that. However, I think that it is a good thing that the value of the penalty has been reduced. The Bill undoes and reverses that and at one stroke restores all the inequity which was inherent in the theory on which the penalty was based. As I have said, not everything that is old is right. That there should be a heavy financial penalty for failing to secure many votes is offensive in principle. Whether "many" is defined as 20 per cent., one eighth or one twentieth of the votes cast does not alter the principle, which remains offensive. To reduce the requirement from one eighth to one twentieth lessens the extent of the damage, and it would be wrong not to acknowledge that. I am grateful for the reduction, but it does not alter the bad principle and much damage will be done by its application.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend, like many others, has in mind the way in which the deposit will have an effect on candidates of legitimate fringe parties and on those who wish to put across minority points of view. Is he aware that one of my Nottingham colleagues experienced something quite different? He found that there was a deliberate plan to deceive by candidates standing as the "official" something, the "local" something or the "genuine" something. That is a growing practice. The "official" candidate seeks to take the title of the Conservative, Labour or Liberal candidate by putting an adjective in front of the party's title. He is seeking to deceive and to split the vote. That cannot be right. I believe that an increased deposit will help to stop that practice.
  Mr. Parris: If there is a good chance of securing the defeat of a Conservative candidate by such means, those who engage in the practice will be capable in many instances of raising the £1,000 to enable them to do so. There have been attempts to deceive and, on the whole, they have not been successful. Indeed, they have been remarkably unsuccessful. Against remedying that practice

  789
  must be balanced the damage that my hon. Friend rightly concedes will be done to many genuine fringe and smaller parties.
  With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, I do not think that it was right for him to go through his speech, which was not short, without mentioning the general principles or the practical consequences of this measure for many of the smaller fringe parties. Damage will be done especially to those individuals and parties to whom and to which our constitution is arguably rather unkind. There are stirrings in the electoral undergrowth. There are movements among those who form the political equivalent of the small business enterprise to which my party is rightly wedded. I have in mind political ideas and parties that have only recently started. Imagine the fuss if the Government proposed penalties in the form of forfeiture of bonds to be imposed upon new and small businesses which failed to secure a given number of customers within a prescribed time. If Tesco, for example, were to call for such an imposition on every small corner shop which entered the market, would we be on Tesco's side? In political terms we are, perhaps, the equivalent of Tesco.
  It is inherently likely that a political movement will start from a base of less than one eighth or one twentieth of electoral support. By punishing a political party for risking that test, the Bill may prevent many movements from even starting. Would the Labour party have started and risen to supplant the Liberal party without the resources of organised labour on which to draw? The Labour party had to run the risk of lost deposits. Was its dependence on organised labour a healthy one? Should we encourage dependence of that sort?
  Mr. Mellor: When the £150 deposit was introduced in 1918, it was the equivalent of about nine months income for someone on the national average wage. If it was intended to stifle the Labour party, it was not very successful.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate and some, inevitably, will be disappointed. It would be helpful if those seeking to catch my eye, including the Minister, reserved their interventions and incorporated them in their speeches.
  Mr. Parris: The Labour party succeeded despite that level of deposit. It succeeded because it had the resources of organised labour on which to draw. Small minority parties are not in that position. I do not see how a small party can possibly field a credible number of candidates if it must risk a penalty of £1,000 in each constituency. We all know that it is necessary to fly the flag, even in constituencies where there is not a chance of succeeding. That is accepted in a great political party such as the Conservative party. It is even more important for small political parties to fly the flag than it is for large ones. One of the criticisms that is most likely to be levelled against small parties is that they are not even fielding enough candidates to form a Government if they should succeed in every constituency in which they have placed one of their candidates.
  Contesting seats when there is not a ghost of a chance of winning them is one of the ways in which a small party shows that it is serious. The Bill will stop small parties from doing just that. If the Bill is enacted, small parties will be able to say with some justice that they are not
  790
  fielding a credible spread of candidates because we passed a law that prevented them from doing so. That argument and that sense of grievance, which I believe will sustain the argument, will prove a moral weapon in the hands of minority parties that my right hon. and learned Friend will be unwise to ignore. He is giving fringe movements a better case for extra-parliamentary action than they have ever been able to make for themselves.
  I do not know whether my right hon. and hon. Friends see this as I do, but I have always felt it a cause for satisfaction that in this country the Communist party. the National Front or the Socialist Workers party can and do field candidates. A cause for even greater satisfaction is that they regularly and visibly fail to attract much support. No longer will we be able to say that. Their spokesmen will be able to say that their parties are not rich enough to test the electorate's support or to get their message across. I fail to see that this will be adding strength or authority to our constitution.
  I have not spoken to any representative of the National Front, because I cannot find that organisation listed in the telephone directory. I do not know how much the Bill, if enacted, will cost it. However, I know that we shall never again be able to challenge it to explain the derisory number of votes that it attracts at elections. It will have a good answer once the Bill is enacted.
  The Ecology party, which wrote to a number of us, fielded 109 candidates at the 1983 general election. It hopes to field 300 at the next general election. It will lose a fortune. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether we need to do this to small parties. I cannot speak for organisations such as the Ecology party, but I imagine that they hope to move from being single-issue organisations, which attract a small but respectable following because of public feeling on those single issues, to becoming broader parties with fuller manifestos. It is not uncommon or wrong to enter politics on the back of one central issue and to mature and evolve from that. The first stage is inevitably a minority one. My right hon. and learned Friend will, perhaps unwittingly, kill such movements at birth.
  It is neither wrong nor unhelpful to field candidates on one issue as an end in itself, as a way of testing and demonstrating public feeling on that issue, and not so much as a launching pad. It is a way of showing the mainstream parties that they should take an issue more seriously, and they do so in the hope that they will. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has failed to persuade any of the major parties unequivocally to follow its line so it would not be surprising if it decided to contest a few seats.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East): The Labour party unequivocally follows its line.
  Mr. Parris: My hon. Friend suggests that the Labour party unequivocally follows its line. I believe that it equivocally follows CND's line.
  CND candidates might attract 5 or 10 per cent. support, and that would be a success for them. However, they might attract less than 5 per cent. support, and that would be a failure for them. This measure would prevent them from testing the water in that way, and that would be a pity.
  I wish to say a word on behalf of Bill Boakes and Screaming Lord Sutch. This aspect has been hugely exaggereated by some of the killjoys among us. Joke

  791
  candidates—we should be honest; some of them are joke candidates—rarely stand at general elections and, when they do, they regularly fail to affect the result. They often stand in by-elections and receive much publicity. Doubtless, they irritate some people; but I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that they give some of us a certain amount of pleasure and light relief. They are not nearly so costly to the taxpayer as is sometimes imagined. In fact, they rarely make use of the free postal facilities. Those candidates who make use of the free postal facilities are rarely those who are most costly to the taxpayer. Any candidate who can get his party together to the extent of printing between 30,000 and 50,000 leaflets and putting them in envelopes has already demonstrated his seriousness in a way that I should have thought was satisfactory to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary mentioned abuses. I question how widespread those abuses are. I agree that the candidate should be serious, but I question whether a £1,000 deposit is the right way of testing a candidate's seriousness. Bill Boakes and Screaming Lord Sutch do us little harm on the whole and may sometimes do us some good. By-elections can be very dull, and voting for one of the joke candidates is perhaps a courteous and elegant alternative to spoiling the ballot paper or abstaining. Those institutions—such gentlemen have become institutions — provide a safety valve. Voting and standing against the mainstream parties are useful facilities, especially where the success or validity of a democratic institution is popularly questioned. The fact that so few British people vote or stand against the mainstream parties is a helpful sign, giving us cause for self-confidence and providing us with a way of testing the acceptability of our democratic institutions. We should not lightly abandon that. Joke candidates rarely succeed in picking up more than derisory, facetious or protest votes, and that provides us with some comfort. Why take away the opportunity to test the water occasionally?
  I support the first-past-the-post system. On balance, I believe that it is the best system, but we must admit that the first-past-the-post system bears harshly on minority parties. Already, under our system, a small party takes root and achieves electoral breakthrough against all the odds. Why stack the odds even further against small parties and add to the sense of injustice they undoubtedly already feel? We discount the votes achieved by losing candidates. Why fine them as well? The smaller the party, the larger the sum of deposits it stands to forfeit in a general election.
  By this measure, my right hon. and learned Friend adds significantly to the arguments already circulating in favour of state funding for political parties. That—it is another debate—would be a bad move. Unwittingly, my right hon. and learned Friend adds to their grievances and brings forward the day when changes to the electoral system or the means of funding parties will be more powerfully canvassed. The fact that tiny parties and eccentric individuals are able to stand for election under our system is a safety valve. It is a seed-bed for new movements and ideologies, and sometimes a source of light relief. There is no great abuse to be remedied. The fact that such candidates regularly fail is a signal and ground for comfort, not for disquiet, among the rest of us. Why
  792
  change all that? Why make any change at all? Sometimes, I think we seem to have lost our sense of fair play, political self-confidence and, occasionally, humour.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) is right about many aspects — for example, the arguments for reforming the electoral system will be more powerfully canvassed. I point out to him that it is not that the electoral system discriminates against minorities but that it chooses arbitrarily between minorities. The electoral system takes that minority which is the Conservative party, enjoying only minority support, and gives to it the power of the majority — just as it took previous minority Labour parties and made them into majority Governments. That is the crucial failing of the electoral system.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West was right in what he said about deposits. He demonstrated that the Home Secretary not only had failed to bring about the degree of all-party agreement which his predecessor clearly envisaged but had failed to secure agreement within his party on the desirability of proceeding with this step. There was a vivid demonstration of that failure not only in this debate but in the earlier debates on the White Paper. The Home Secretary would have to admit that there is genuine misgiving among Conservative Back Benchers and a number of other hon. Members who are seriously putting the arguments against this large increase in the deposit.
  The Bill has many good features and some bad features, of which the deposit and the exclusion of multiple registration are two. In some ways, the Bill involves the curtailment of the freedom of individuals to stand for Parliament. Today's Order Paper, with its reasoned amendments from several parties, clearly demonstrates the lack of consensus between the parties which is desirable if we are to get a major Representation of the People Bill through Parliament. When the Government canvassed the prospect of sending the Bill upstairs to Committee, I was appalled to think that, for the first time in our history, we were to consider such a Bill upstairs. I am glad that the Government backed down from that proposition in their announcement this afternoon. I hope that that is a sign that the Government will embark again on the road which Lord Whitelaw set out for them—to achieve the maximum possible all-party agreement when considering representation of the people measures.
  I shall consider some of the specific issues in the Bill, going roughly in order through the Bill. I agree broadly with the Government and not the Labour party on the issue of overseas voting. I disagree with the Labour Party's reasoned amendment on this issue. The Labour party seems to suggest in the way it advances its arguments that there is something faintly disreputable about working abroad while a British citizen and still seeking to take some part in this country's affairs. Dealing with an earlier piece of legislation, Lord Glenamara, when he was Leader of the House, used the phrase "the lotus eaters" to describe those who lived abroad, yet sought to have some part in our country's affairs.
  The people who live abroad may include the inhabitants of the "Costa del Crime" and those who stay abroad for tax reasons. Why should guilt by association be brought into this matter?

  793
  The category of those who live abroad includes people who work overseas for commercial, voluntary, charitable and international organisations. In many cases, they are serving the best interests of this country or the country to which they have gone. They may work for the United Nations, the Council of Europe or the EEC. They may work in trade or for world development organisations. They may be missionaries or church workers in overseas countries who have a genuine interest in this country and intend to return to it when their work is done.
  Mr. Corbett: Are not those people in the category of workers overseas on relatively short-term contracts entitled to proxy votes?
  Mr. Beith: They are, on this condition: if they can afford to maintain a residence in this country, they can have a vote. What a paradox that makes of the Labour party's argument. The Labour party is saying that those people who, while working abroad—either because their contract is short or because they have a great deal of money—can afford to keep a residence in Britain shall have a vote, but those who cannot afford to maintain a residence in Britain but still intend to return to Britain shall not have a vote. The case of a missionary or church worker is a classic example. Such a person finds himself in a different economic position from that of an employee of a Government organisation or a diplomat who has a right to vote under existing legislation. That missionary or church worker has every intention of returning to this country in due course. His work overseas is not particularly remunerative—he does not want it to be so; there is a great deal of self-sacrifice in his choice—but he retains an interest in this country's affairs. Indeed, the affairs of this country may have a considerable bearing on the work he does in the country to which he has gone.
  One cannot travel abroad at the moment to developing countries without being made aware of the interests of British citizens overseas. We had a debate on overseas aid a couple of weeks ago on a Liberal motion. Threats to the British Council and the BBC overseas service, the British citizenship laws and how they will affect the children of people working abroad and many other issues came up in the House. I therefore believe that it is reasonable that people working overseas but who intend to return should be able to vote. It is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition, but I do not believe that the Government have done a bad job on this issue.
  The Liberal party would like to see EEC citizens given the right to vote in whichever EEC country they reside in. We see it as part of the nature and character of the EEC. The proposals contained in the Bill are a way of ensuring that they retain some civil and political rights while working elsewhere in the EEC and those rights should be given to people who work in the rest of the world.
  I broadly agree with the Government's proposals for absent voters. It is wrong that people should be unable to exercise their franchise because they are on holiday. The timing of a general election is often not known in advance. It is no fault of people who find themselves on holiday when the election is called. There is an anomaly and unfairness in the present position, which we shall remove if we extend postal votes to holiday voters. At present, if a person works in one of the occupations where he can claim that the general character of his work is such that he
  794
  may not be able to be present on polling day he can claim a postal vote and ensure that he is regularly on the list for a postal vote.
  The effect of that, in my experience, is that many business men, farmers or people in that type of work can register postal votes and have a postal vote even if they are on holiday. They claim that they have to travel to other parts of the country, go to markets or see customers, but an ordinary working man who is paid a wage at the end of the week after working in a factory may go to the same place on holiday as the business man—if he can afford it—but find that he has no basis upon which to claim a postal vote. Those in generally better-paid occupations have that right. I again believe it right that the Government should move in that direction.
  The definition may not yet be strict enough. We must consider the definition at a later stage to see whether we can make it tighter and clearer to avoid having postal votes on demand in all circumstances. In principle, I believe that the Government are right.
  Mr. Richard Wainwright: Without derogating from my hon. Friend's argument in favour of postal voting, may I ask him whether he agrees that it is more difficult to ensure the secrecy of a postal vote than a vote in the polling booth? Does he agree that the instructions to postal voters should go further than at present to make it clear to people that they need not reveal their vote?
  Mr. Beith: That is so. My hon. Friend gives sound advice. Elderly voters may feel that they have to fill in the ballot paper in the presence or sight of the person who brings it to them. The Government should be made aware that such difficulties arise. There is a case for tightening the definition and improving instructions to postal voters. I know that my hon. Friend agrees that the anomaly of the holidaymaker being denied his vote should be dealt with despite the difficulties.
  I also welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the pleas that many of us have made in the House for a long time to extend postal voting to parish council elections. Those of us who have seen the extraordinary phenomenon of an invalid being carried into a polling station to vote in a parish council election protesting that he has already voted by post in a district council election for the same candidate will realise how absurd the present law is. We are determined that we will not lose a single vote, so we force Liberals to carry elderly ladies into polling stations to ensure that they can cast their votes in parish council elections even though the returning officer has rightly deemed that they should not be required to do so for the district council elections in the same place on the same day. Thank goodness we can end that anomaly.
  The National Association of Local Councils, of which I am the vice-president, welcomes the response and help that the Government have given on that matter. The association believes that other matters relating to parish councils should be considered. It welcomes some clauses, but it wholly opposes clause 15, which provides for the postponement of parish and community council elections, but no other local authority elections, if the ordinary day for the parish elections coincides with the general election or a European Assembly election. Why should parish council elections alone be postponed when they land on that day when the Government are making express and

  795
  more permanent provisions for local and parliamentary elections to take place on the same day in other parts of the Bill? We must consider that again, because it is an unreasonable limitation.
  I have mentioned a number of matters where I believe the Government have done the right thing, and I come now to where they have made a deliberate omission—the issue of multiple registration. People have the right to be registered in a number of places and thereby to choose where they will cast their votes on polling day. At present, one can be registered in respect of a number of residences. It is one of the points where the essential qualification is money. Money talks at several points in the Bill, and this is one of them.
  A person with two, three or four homes can be registered in all of them and can choose on election day where to vote. That has an impact in coastal constituencies, Wales, Cornwall and other parts of the country which are sought after for holiday homes. Many people will choose to transfer their vote according to what they see as the political position and they are people from whom the Conservative party solicits support. It sends election literature to a holiday home which says, "Do not use your vote in London; use it where you have your holiday home."
  There is a further anomaly. Were there to be by-elections on the same day in all the places in which a person was lucky enough to own a second, third or fourth residence, he could vote in every one. People could cast five votes for elections to the same Parliament on the same day. Conservative Members are shaking their heads, but that is the law.
  A person, however, cannot vote twice in the same general election. Even that presents difficulties, because the policing of dual voting is difficult. There are a large number of multiple registrations which makes it that much more difficult. If the parties want to police the dual voting in a general election, they have to take the numbers of persons voting in several places, know in which other places a person is qualified to vote and is registered and during polling day check between constituencies whether that person has cast his votes in both constituencies. That is difficult to do. It is only the political parties that are likely to go to the trouble of doing that. Returning officers concentrate on whether any offence has been committed within their jurisdiction and constituency.
  The policing of the existing legal restriction against voting twice in a general election is made more difficult by the proliferation of multiple registration. All the parties are aware of that. The Conservative party, the Labour party and my party all gave evidence to the Select Committee and said that multiple registration for parliamentary elections should be abolished.
  The Select Committee members were unanimously in favour of making a change. The Committee specifically recommended in its report that multiple registration for parliamentary elections should be ended and that it should be a criminal offence knowingly to seek registration in more than one constituency for parliamentary elections.
  What pressure, what reconsideration and what backstairs influence have led to the recommendation not being implemented? It is a glaring omission from the Bill. If some of the comments I have heard made sotto voce from the Conservative Benches are anything to go by, it
  796
  may be that, unlike Conservative Central Office, there are still some influences in the Conservative party who believe that multiple registration is worth hanging on to because it confers an advantage on those people who have several homes and who are more likely to be Conservatives than to belong to other parties because of the financial position which is required to enable a person to own a second home. I feel that consideration has entered into this decision.
  I am not in the least convinced — I had days of argument and pages of correspondence with the Minister on this—by the standard obstacles that have been trotted out by the Home Office. If the Government had had the political will to carry out the Select Committee's recommendation, which was supported by all the parties that went before it, it would have been done. It has not been done, and for the wrong reasons.
  The subject of deposits has been a major feature of the debate. What is the purpose of the proposal to increase the deposit to £1,000? It cannot be a standing instruction on the part of the Home Office Ministers that all licence fees and charges should be regularly updated, given what has happened to dog licences over the years. There must be a wider purpose. We are told that eccentric or fringe candidates and parties should be discouraged. That reminds me of the comments of Bernard Levin in The Times in February this year:
  "Next, it is contended that the proliferation of eccentric candidates tends to bring the election process into disrepute, a charge which, when I first read it, had the unprecedented effect of rendering me incapable of speech for nearly half an hour; beside the Hattersleys and Healeys, the Proctors and Dickenses, Screaming Lord Sutch was a model of dignity and political uprightness, and a … sight funnier into the bargain."
  In quoting that passage, I have omitted an unparliamentary adjective. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West also seemed to suggest that the Government had lost their sense of proportion and their sense of humour if they regarded some fringe candidates as so much more reprehensible than some of those who come within the mantle of respectable politics.
  The Home Secretary referred to people who were "not serious" about their candidature. That is most worrying. If the definition of seriousness is based on the possession of £1,000, in addition to whatever funds are required to mount a serious campaign, the Government are saying, yet again, that money talks and that their definitions are based on how much money people have. That is no definition of political seriousness. A deposit of £1,000 could not possibly distinguish between those who are serious and those who are not. It merely distinguishes between those who can produce £1,000 and those who cannot. That is the beginning and end of the effect of an increase in the deposit. In any case, why should we seek to deter individuals or groups from putting their ideas to the voters?
  Two reasons have been seriously advanced. One is that the postal facilities cost money, but the record shows that fringe candidates have not used that facility. A very large number of fringe candidates stood in the Chesterfield by-election. I am tempted to say that one of them was elected, but he had the benefit of being the Labour party candidate at the time. Virtually all the candidates outside the three main parties, including all the commercial ones, made no use of the postal facilities and that has been the tendency in all elections with large numbers of fringe candidates.

  797
  The other argument has been the ability of a candidate to prevent others from appearing on television. If that is a problem, it can be addressed in other ways by reference to rules governing the appearance of candidates on television. If it is widely felt that the ability of one candidate to prevent others from appearing is improper, that power can be removed without removing the individual's chance to stand as a candidate.
  I believe that it is wrong to allow any group to say that it has been denied, on financial grounds, the right to put its views to the voters. I am pleased that the Communist party, the National Front, the Socialist Workers party and other groups can submit their views to the voters and thus reveal that they do not enjoy widespread support and that they are on the fringe of the British political system and the views of the British electorate. I want that to continue. I do not want them to be able to say that they have been denied the opportunity to put their views to the electorate. That is why I object to the increase in the deposit, which will affect all those groups and others such as the Ecology party, Mebyon Kernow, Plaid Cymru and so on.
  The impact on my party is minimal. In the last general election we lost only half a dozen deposits. The Labour party lost 119, so it is bound to be concerned about any increase in the deposit. The problem for a party such as mine is rather different. It is a matter not of losing deposits but simply of putting up such a large sum for the course of the election campaign at a time when one needs the resources to mount the campaign. Across the country, that means a total of £650,000 locked up in the returning officers' coffers for the duration of the campaign. It is as though the sequestrators have been sent in to take the funds of the Government's principal opponents — that is, Liberal candidates—for the duration of the campaign.
  The Home Secretary said rather grandly earlier in the debate that anyone wishing to stand in an election could easily borrow £1,000. Clearly he has no trouble with his bank manager. He looks like a man who has no trouble with his bank manager and he stands for a party which looks as though it has no trouble with its bank managers. I represent a party which occasionally has such trouble. That is understandable, as my party does not enjoy the heavy financial backing provided for the Conservative party by companies and individuals and for the Labour party by the trade union levy. That is a serious limitation which would affect the party at precisely the time when its resources were most stretched. If there are two elections in one year, as there were in 1951 and 1974, one enters the second campaign while still paying off the costs of the first. We do not intend to let that stand in our way, but it is an additional limitation and it is hard to avoid concluding that the Government wish to place such limitations on their political opponents.
  I believe that the collection of signatures is a perfectly viable alternative. When these matters were discussed in 1969 that suggestion was made by the very person who has just been elected chairman of the 1922 Committee. I hope that he will stick to that line in the debate on this measure. We are not talking about a "bus stop petition" when one gets people in the town centre to sign their names, or indeed any names that come into their heads. The electoral roll number would have to be written beside the signature and that information would be checked. A certain amount of organisation is required to assemble 100 or 500 signatures of registered voters in a constituency who assent to the nomination of the candidate. Indeed, the procedure
  798
  could be strengthened. It could provide that the signatory must support the nomination of the candidate. That is a significant test of organisation, whereas a deposit is merely a test of financial resources.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no procedure to check that the signatories are the people they are supposed to be? The checking procedure merely establishes that the signatures correspond to names appearing on the electoral roll, which is not necessarily the same thing.
  Mr. Beith: The same applies to the limited number of assentors currently required. Nevertheless, those names are published in the public notice setting out the names of the candidates and their supporters. If that practice were known to be followed, anyone whose name had been used without consent in support of a candidate could challenge it, so there is a means of checking. I believe that the signatures alternative is perfectly viable and I do not see why the Government should reject it.
  If the Government reject the signatures alternative, they must draw back from their £1,000 proposal and look for a figure commanding wider support among the parties. It is clear that there is opposition to the £1,000 proposal not only from every Opposition party but from many Conservative Members. The Government will have to move on this aspect if they wish the Bill to have a relatively smooth passage.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to the Carlton club lecture in which the Prime Minister spoke of a minority defying the result of the vote and persisting in their own wishes. She was, of course, describing herself. That is exactly her position. She is a representative of the minority defying the wishes of the majority of the electorate who voted against her. When I heard the right hon. Member for Gorton put that point so vividly and effectively, I thought that he had seen the light and that conversion had come at last, but he did not allow me to intervene to clarify the position. He left an ambiguity which led me to suppose that, like some of his hon. Friends, he had begun to accept the absurdity of the system which allows the Prime Minister to pretend that she represents the majority when it is clear from the election results that she does nothing of the kind. She represents a minority that, if put to the test of any poll, would be shown to be getting smaller by the hour. The reason why the right hon. Lady is able to make that claim is the ultimate absurdity—the absurdity about which the Government have done nothing in this so-called Representation of the People Bill. I return to the words of Bernard Levin in The Times:
  "Such is the proposed Representation of the People Bill, of which it can be safely said that the matter of improving the people's representation never so much as entered the heads of the Conservative and Labour politicians who took part in the discussions that led to the Government's White Paper".
  There is substance in those words. It never entered the Government's head to ensure that the votes cast under all the procedures in the Bill should bear some relation to the end result of the election.
  The utmost care is taken to ensure that the votes are cast in the correct manner. The votes are cast in secrecy. We have today discussed how to ensure secrecy in postal voting as well as in the polling station. The returning officer seals up the ballot box and applies sealing wax to it. Carefully guarded, it is taken away in a police car.

  799
  However, from the moment the box is opened, sense and accuracy are thrown to the wind. One might just as well treat the ballot box as if it were one of those boxes of raffle tickets which are placed in front of hon. Members at constituency functions and out of which we have to draw one or two winning tickets. That would be as fair as what happened at the last general election—which was that we ensured that it took 32,800 votes to elect a Conservative candidate, 40,000 votes to elect a Labour candidate and 339,000 votes to elect a member of the alliance. We should bear in mind that each of my hon. Friends represents 339,000 people.
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I represent 20,621 Liberals, and I believe that I represent them very well indeed. Will the hon. Gentleman please take those people from his numbers?
  Mr. Beith: I shall leave that to the judgment of the said Liberals when they vote at the next general election. I should be very surprised if they were to transfer their allegiance to the hon. Gentleman. All hon. Members seek to give the most effective representation to all their constituents, regardless of party. The fact remains that the end result of the general election wholly distorts the wishes and intentions of the voters and, because the Government have failed to change the system, they have failed to ensure that people will be any better represented as a result of the passing of the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): We are all anxious that all shades of opinion should be represented in this important debate, including the views of the minority parties. The debate has now lasted for three hours, and only eight hon. Members have had an opportunity to address the House. I make a plea for brevity.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I shall not follow directly in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) with regard to our system of voting in national elections. My hon. Friends know where I stand on that issue and I shall not add to the burdens of my hon. Friend the Minister by dwelling on it.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) is not in his place. He resorted to a position of principle in arguing against the Bill. I never thought to hear the right hon. Gentleman advocate modification of principle as a principle to follow, but that was the basis of his attack. It is nonsense to say that the significance of place, the principles of simultaneity or of the uniformity of the make-up of the electorate in each of our constituencies are points of principle that should inhibit the Government from pressing on with the Bill. Military men, diplomats, people working away from home, people with second homes, students, the very old and the infirm all drive a coach and horses through the argument of principle on which the right hon. Gentleman relied. This evening at least, my hon. Friend should not be deterred in any way by the right hon. Gentleman's arguments.
  I welcome the Bill. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have waited for it for a long time. I am delighted that the Government have now brought it forward. It is a sign of the continuing concern and
  800
  commitment of the Conservative party and Government to the proper operation of our constitutional system of parliamentary democracy.
  I do not share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) for the happy-time candidate or the very small party. A general election is a method of electing representatives. It is not a soap box on which anybody—however well founded his point of view or support may be—may make his noises. If a group has made sufficient headway between elections in gaining support for its cause, it will not flinch from the £1,000 deposit. That sum is affordable by any party with a reasonable base, particularly against the new threshold of 5 per cent. advocated in the Bill.
  In German elections, the 5 per cent. rule has become well established. Under the German additional member system, a party gets no additional members unless it achieves over 5 per cent. of the electorate. That is a much more important threshold.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a different matter.
  Mr. Rathbone: Very different — and much more important than the 5 per cent. threshold for losing one's deposit. However, I believe that the comparison is worth making.
  There is one point on which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to put my mind at rest. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend and the Home Office should consider whether there is a basis for reducing the increase—if that is thought necessary by the House—and building in, in addition to a lower increase, some form of signature support. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, a bus queue of signatures is not envisaged. I am thinking of registered names — probably registered names of those who support the candidate — being applied to the canditature in anticipation of a general election long before that election is called. I have in mind a year-by-year list of supporters.
  There is an alternative that might be considered. In Holland and Belgium, I believe, there is a national register of all parties. A fee is paid for registration, and thereafter all candidates for registered parties can stand without further cost. Perhaps we, too, could have a national register. There could be a substantial registration fee and nominal fees in the constituencies, or an insubstantial registration fee and larger fees in the constituencies. Either way, we would have some validation of all the parties with national support. That suggestion might be worth considering, if the Government have not already considered it.
  Like other hon. Members, I welcome unequivocally the extension of the franchise through the granting of votes to those who take their holidays at election time and the inclusion of British citizens registered overseas. With regard to the former group, many people feel that the advance in the Bill is long delayed. Somewhat unusually, the last election was timed to take place in a holiday period. That being so, I am sure that no hon. Member failed to bump into people who were frustrated because they were going on holiday between the time when one called and shook their hand and the time of the election.
  However, I question the value of the seven-year limitation. The Government seem to be adopting a somewhat picky attitude to a valuable step forward. We could look across the Channel and take a lead from our

  801
  French friends, who take a positive stance on democratic involvement. Hon Members might have studied what appertains in France. There are six ways in which a French man or woman who lives abroad can register back in France. Some are by reference to where they lived originally and some give them a completely open choice of any commune of more than 30,000 inhabitants. I believe that that encourages the French abroad to participate in what is going on in their country and to vote accordingly.
  It is also worth looking across the Atlantic and noting that the United States guarantees the constitutional right to vote of those who live outside the United States, subject only to two conditions: first, proper registration within that person's state of residence; and, secondly, that the person has a valid United States passport, national identity card or other national registration card. That is a timeless and basic threshold. I doubt the relevance of the time limit. As soon as some people leave these shores, they lose interest in what happens here, so seven years is too long. Other people, however, can spend almost a lifetime abroad and still be as interested in what happens here as when they left. Their interest might be for better or for worse. As has been said, an increasing number of governmental actions in different countries touch on the citizens of those countries, wherever they live. That is especially true in the European context.
  As to the postal vote, to which that matter is indubitably tied, the validation of the vote as suggested in the Bill is either too liberal or not worth it. If the signature must be validated in applying for a postal vote, should it not have the same seriousness of validation as, for example, an application for a passport which, though important, is nothing like as important as the means by which we use the democratic vote. If that is not thought necessary, we should do away with it altogether. I am not especially worried in regard to what has been said about that being an open door to the miscasting of votes.
  The delay in the application of the Bill to voting in Europe is, I hope, indicative of the Government's intent to adopt for the United Kingdom a system of voting for the European elections which is the same as that which will be used in other countries. I am glad about the Government's recommitment to a search for such a system. With that expectation in mind, I warmly welcome the Bill and wish it well.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's brevity.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Sean Hughes: I shall confine my remarks to the increasing of the deposit as, despite the Home Secretary's appearing to suggest that the Bill does not raise any serious difficulties, this is a serious issue. One of the aspects of modern politics that I find most disturbing is the growth of authoritarianism and the suggestion that there is no alternative theory of politics. That is dangerous and nonsense because clearly there are alternatives, irrespective of whether we like them. I therefore cannot agree that people should be prevented from testing support for their alternatives, however bizarre or eccentric they might be.
  The Government must accept that people are entitled to express what the Government might regard as a minority
  802
  view which is opposed to theirs. I hope that all of us, whatever our party affiliations, concede that point. That means that people who want to poke fun at us, those who want to say, "A plague on all your houses" and those who think, like De Gaulle, that politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians should be allowed to say what they think and to test support for it. The Home Secretary and the Minister said in the White Paper debate that elections are serious affairs. Of course they are. But I believe that an electoral system is weakened when it appears to be afraid of what major parties deem fringe, frivolous or joke candidates.
  The one argument that I must consider is that advanced by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who fear the peddling of obnoxious doctrines such as those propagated by the National Front. A civilised society has a right to protect its members from the offence and anguish caused by such groups, but surely the way to do that is rigorously to apply and, if necessary, strengthen such legislation as that relating to race relations.
  As we developed into a democracy, there was an understanding that we should avoid giving electoral advantage to those with wealth. That is the classic reason for introducing a maximum in election expenses in constituencies, even if national parties can get round it. A large election deposit clearly breaches that principle, even though it was introduced to regulate what are termed freak candidates. However, I have never understood where the oracle that defines that classification is.
  If I understood him correctly, the Home Secretary said that nobody argues that there should be no deposit if a candidate clearly has no support in a constituency. How can such support be demonstrated before polling day? It certainly cannot be demonstrated by possession of £1,000. I realise that the official administrative costs of elections have been transferred from the candidate to the State, that one free postal delivery to each elector and the free use of school meetings have been provided, but everyone knows that the use of public meetings and even the free postal delivery is as nothing compared with the use of television —and which of the many fringe candidates at the last general election were able to use television? The criteria on which the electoral rules have been formulated have broken down.
  In the White Paper debate, the Under-Secretary of State emphasised at column 1087 that parliamentary candidates have the right to send an election communication post-free at a possible cost to the public of £8,000. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to that. Of course candidates have such a right, but it is no more than theoretical for many. It is like my constituents right to send their sons to Eton or dine nightly at the Ritz. Most minority candidates cannot exercise that right for the simple reason that they have not the money to do so.
  The Minister also argued in the White Paper debate:
  "The reasoning that led to the introduction of the deposit in 1918 is as valid now as it was then."—[Official Report,27 June 1984; Vol. 62, c. 1087.]
  That deposit was £150. However, the Home Secretary told us that the 1918 deposit would be more than £2,300 today. If the Minister believes what he says, why has he not proposed a deposit of £2,300? If he argues that that figure is too high, why has he stopped at £1,000? Does he not realise that all but the very rich will be deterred by the sum

  803
  of £1,000? Does he accept what I said in the White Paper debate, that the £150 was snatched out of thin air in 1918? The premise was wrong in 1918 and it is wrong today.
  The Home Secretary has said that the figure chosen is bound to be arbitrary and a matter of judgment. He promised that he and the Minister would listen carefully to views expressed in the White Paper debate and that they would reflect on those views before preparing the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred to that promise of consultation. In the White Paper debate, the majority of right hon. and hon. Members, including Conservatives, Scottish Nationalists, Liberals, Labour and Plaid Cymru, opposed the increase in the deposit. No doubt the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary listened carefully, reflected upon it and then proceeded to do what they intended to do in the first place. Yet again today the Home Secretary has assured us that he will listen to what we have to say, but he should realise that we have no reason to have confidence in his words.
  The Under-Secretary of State, in his speech on the White Paper, made the astonishing comment that my contribution was a class-biased analysis. Nothing could be further from the truth. He missed the point that I referred to the original debates in 1918, hoping to demonstrate that the premise upon which the deposit was introduced was faulty. There have long been Members of this House who have spoken out against the introduction of financial barriers for those who might stand for election to this House.
  If my references to the 1918 debate failed to move the Under-Secretary, perhaps he will listen to an extract from the 1858 debate on the removal of the land qualification for Members of Parliament. The parallel is quite astonishing. Mr. Walpole argued that one of the reasons for that qualification was that
  "it would prevent speculative candidates coming forward and putting their opponents to unnecessary expense".
  He continued by saying that he believed that on the whole
  "much good would be gained by leaving elections perfectly free to those who might be willing to offer their services, and by allowing constituencies to choose such candidates as they might think best able to represent them in Parliament".
  Yet in the debate last summer the Home Secretary poured scorn, as he did again today, upon what he considered to be fringe candidates. Referring to recent by-elections, he declared that most of them had no serious interest in, or the remotest chance of, being elected to Parliament, which, after all, is what an election is about.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) adhered to that point of view. I ask the Government to consider the position of my hon. Friend who represents the northern part of my borough, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who at the last election got 64·5 per cent. of the vote, the Conservative candidate getting 20·17 and the alliance candidate getting 14·8. Did the Conservative or alliance candidates have a serious interest in or the remotest chance of winning in Knowsley, North? I wonder how many right hon. and hon. Members first fought seats before coming to this House in which they had no realistic chance of winning. Was that exercise frivolous, a freak or a joke? Or is it only frivolous , a freak or a joke when they do not belong to the major parties?
  Undoubtedly there are those who do not feel that political parties are putting forward what they believe to
  804
  be the overriding issue. While taking part in a political system they might have no realistic ambition to serve in Parliament. Their aim is to change the climate of political debate, to raise an issue that they feel is neglected or to test the strength of public feeling for what they believe to be a priority. I may not like attempts to make elections one-issue affairs, but I cannot share the anti-libertarian point of view which proclaims that they have no right to do it.
  I am reminded, as I bring my remarks to a close, of the public meeting addressed in the last century by John Morley. He asked his audience to vote for him the following day, only to hear somebody shout, "I'd sooner vote for the devil". Morley replied, "Quite, but if your friend declines to stand, will you consider voting for me?" It would not be for the want of £1,000 that the devil declined to stand. The problem is that there are a great number of decent people who cannot be classed as devils but who should have the right to stand. Perhaps the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary should borrow the slogan of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport: keep it low, or you might live to regret it.
  I believe this House is diminished if people are prevented from seeking election to it on the ground that they cannot get together £1,000 for the deposit. I believe that society has the right to order its electoral affairs, but a civilised society can surely find a basis on which this can be done other than the vulgar test of ability to pay. During the Third Reading debate in 1858 to which I referred, Sir George Lewis felt that
  "the real safeguard lay in the choice of the electors".
  I believe that that argument has stood the test of 126 years.
  7.54 pm
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Looking round the Chamber, I can see only one other person who was with me on the Select Committee that looked at this matter. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) shakes his head. We looked at this matter over more than one session and went into it in very great detail. There was a great deal of unanimity across the political floor about the report that was finally submitted to the Home Office.
  I wish warmly to welcome clause 1. The view expressed from the Labour Front Bench was rather snide, and it distressed me. The view was that if people choose to live abroad they must lose their vote, but people do not always choose to live abroad. Many of them have no choice. They go to work abroad and may be employed abroad for many years. Teachers are employed abroad on exchange contracts. Other people go to live abroad for health reasons. We must not forget that if pensioners go to live abroad for health reasons they already stand to lose the uprating of their pension.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) rightly says, so many people who live abroad —one comes across many of them when one travels—passionately care about what is going on in this country. It is not true to say that they have no further interest in this country. Many of them will return to live in this country after having worked abroad throughout their working lives. They have every right to want to be involved in the election of a Government which will choose by what laws they will live. I, too, like my hon. Friend, am not very happy about the seven-year rule. If the French Government can arrange for their citizens working abroad

  805
  to have a vote, why cannot we? It is very strange that if an EC official is working abroad for this country he will not be able to vote in this country and will be unable to vote in EC elections, either, as a British citizen. He will not have a vote in the country he lives in and he will not have a vote as a British subject. That seems to me to be wrong.
  Turning to clause 12, we considered for a very long time whether the deposit should be increased from £150. I felt sympathy tonight for the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) who was on the Committee and who then considered that it was right and proper that the deposit should be uprated. During the 19th century—
  Mr. Corbett: Would the hon. Lady allow me to speak for a moment on behalf of my hon. Friend?
  Mrs. Knight: No. The hon. Member was not on the Committee.
  Mr. Corbett rose—
  Mrs. Knight: Mr. Deputy Speaker, in deference to your remarks, I am trying to make a short speech. The hon. Gentleman was not on the Committee. This is a matter not of argument but of history.
  During the 19th century, all administrative costs were shared between the candidates. The deposit was introduced in 1918. I do not believe that very much was said then about depriving people of the right to stand at an election. It was acknowledged that a deposit was fair. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) that it was not a question only of selecting people who had money. That did not come into it. The point was that it was a safeguard against candidates who added to the cost and complexity of an election, with no serious prospects of gaining sufficient votes to win.
  If it was possible for people then to raise £150 to show their seriousness and if we were to ask for an equivalent amount today, we should be asking for well over £2,000. The Committee felt that this was quite wrong and that a fair and reasonable judgment of the amount would be £1,000. This would put up the deposit because, as everybody knows, £150 in 1918 was a very different matter from even £1,000 today. What makes any hon. Member think that we are less capable of raising the money to back what we believe in than our forefathers were in 1918?
  There has been a steady increase in the number of persons standing for election. Many hon. Members have fought, as I have, six candidates at a time. I am proud to say that I gave them all a jolly good beating. Hon. Members may well say that they should all come, and that it is curtailing democracy not to allow them to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West will read this debate and I am sure that he must acknowledge that many small parties have a small basis of interest. All hon. Members, whether Labour, Liberal or Conservative, have to represent all their constituents and all of their interests. An hon. Member may have 40 members of, say, the Ecology party in his constituency. Let 40 letters arrive on any hon. Member's desk and he will take a great deal of notice of what is said.
  During the debates in Committee I remember vividly hearing about a small builder who wanted the advertisement that standing for Parliament would give him. He would get £8,000 worth of publicity for £150.
  806
  That is a good bargain. That man took advantage of the free post that he was allowed and that free post asked people, not to vote for him, because he had no intention of standing for Parliament, but to vote that he was the best builder in the business and certainly the best in the district. People were asked to come and hear about him at his meeting in the town hall. That is another thing that candidates are allowed. They can have free use of a publicly funded hall when they fight an election. Anyone who seeks to use the electoral machinery to advance his business or pursuits has got it made. It is an extraordinarily good bargain for £150. I am not so worried about the right to veto broadcast transmissions, but there is no question but that that builder boosted his work by using the methods available.
  The Government are being a little over-generous in fixing the percentage of vote at one twentieth before a deposit is lost. Labour Members may not disagree. We heard some rather strange suggestions in the Select Committee. Sir Robin Day came along with a marvellous system of a sliding scale. He said that a candidate who polled less than 1 per cent. of the votes cast should forfeit his entire deposit, somebody with between 1 and 2 per cent. should forfeit a little less, and so on. We put that point to the officials and they were horrified at the number of recounts that there would have to be if money were involved with such tiny percentages. We did not think that that was a good scheme to adopt. I tremble to think of the number of recounts that would be necessary if that system were adopted.
  Some people have put forward the idea of a greatly increased number of signatures—between 100 and 500 — on nomination forms instead of increasing the deposits. At the moment we need only 10 names and addresses of people on the electoral register. One should consider how easy it is to get signatures by standing outside a supermarket. Anyone will sign almost anything that is put under his nose, particularly to get rid of the person who is asking for the signature. Each of those 100 or 500 names would have to be checked by the electoral returning officer. If only one was wrong, the nomination would be invalid. If there were no increase in the deposit, more and more people would stand at each election. We could have eight, nine or 10 candidates in a constituency. In one constituency 5,000 names might have to be checked, and that would take a long time.
  I am worried about some of the inaccuracies of electoral registers, particularly in the inner cities. Some places have multi-registration and there are piles of voting cards inside every hall. It is easy for personation to take place. In one ward alone some 800 names on the list had no right to be there. There was no check whatever on deaths. It is amazing that the electoral returning officer said that it was not possible to find out who had died. Surely everyone who has canvassed in an election must know how distressing it is to knock on someone's door to find out that a polling card has just been received for a husband who died six months earlier.
  Sometimes a death can have occurred three or four years earlier, yet the name is still on the electoral list. That is wrong. It should be possible for arrangements to be made to remove the names of those who have died from the list, particularly since the registrar of births and deaths usually works from the same place as the electoral returning officer. It was not even the deaths column in the papers that I thought the electoral returning officer should

  807
  look at, but the in memoriam column, because some people on the register had been dead for so many years, but still had the vote.
  I thought, as no doubt other hon. Members do, that it was filling up form A in October that gave one the vote. Not a bit of it. We discovered that the electoral returning officer would send someone to see Mrs. Jones of 15 High Street if she did not return her form. The officer would say that she had been there for years and must have forgotten to fill in the form. If Mrs. Jones had gone to Tesco or was dead nobody would know. The electoral returning officer would put her on the list, just in case. There should be some way in which the registering of names which should not be on the register is stopped. In particular, deaths should be checked. The Committee was worried that there seemed to be more concern about leaving people off the list who might have had a right to vote than about putting people on who had no right at all. There should be a clearer use of form A so that only those entitled to vote should be able to do so. I hope that the Government will consider that point.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I agree that there should have been a Speaker's Conference. The Scottish National party was not called to give evidence before the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the consultation that has taken place since publication of the White Paper had been derisory. Opportunities to deal with some of the matters which now distinguish the contesting of elections have been lost. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) touched upon that.
  Under the Representation of the People Acts restrictions are laid down, first, on deposits, which is touched on by the Bill, and, secondly, on candidates' expenses. As practical politicians, we all know that there has been a switch in campaigning techniques and that what matters is the amount of money disbursed on behalf of candidates collectively at central or national offices in support of an advertising or election campaign and access to the television and other media. The Bill does not attempt to deal with such vital areas.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) referred to the problem of multi-registration. She may remember, although she may care to forget, that at the time of the Scotland Act 1978 and the proposals for the 40 per cent. on the referendum, many of us brought up that very point.
  Fair television coverage is probably more important to the smaller parties than to the larger parties which, naturally, have a substantial share. Those who represent parties that operate outside England — and I say that specifically — are not permitted access to the United Kingdom media during election campaigns. Yet the news and documentary programmes are transmitted in Scotland and Wales as though the reports on the election were entirely English. We obtain a share of the television and radio programmes in our home countries, but we are not given additional coverage to compensate for the lack of United Kingdom coverage. The Home Office should have included a provision to adjust the arrangements to provide a fair expression of opinion. I am highly critical of the Home Office for not doing so.
  808
  Like the Liberals, in a better year than 1983 we would not expect to be affected by substantial deposit losses. However, I accept that we suffered considerably in 1983. I had warned the Liberals about counting how many deposits they were likely to save, although we did exactly that in 1974 and had to eat our words at a later stage. A matter of principle is involved. The democratic process should be open to all.
  The problem with fringe candidates has arisen largely from by-elections, especially those which have been the subject of considerable media coverage. Some candidates stand purely for notoriety.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the real problem for all opposition parties was the accumulation of funds that must be locked in during a campaign. The Scottish National party would have to find £72,000 — money that could be better deployed during a campaign. Candidates have to put up a substantial amount of money. If someone is serious about fighting an election, that is only a small proportion of the liquid funds required for the production of leaflets, posters, and so on.
  The Home Office may not think it a serious matter. Compared with other parties, the Conservative party is exceptionally well funded. It obtains money from various sources as well as its own members. It receives substantial donations from industry—something that is not available to parties such the SNP. It has been rumoured —although it is probably a huge exaggeration — that Conservative central office spent about £15 million, which is about £20,000 per candidate. There is a general limitation of £4,000 to £5,000 per candidate, dependent upon whether a candidate is a borough or county candidate and taking into account the size of the electorate in the area. Financing elections is a serious matter. Most other countries provide funds. That is now happening in the European elections. Either the House must set a restriction on the amount of money available for central expenditure or it must provide cash for the political parties to extend the democratic process. Other countries have had to make that choice, but it is avoided in the Bill.
  The Bill provides for forms to be published in different languages. Specific provision is made for the Welsh language. My right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has drawn my attention to the fact that there is no provision for Gaelic. Those who speak Gaelic should have ballot papers in their language. If provision is made for the Welsh language, it is fair to make similar provision for the Gaelic language. We hope to table an amendment to that effect in Committee. I am raising the matter now to give the Minister time to consider it.
  I find the whole process extremely disappointing. There has been insufficient consultation, the Government have been unilateral about the measure and there has been no willingness to consider the impact of the legislation on others. I suspect that the intention to extend the franchise has been calculated to ensure that the Conservative party does better from it than other political parties. Indeed, it is better organised to do that. It is reprehensible that the Government should seek to extend the franchise to those who do not pay the rates of taxation usually paid by most of us.
  I hope that the House and the Government learn from the debate and that when we return to review the law

  809
  relating to elections we will do so by means of a Speaker's Conference in which all political viewpoints can be represented on an equitable basis.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I give a general welcome to the Bill. Some parts of it are important and welcome, especially that relating to votes for holidaymakers. That is a long overdue reform that will eliminate the previous glaring injustice. As I am conscious of the need for brevity, I shall not dwell on that point.
  The most contentious part of the Bill is the proposal to raise the deposit to £1,000. I am sure that we all begin from the premise that important principles of democracy are involved—being able to stand as a candidate and being able to vote for one's choice of candidate. It is vital that there is a proper framework of rules in the interests of all involved in the democratic process. At the same time, it is necessary to be aware of possible detractions to the electoral process, to the campaigns of serious candidates and to the involvement of those electors choosing between serious candidates, by the interventions of those who may not necessarily be serious candidates.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) kindly allowed me to intervene in his speech when he referred to the increased number of signatures and the checking procedures. In theory, there is much to be said for the alternative of a greater number of signatures on a nomination paper. However, I can envisage some practical difficulties. There is the difficulty of obtaining a large number of signatures—100, 300, 500 or whatever the figure. That might be a physical impossibility, especially for candidates who have only single figure support. How on earth could such candidates achieve that number of signatures, which would involve serious intent by those signing? That problem might be more insuperable than finding a given sum of money. Returning officers have to scrutinise nomination forms, and one signature might not be exactly the same as that on the electoral roll and this would invalidate the whole form. I expect considerable trouble from that.
  Following a local election in Caerleon, adjoining my constituency, there was a prosecution of a student who had organised a bogus candidate and a bogus campaign, including bogus signatures on the nomination paper. That came to light only because neither the candidate nor his supporters turned up at the count. Indeed, they had not been seen during the campaign. That does not fit the criterion which, in other circumstances, was fairly described by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, of seeing the names published on the notice poll. Those names were published, but not challenged, and the problem came to light only during the count.
  Much has been made of the responsibilities that devolve upon candidates. At this stage I do not think that it is necessary again to talk about free postage, the free use of public buildings and all the other facilities that were so well covered by previous speakers. However, I should like to touch on a small aspect of the matter—advertising, even commercial advertising, which has gone on and could still go on with the deposit at its present level of £150. It is a small investment to secure £8,000 of postage advantage for advertising purposes. I have seen candidatures for advertising purposes at local elections in Cardiff and we have all seen it happen in parliamentary elections. It could happen with people who want to set
  810
  themselves up as candidates, whether it is the builder mentioned earlier who does not want to use another form of advertising, or other categories of person who are not allowed to use forms of advertising.
  There is a considerable area of potential abuse that we cannot ignore in regard to persons who have no genuine political motivation offering themselves as candidates, who would be horrified if they were actually elected That is to say, they would be horrified if they had an idea of how to do or wanted to see done properly the job of an elected representative. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has proposed a compromise figure that is not prohibitively expensive. On balance, it is the right figure, and we should accept it.
  A part of the Bill that has not been touched on much today is clauses 14 to 16, which deal with what elections may or may not be held on the same day. I thought that I might quote several local examples to develop the arguments but, in the interests of being brief, I merely say that considerable consideration must be given in Committee to these clauses and to exactly what elections may or may not be held on the same day because of the confusion that there might be for at least part of the electorate.
  Is democracy served by having a general election on the same day as any other election? I include even the elections for the European Assembly, although they are on a fixed date. If we move the date of local elections, they would all be treated in the same way. Would it matter if the elections for the European Assembly were on a different date from that used by the Europeans? It is doubtful whether there is a great community of interests affecting British voters voting for the European Assembly, nor is there any great enthusiasm for the elections. However, I give full credit to the media for this. Every news bulletin before the election in June 1984 had a lead story predicting that we would stay top of the apathy polls, and thus the media helped to achieve the actual turnout figures. Possibly it would be appropriate to go back to the previous system of direct nomination.
  The polling day arrangements referred to in clauses 14 to 16 require careful consideration in Committee but, in general, I look forward to the completion of proceedings on the Bill and its becoming law.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members are pleased that the Committee stage of the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House so that we can develop the arguments about the clauses. Thus, we shall not waste time talking about detail on Second Reading.
  As the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House, there will be an opportunity for all parties to be represented, so minority parties will be able to give their points of view on the clauses. I should like to stress that, because hon. Members can see that the Benches alongside me are void of members of the alliance. Worse still, the debate has been going on for just two minutes short of four hours, and not one Member representing the Social Democratic party has spoken. When they are in the Chamber, we shall have to remind members of that new party of new-found principles on elections to be here for the Committee stage.
  I should like to thank the Government for getting rid of the anomaly whereby people on holiday cannot vote at

  811
  elections. Many people in my constituency and in the Labour party will welcome a change that widens the franchise. There was also a silly anomaly about postal voting in parish elections. It was difficult to explain the situation to people when one visited them in their homes to discuss the election.
  There is also a clause relating to people living, as opposed to working, abroad being able to vote in a general election, although they have been abroad for six years. I have grave doubts about the intentions of the clause. I am sure that many hon. Members will want to debate it further in Committee. The Home Secretary said that people who go abroad might want to retain the link between themselves and their constituencies. However, a sizeable majority of those who live abroad might like to retain the link between dodging taxes and political parties that allow them to dodge taxes. I understand that people who are working abroad on things such as foreign aid projects, or even for the British Council, in different parts of the world might benefit by the clause, but many who do not want to pay rates or income tax in this country will also benefit. Some people do not live in this country and are not affected by Government fiscal policies.
  I should like to refer to the raising of the deposit from £150 to £1,000. When I was a candidate I had to borrow £150 because my political party did not have it, due to boundary changes, and I did not have it because I was a working miner. There is a great danger that the raising of the deposit to £1,000 will benefit only those who are better off than others. That is not my only objection to the raising of the deposit. Many people who are deemed to be joke, freak or crank candidates will be prevented from standing for Parliament. At a general election, that is not a major problem anyway. It is not true that the raising of the deposit will get rid of such people.
  At the general election, a candidate in Finchley, which is the Prime Minister's constituency, stood for law and order. He got 37 votes, which was 0·1 per cent. of the total vote. Someone standing against the Prime Minister on the question of law and order has every right to do so and to be taken seriously. At the 1979 general election, when the right hon. Lady was Leader of the Opposition, and at the 1983 general election, when she was Prime Minister, she promised that there would be a reduction in crime, but now we see that crime on our streets is increasing daily. Thus, people have every right at elections to stand on such issues.
  The increase to £1,000 would also prejudice those who wish to stand in by-elections. In the recent by-election in Stafford a Mr. C. Teasdale stood as the candidate "soon to be unemployed". He recorded only 210 votes, but I suspect that many more than 210 people have been made unemployed in Stafford since the by-election. A candidate who wished to stand under the banner "soon to be unemployed" should be allowed to do so. In the Chesterfield by-election, a Mr. D. Cahill stood as the candidate for reclassifying some newspapers as comics. That was a worthy platform. Had I not been a member of the Labour party, I should have been sorely tempted to stand on such a platform. At the same by-election a Mr. J. Davey stood for no dental charge increases. If one considers the increase in NHS prescription charges and dental charges since 1979, that person could not be described as a crank.
  812
  We should give such people the right to stand for election. Democracy is not just a matter of voting—it is about the right to stand up and be heard. It is about the right to stand for election if one believes strongly in an issue. The increase from £150 to £1,000 will deny democratic rights to many people. If Bill Boakes and Screaming Lord Sutch wish to stand for Parliament, they have every right to do so. Having sat in the House for the past 18 months looking at Conservative Members, I can only say that it is a great pity that some of those other candidates did not win.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. William Powell: On 9 June last year the votes of 77·5 per cent. of the registered electors in the parliamentary constituency of Corby were counted. In some constituencies the turnover was higher, but Corby was in the top bracket of turnouts during that election. However, although relatively high, the turnout was not high. We must ask ourselves why the turnout in a British election is lower than that in elections in most other countries.
  There are three artificial barriers to voting in this country, which the Bill should try to correct. There has been wide agreement during the debate that the Bill will provide a major improvement in the law by allowing those on holiday to vote. There is no doubt that in almost every constituency the turnout would increase by at least 2 or 3 per cent. if those people were allowed to vote.
  The second barrier is the fact that the register is endemically inaccurate. I regret the fact that too little provision is made in the Bill to improve the position. The criticisms made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and other hon. Members are extremely important. It is wrong in principle that we cannot correct the register during its lifetime.
  The third major reason for our low turnouts is related to the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell). He referred to the desirability of simultaneity—the fact that votes should be cast on the same day between the same hours, not over a prolonged period. The way to meet his objections is to enable the register to be updated constantly. We live in a country where the population is so mobile that within a short time of the creation of the register in September it becomes inaccurate. By June last year, when the register was nine months old, thousands of people had moved to other constituencies. Many of them had moved considerable distances, and it became extremely inconvenient for them to cast their votes in the constituencies where they were registered.
  There are two ways of dealing with that. One is to allow more voting by post, and in so far as the Bill allows that to happen, I do not criticise it. However, a better way, which I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to examine even more closely than he has already studied the problem, would be to institute a rolling register that could be brought up to date constantly. If that were introduced, people would not have the inconvenience of having to travel hundreds of miles because they have failed to register in time for a postal vote. If a rolling register could be organised—I see no reason in principle why it should not, and would be sceptical of those who produce technical objections to it—it would solve the problems mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Down.

  813
  I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully all that has been said about the deposit by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall not support any suggestion that it be raised to £1,000. I regret the fact that an artificial hare has been introduced into the debate by way of the suggestion about collecting signatures, as though those who object to a £1,000 deposit were under any obligation to produce an alternative means. The mischief caused by superfluous candidates is too minor for the action that is prognosticated in the Bill, and I shall be unable to support it in due course.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will consider more closely what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said about multiple registrations. It must be wrong in principle to allow people to register in more than one place. If my hon. Friend says, as I am sure he will, that they pay rates in both places, my short answer would be to let a person pay rates in only one place. Although such objections may be superficially attractive, they do not undermine the fundamental principle, which is that the ballot should be cast once only. The best way to ensure that is to allow people to register in only one place.
  I welcome the fact that the franchise will be extended to those who reside abroad. I hope that in due course my right hon. and learned Friend will reconsider the seven-year restriction, which is entirely artificial. We need a declaration that the franchise is open to all British subjects, wherever they are—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Indefinitely?
  Mr. Powell: Yes. I look forward to debating the Bill more fully in Committee. It is a good Bill, but it could have gone much further, and I hope that we can amend it and make it better.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: What we have heard in the past four and half hours or so is evidence enough that this subject should have been considered by a Speaker's Conference and not dealt with by a Select Committee. This is the first experiment of a Select Committee dealing with such a serious and fundamental subject for Parliament and I am afraid that it is not a success. My party tried to give oral evidence to that Committee, but was unable to do so, and I am glad that even at this late stage I am able to put our case. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the various representations that have been made from their own side as well as from Opposition Benches expressing misgivings about various aspects of the Bill.
  Even at this stage, will not the Government consider whether they really wish to go ahead with the Bill when instead we should be having a major look, through a Speaker's Conference, at the whole problem of our electoral procedure? Since the war, there have been massive changes in technology, which should be taken into account by a Speaker's Conference. Other changes have brought in the mass media as they are now. There are the activities of the opinion polls, which can have a great effect. All these changes should be seriously considered, and that is a job for a Speaker's Conference, and not for a Select Committee.
  Much attention has been focused on the £1,000 deposit. I have an interest to declare in this, because my party loses
  814
  far too many deposits. Although the threshold at which the deposits will be kept is to come down to 5 per cent. of the vote—I am glad that the Government did not accept the Select Committee's recommendation of 7·5 per cent.—the £1,000 deposit will be a barrier to my Plaid Cymru fighting all the seats in Wales. There should not be a financial barrier such as this. It is a sort of means test and means tests should not have a part to play in our process of democracy.
  Conservative Members have said that candidates add to the cost of election, but so will overseas registration. I cannot see the justification for the £1,000 deposit. The other argument that was put was that since £150 was accepted in 1918, it should be more by now, but that presupposes that £150 was right in 1918. After all, 1918 was a very different time to that in which we live now. We should not be taking the principle accepted then as necessarily being applicable now.
  Some hon. Members have referred to the possibility of having a list of supporters, rather than assenters for nomination. If we moved to having, say, 100 people who were willing to designate themselves as supporters, that could be considered as the use of their vote in the election. That would sort things out niftily. It would make sure that those who were assenting really, were willing for that candidate to stand. It would also make sure that those who were standing had to look for people who positively wanted them to stand.
  However, why should not people stand in an election, even if it is on only one issue? If they feel that strongly about an issue, they have the right to put their point of view to the electorate. If, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, there have been instances when Joe Knight, plumber, has advertised his business in electoral literature, there must be other ways to control such practices. Already, the Post Office is most careful about what it is willing to send through the free post.
  In any case, the fringe candidates are not the candidates who make massive use of the free post. Often, they do not have the money to print the leaflets or the hands to put the leaflets into envelopes and write the envelopes. It will be difficult for Plaid Cymru with the £1,000 deposit, but other smaller parties, such as the Ecology party, will be even harder hit. The Ecology party has a valid point of view to put forward. At the moment, it may be a minority party but its appeal may grow.
  When my party first fought an election in my constituency, we had only 600 votes. That was a deposit well lost but we now have over 52 per cent. of the voles. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas), we lost our deposit in 1966, and won the seat in 1974. Parties can grow from small bases and we should not be in the business of taking a steamroller to crack small nuts in case they grow up into big oak trees that may threaten the Government. I hope that the Minister will think about this. These may be small nuts, but none the less they have a role to play in our elections.
  I appeal to the Government to reconsider the £1,000 deposit. It may be that, when they consider what has been said tonight, they will feel that it is appropriate not to press on with the increase to £1,000. I hope that they will decide, even if they do not keep the deposit at £150, to raise it to a somewhat lower level than £1,000 as this will allow more candidates to stand.

  815
  In another debate, I have already described the iniquities that can arise from the abuse of the postal vote system. I welcome postal votes being available to those who, through no fault of their own, are away when an election is called, particularly as we have no set dates for elections and people cannot be expected to read the tea leaves. Nevertheless, there are shortcomings and possible abuses. I see nothing in the Bill that tries to solve those shortcomings.
  One of the shortcomings which has already been spoken about is second homes. I support the comments made by the hon. Members for Corby (Mr. Powell) and for Edgbaston. We need much more accurate registers, because that is the basis of the election. One of the inaccuracies that we should get rid of is the second home vote, which in some constituencies, such as Anglesey, has caused considerable contention. Some have suggested that it may even have affected the result. I do not think that it has done so but it is still a possibility, and we should be doing away with it now. If there is to be a postal vote, it could be used to enable the elector to vote in the constituency in which he is registered.
  I share the grave misgivings about extending the vote to overseas residents, that have been expressed by many hon. Members. However, if we are to extend the vote to such people, the right to vote should not last for seven years but for a shorter time. As this is representation without taxation, should not such overseas residents pay a fee, as we are concerned about the cost of elections? They could pay a substantial fee of £1,000 as a contribution to the costs, as many of them could afford to pay such sums.
  The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and myself refers to election expenses. Since the war, there has been a massive change in the impact of centralised propaganda, through radio and television, as opposed to constituency propaganda. We limit the amount of expenditure in a constituency to £4,000 or £5,000, but we allow what is the equivalent of £20,000 a constituency on central expenditure, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said earlier. Surely this is making a mockery of the system of controlled expenditure. We should be looking at this problem, but we are not.
  I move on to Welsh forms. The provisions in clause 21 will take out section 199 of the principal Act. Will the Minister assure me that all the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1967 which will apply to this Act will reinstate all these provisions?
  There are other points that I hope will be made in Commitee. There is the question of opinion polls during elections and of the results being announced in a way that influences the outcome. There is also the question of how spoilt papers are dealt with. The Government's response to the Select Committee on that, on page 24, is quite inadequate. I am sure that there are ways of overcoming that problem. There are also issues concerning the rights of parties to check voters as they go in to the polling station. The usage of such rights varies considerably from area to area, and there should be some guidelines for that. There is also the problem of access to booths for disabled people who want to vote themselves, but who cannot get up or down stairs.
  816
  We should examine many such issues, but they are rightly matters for Committee. The main principles under consideration concern the right of people to stand for election. The House should ensure tonight that we do not in any way fetter it.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I welcome the Bill, because it will give many more people the right to vote. Indeed, that is one of the most encouraging aspects of the Bill, as the right to vote is one of our last democratic rights.
  I welcome the extension of the franchise, particularly to those living abroad. It is right, however, that they should not have the vote after seven years. Indeed, I had hoped that the period might be shorter than seven years. But seven years should be the maximum.
  However, it is unfair that those working abroad are at present unable to vote, particularly if they have a home in Britain. If they pay their rates, why on earth should they not have the right to vote?
  Incidentally, the Eurocrats should have had the vote before—they will now obviously have it—as they are working abroad.
  I am unhappy that Irish citizens should still have the vote here when we are still waiting to have the vote in Ireland. However, I know that we shall obtain it. There must be some sort of fair system between the countries.
  It will now be easier for absentee voters to vote, but of course people should not be able to vote on demand. I very much agree with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) that there should be no automatic right. The person involved must justify the need for his vote, and it will obviously involve his employment. I am particularly concerned about the meaning of "indefinite period". I think that there should be an annual renewal. Obviously service men should not have to apply each year and should get the vote as of right. But for others there should be this annual review.
  The basic criterion is that anyone eligible for a postal vote must, under clause 7(3)(a),
  "prove that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted…to him".
  Therefore, it is of great concern to me that the special list kept by the electoral registration officer should be up to date and properly checked. The address must be checked, and I believe that after a certain time that person's right to vote should be automatically extinguished.
  In June 1983, a few weeks after I was elected to the House, I tabled an early-day motion calling for the right to vote to be extended to all holidaymakers. In conjunction with the Leicester Mercury, a major campaign was launched. We must not now lose that franchise. That is why the Bill is welcome. Up to 2 million people will benefit from extending the vote to holidaymakers, and that could affect many seats. In June 1981, there were 1,337,000 United Kingdom holidaymakers and they may now be entitled to the vote. If the election had been held in October 1981, the figure would have been 513,000 United Kingdom holidaymakers. Therefore, those people will now need to apply well in time, giving the address to which the ballot paper is to be sent.
  Indeed, I was reassured to discover that those going abroad will have to pay for the expense of sending their completed ballot papers back to the United Kingdom. As we all know, the application must be furnished 11 days

  817
  before the poll. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said, under the Bill it would seem rather easy to obtain that vote. I am concerned about that, and I should like to see counter-signatures introduced as quickly as possible, so that there cannot be any electoral abuse. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will make it clear that the fine for abusing the system is £2,000, and I hope that the word will be spread, so that people realise that they cannot take advantage of the system.
  Some people have spoken about multiple registration, and the risk of taking advantage of that system. When I was at university in London, I had two votes. I had a vote in the constituency of St. Marylebone and a vote in Dorking, where my parents lived. I was on the electoral rolls for both constituencies becaused I lived in the student hall of residence in one constituency and at my parents' home in the other. It is not particularly easy to vote twice—not that I would wish or try to. Nevertheless, it is a sad fact that at present there is no such thing as a secret ballot. If the electoral registration officer so wishes, he can look at the form and see a number that relates directly to my name on the electoral roll. Although I want to see genuine ballot papers, it is unfortunate that the ballot is not truly secret. But perhaps we can develop that futher in Committee.
  Many people are offered proxy votes. As before, the proxy vote will be available, but those using it cannot be told how to vote. They know only that they may vote on behalf of the person away.
  I am glad to say that in Leicester, East the machines marking the ballot papers were found to be faulty and were taken away in time. However, in Leicester, South the machines were not taken away and many votes had to be declared invalid.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned polling hours, including, in particular, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I was not convinced by his argument that the booths should stay open for that extra hour. I should be interested to know how many people vote before 8 am. I imagine that many vote then, but the elderly, in particular, do not enjoy going out to vote between 9 pm and 10 pm on a dark October night.
  It is a matter of great regret that the Bill does not deal with personation. In Leicester, East I have evidence that personation occurred. I am afraid that there was a motto among some of the ethnic community, "Vote early, vote often." That worries me. However, personation can be avoided by ensuring that polling stations are properly policed. In Leicester, I hope that the police will be on duty throughout the day at each polling station and will not just move around on a rota. Thus, I regret that there is no provision about personation.
  At the general election, in Leicester, East the turnout in some areas was as high as 80 per cent., and it was more than 65 per cent. in the city council elections in May 1983. I believe, therefore, that we need identification cards and other similar provisions to ensure that the right people vote and can prove who they are. I very much hope that polling cards will be properly checked and not collected, as they are in certain multi-occupied flats, and then used as some form of identification.
  I also regret that the franchise is not extended to business voters. I believe that in 1959, or later, those who paid substantial rates had the right to vote, and I should like to see that right extended again today.
  818
  I accept that we do not want frivolous candidates, but some candidates are good independents with a true message. We should increase the number of assenters supporting such candidates so that they can prove their worth. The figure could be as high as 250 to 500. If so many people were assenters, a true message would come through. This is not a survival or self-interest plea on my behalf. The Indian Workers Association candidate in Leicester, East, Mr. Ratilal Ganatra, obtained 970 votes and my majority was 933. He received more than 500 votes. His 500 assenters would have supported him; otherwise they would not have signed the form. I cannot accept that people sign anything just because it is put in front of them.
  I warn the House that even if the deposit were £1,000, it would not deter certain public relations companies from putting forward a candidate. I shall not name anyone, but we might remember the Warrington by-election and a drink called vodka. Such a candidate could still stand.
  I recommend that the electoral deposit be about £250 and that no more than 500 assenters be required. We should do away with the other criteria. If we establish a fairer franchise, more people will take part, we shall have a fairer system and the democratic process will be respected.
  9 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an exceptionally serious point when he laid down three criteria. The first was the right of any citizen over voting age to stand for election. It is offensive for this House, individually or collectively, to say that in certain circumstances we shall so arrange matters that some citizens of these islands will be prevented from standing for election to Parliament. The whole idea of parliamentary elections is that that judgment belongs to the electors individually and to the electorate collectively. Without that freedom our parliamentary democracy is diminished. If we restrict the right to stand as the Bill proposes, we risk more people saying, "In that event I shall not bother to vote."
  One of the gravest criticisms of the United States of America is that, although 90 million people voted in the recent presidential election, about 83 million people did not because they were not registered. About half of the citizens of the United States who were otherwise eligible to vote could not be bothered, for all sorts of reasons, to have their names put on the electoral register.
  I take exception to being lectured by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales and Northern Ireland about who can and who cannot be candidates. Recently the association poked its nose into political affairs. In written evidence on 18 February 1980 to the Home Affairs Committee on the law relating to public order which sat in the 1979–80 Session the association had the effrontery to say:
  "The Association has no doubt that there is need to consider a more realistic level of deposit for Parliamentary Elections which would have the effect of considerably reducing the field of candidates, many of whom would appear to be contesting seats unjustifiably."
  That has nothing to do with any police officer in this land either before a Select Committee or anywhere else. The police officers can demonstrate their feelings when they go into the polling station and use their vote. We do not need to hear from them about what we should do.

  819
  The deposit of £1,000 is far too high. Whatever the Government say, it is a test of whether a person can raise the cash. Some people will find it easier than others to get their fists around £1,000. That is no way to decide who can stand for Parliament and who cannot.
  A better proposition, to which reference has already been made, is to beef up the number of assenters required. The report of the Home Affairs Committee, in paragraph 75, got it wrong and to some extent misled the Government. It said:
  "An elector might quite casually agree to give his signature in these circumstances not because he intended to vote for the candidate but merely in the belief that he ought to be allowed to stand."
  That is no proper judgment for that Select Committee to make. How dare anybody even suggest that electors are so casual and careless that they will sign anything merely to get people off the doorstep. Electors are not that casual about parliamentary elections.
  There is no argument about holidaymakers having votes, but there is a difference between those who have demonstrated that they have gone abroad to live and those who have shown that they have gone abroad to work. Nationals of many other countries who go abroad on holiday receive their ballot papers and are able properly to place them in ballot boxes in embassies or high commissions in various countries. Why cannot we use that system? Most British holidaymakers go to Spain, which is not a million miles away. Individuals who are sufficiently concerned to seek a vote when on holiday would be prepared to avail themselves of the opportunity to vote at embassies or high commissions. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said, the Bill is fundamental. It snaps at the very heels of our democracy. It challenges the essential freedom of the individual. Even the Home Secretary dismissed the possibility that Members might be capable of free thinking. Such is his respect, or lack of it, for the freedoms which we hold precious. He described the differences between my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as fundamental. My hon. Friend and right hon. Friend merely demonstrated the free-thinking abilities of hon. Members, especially those who have the honour to serve on Select Committees.
  I express my support for the arrangements which are being made for holidaymakers. However, I must express opposition to the principle that those who reside abroad should have the right to vote for seven years. It seems that many of those who are leaving our shores in present conditions are doing so with the intention of staying away. They sometimes talk about leaving a sinking ship as if they are trying to avoid facing the problems that confront us all in our modern society in modern Britain. If they feel that they can opt out, surely we have the right to remove from them the right to vote. I hope that there will be some new thinking on this matter when the Bill is considered in Committee.
  The arrangements that are proposed for deposits are an attack on our democracy. Individuals who represent
  820
  minority parties and minority lobbies will lose the right to stand as candidates. The Bill will prevent many Ecology party candidates from standing throughout the United Kingdom. There may not be much sympathy on the Government Benches for the Ecology party, but that party, which represents the Green movement in British politics, is a growing one. Although it may put a candidate against a Labour candidate, the very presence of Ecology Green candidates in constituencies throughout the United Kingdom has an influence on thinking generally on the libertarian left of British politics.
  The Ecology party candidates influence the way in which we develop political strategies at party conferences. The greater the vote that the Ecology party attracts and the greater the vote that Green candidates attract, the more likely it is that they will have an effect on the politics of institutional parties. That is all being put at risk.
  The Green movement in Germany,—admittedly, it used a form of proportional representation—was able to attract to itself a substantial part of the vote. In doing so it had a direct influence on the development of social democratic environment policies in Germany. That is a healthy development. I might not go as far as supporting proportional representation, but we should ensure that wherever possible minority parties have the opportunity to stand, if only to influence our deliberations.
  I believe that the 500 signatures principle is acceptable. If the Home Secretary is confused about the bureaucratic problems that might arise in town halls because of the need to check names, why not charge £20 or £30 for the privilege of having one's nomination form checked? There is a great deal of difference between £30 lost and £1,000 lent which one cannot afford to borrow. Charging for checking would be a far more acceptable principle.
  The Bill proposes that the time of closing polls should be moved from 10 pm to 9 pm. The Home Secretary said that that was a necessary move, although he dismissed the value of the 1,300,000 people who might be affected by that decision. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not recognise the fact that many people in the industrial north and other industrial areas vote before they go on shift at 10 pm. They will have to rearrange their day to enable them to vote earlier. That may well disturb their sleeping patterns. An unnecessary pressure is being exerted on them.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which extends the right to vote to people who have chosen to live abroad and have no more than a tenuous connection with a United Kingdom constituency, while limiting the opportunity to vote of people permanently resident in the United Kingdom."
  As every hon. Member who has participated in this debate has said, this is an important and constitutional Bill. Its centrality to our democratic process has been clearly evidenced by the wide range of issues raised in the debate and by many of the speeches which had a philosophical bent and clearly addressed themselves to important matters of principle. It is therefore essential, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, that the Bill and its provisions should have the widest agreement.
  The Government would like it to be thought that that is the case, and they have attempted to present themselves

  821
  in the guise of guarantor of civil liberties, the protector of the electoral system and the advocate of democratic rights and representative government. According to the Home Secretary's speech, the Government want to be seen to be impartial, disinterested and, in effect, honest brokers. That is not the case, and the Home Secretary seemed to be aware that he was flying under false colours. That is probably the explanation for his shallow and shabby speech in support of Second Reading. The right hon. and learned Gentleman smiles rather cynically and benignly, but to give no more than a simple recitation of the explanation of the clauses of this important Bill was a shabby performance. Such a performance has probably never been given in this House by any other Home Secretary of any party.
  The Government are not impartial, disinterested and honest brokers. The Tory Government have failed adequately to consult all the other parties represented in the House. Important matters in this Bill should have the widest possible measure of agreement and should be the product of all-party consensus. Instead, at the behest of the Tory party the provisions are foisted on the House, the political parties and the country. That will mean, as I am sure the Home Secretary has already realised, a long, difficult and hotly contested discussion in Committee. The fact that that stage will be taken on the Floor of the House will make for even longer, more contentious and more difficult proceedings. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will give the guarantee sought by all Opposition parties that such a constitutional measure will not be guillotined.
  It is not surprising that the Tory party should have taken this attitute, because we are talking about an antidemocratic Government. That has been clearly demonstrated by the Government's policies and actions during the last 18 months, and the previous five years. We cannot accept the Government's protestations of sincerity and impartiality when they have been responsible for the greatest assault on democratic principles and practices and the greatest erosion of our civil liberties for decades. That is certainly true of the Government's attacks on local authorities and trade unions and the increasing powers they have given to the police.
  The Government's anti-democratic institutions and sentiments are clearly illustrated by their proposal to increase the deposit at parliamentary elections sevenfold to £1,000. Why is it necessary? Why do it? We had the arguments adduced in June and today by the Home Secretary. First, he said that many candidates do not belong to any of the major political parties. So what? It is not yet a crime not to belong to a political party. Political parties do not have—although some of us may wish to believe that they do—a monopoly of political wisdom and they should not have the monopoly of access to the political system.
  The Home Secretary then announced that many of the so-called fringe candidates are not, in any event, serious. That is for the electorate to judge, not for the Home Secretary. It is not for him to determine the seriousness or otherwise of individual candidates. Many of those candidates who are clearly fringe candidates and who do not gain many votes are, nevertheless, extremely serious in their motivation, their objectives and the message that they are putting before the electorate. Moreover, many of the most serious, dedicated and determined parliamentary candidates representing the so-called fringe parties are
  822
  accidentally poor. That is true of those who in previous years stood in favour of votes for women, and as independents for the abolition of capital punishment, and of those who stood in recent general elections for the Welsh and Scottish Nationalist parties and the Ecology party.
  The Welsh Nationalist party lost 24 deposits at the last general election, which cost it £4,800. Under the Government's proposals, it would have still lost all 24 deposits even with the lower 5 per cent. threshold but that would have cost it £24,000. The Ecology party fared even worse. All its 63 candidates lost their deposits. It cost the party £9,450 at the last general election. Not one of those candidates attained the 5 per cent. threshold that will be necessary to retain the £1,000 deposit. If these proposals were in effect, they would cost it £63,000.
  The proposals will be a major inhibiting factor for independents and small parties. There is no evidence that the frivolous candidates are poor and the serious candidates are rich. Many of the richest candidates are the most frivolous and the most offensive. They will not be deterred by the proposal of a £1,000 deposit.
  The Home Secretary then came forward with the argument that, in any event, the fringe candidates have no chance of being elected. That may well be the case, but how does he know? Is that, in itself, a good reason for deterring them from standing? That is what he said today and in June.
  It is no good reason to deter candidates from standing, because, irrespective of their other merits, they have no chance of being elected. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and other hon. Members have said, if that were to be the criterion it would apply to many Tory candidates in many constituencies, not least mine and those of Liverpool, Riverside, Bootle, Islwyn and Glasgow, Central.
  The Home Secretary then resorted to a patronising and offensive argument that fringe candidates confuse and distract the electorate. That is patronising and offensive not just to the fringe candidates but to the electorate whom the Home Secretary underestimates. Conservative Members tend to cite Chesterfield with its record 17 fringe candidates as an example of where such a proliferation of candidates distracts and confuses the electorate. All those 17 candidates lost their deposits. None of them sufficiently distracted or confused the electorate to stop my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) being elected as everyone expected that he would be.
  Conservative Members resort to the argument that some candidates stand only for commercial reasons. I accept that there is some substance in that argument. There is abuse. Some candidates wish to stand for the free publicity that arises from being a parliamentary candidate, and for the commercial benefits that might accrue to their businesses and enterprises as a result.
  If that is so, a higher deposit would be no bar. Such people would be prepared to pay £1,000 for that commercial advantage. If that is such an abuse, there are other ways to deal with it rather than imposing a deposit which will inhibit and prohibit serious, worthwhile, committed and dedicated candidates.
  Many candidates and their parties are deeply offensive and some of my hon. Friends may be sympathetic to the notion of an increased deposit for that reason. There are candidates with policies that none of us could support or abide, but it is for the electorate to humiliate and dismiss

  823
  them and to show that such candidates, be they from the Communist party or the National Front, have no semblance of support in this country. It is extremely important that people representing such offensive views nevertheless have access to our democratic political system, that it is not blocked off for them and that they do not feel that there is no outlet even for racist and minority views in our political system.
  In any event, money should never be the key to access to our political system. The Conservatives constantly attempt to make money the key to everything. They are already doing it for access to education and they are trying to do it for access to the health system, but money must not become the key to access to our democratic system.
  The same disregard for democratic principles is evident in the Government's treatment of Northern Ireland electors. The Bill provides that residents of Northern Ireland cannot have an absent vote sent to an address abroad or for a specific parliamentary election under the same terms and conditions as citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom. More important, it provides that in future residents of Northern Ireland cannot have a postal vote if they move from one constituency to another. Those provisions are wrong in principle. We cannot and should not make distinctions between British citizens within the United Kingdom. As the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, as Members of Parliament we are all equal and we should be elected by the same means, under the same rules and with the same opportunities for citizens to vote for or against us.
  If there is a problem of abuse, it must be dealt with, but to restrict democratic rights because there is abuse is to concede victory to those seeking to undermine the democratic process because, in effect, it allows them to set the terms of our electoral system and to determine the laws by which our elections are conducted. That cannot be tolerated and it is inexcusable for the Government to suggest that it can. It is an anomaly and a gross injustice in the Bill that we shall attempt to put right. Members of the citizenry in Northern Ireland are already second-class citizens in many respects, certainly in many aspects of the criminal justice system. We cannot accept that they should also be second-class citizens in terms of their democratic rights and their ability to cast votes in parliamentary elections within the domain of the United Kingdom.
  The right hon. Member for South Down made an appeal to the House on behalf of his constituents. That appeal has certainly been heard by Labour Members and we shall respond to it. I hope that Conservative Back Benchers will also regard it as their right and duty when considering the Bill in the House and in Committee to give every citizen in the United Kingdom the same rights, duties and opportunities as the Bill provides for those in Great Britain.
  It would seem that the Government are extending our democracy at least through the proposals to enable expatriate or overseas electors to vote in parliamentary or European Assembly elections. However, that is not so. First, the Government, as one would expect, have had regard to their narrow party advantage in enfranchising about 600,000 Britons living abroad. No doubt that is why the Government have gone beyond the Select Committee's recommendation to restrict the extension of the franchise to British citizens living and working within the EEC.
  824
  Secondly, it is no advantage to our party system to allow to participate in it those who have no commitment to it and no future in it. We accept that there are many people working temporarily abroad who intend to return and who still feel an emotional, political, social and physical commitment to this country and have a future here. However, the vast majority of those who are enfranchised by the Bill and who will take advantage of the opportunity to cast a vote are emigrants, tax exiles and indeed, criminals.
  There is no reason why those who have emigrated from this country, those who have washed their hands of it and want nothing more to do with its social, political or economic institutions, should be given the right to participate in our elections. There is no good reason why those who are evading their dues and responsibilities in terms of the taxes that they are expected and obliged to pay should have any right to participate in our democratic parliamentary processes. There is certainly no reason at all why we should go out of our way to extend the opportunity and the right to vote to those who are living on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, described as the Costa del Crime and who are sought for criminal offences committed here.
  Moreover, it cannot be to the advantage of our representative parliamentary democracy, which is based upon single-Member constituencies, simply that more people should be able to vote before the campaign has ended. It cannot be to the advantage of our representative parliamentary democracy that more people will vote who have little or no contact with Britain, its politics or its political parties. It cannot be to our advantage that there should be more people entitled to vote who have no knowledge of the candidate and no wish—still less opportunity—to see, hear and argue with those candidates.
  Certainly, it would be of no advantage to our democracy to allow tax exiles or criminals to determine the outcome of elections in particular constituencies or indeed—as has been said, it could have happened in 1964—the outcome of a general election. There is no justification for enabling people with no future in this country and no commitment to it to influence either specific results or the outcome of general elections.
  Some semblance of an improvement in our democratic principles and practice would seem to be effectd by means of the proposals in the Bill which make changes in relation to the absent vote, and in particular, to those who are on holiday. All parties accept that it is manifestly unjust that people who through no fault of their own are on holiday when an election is held should not be able to vote. As candidates, we have all met people who had booked their holidays well in advance of the election or who had no choice in the matter of when they took their holiday. Thousands of people are involved, especially now that the taboo on holding elections in the late spring or early summer seems to have been broken. We all know constituents who have expressed shock, who are bitter and rightly angry, especially when it is not their fault and cannot be avoided because we, unlike other countries, do not have fixed dates for elections.
  The anomaly and injustice is now being put right. That is to be welcomed but it is only a small move. It is the only real extension of substance of our democracy in the Bill. Its relative triviality must be set against the background of the Government's attack on civil liberties and democratic

  825
  principles in other respects. When we are asked to debate the matter, approve the Government's proposals and welcome the Bill, we must not forget, nor should we allow our constituents to forget, that this is the same Government who have interfered in local democracy by imposing rate capping on elected local authorities. We must insist that this is the same Government who are attempting to eliminate democratically elected Labour-controlled councils and, in London, to substitute an elected Labour council with Tory placemen. We must set this trivial gain against the Government's attack on an individual's right to belong to trade unions at GCHQ. [Interruption] Hon. Members who are now dissenting were not present to hear the Home Secretary present himself as the great saviour of democratic principles and civil liberties. If he intends to pretend to the House and the country that he is extending our democracy and safeguarding our liberties, it is right to draw attention to the fact that he is also a Member of the Government who have trampled on more democratic rights and taken away more civil liberties than any other party or any other Government in the past decade or more.
  It behoves us to draw attention to the Government's offensive against trade unions and internal trade union democracy. It behoves us to draw attention to the fact that the Government are trying to weaken the link between the Labour party and its trade union sponsors and supporters. We must set the small democratic gains in the Bill by the side of the erosion of civil liberties and of individual privacy to be found in some parts of the Data Protection Act 1984 and, more importantly, as a result of the increase in police powers to stop, search, arrest and detain law-abiding citizens under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  We must place these small democratic gains in the Bill by the side of the new powers that are given, by omission, to the police in the current coal mining dispute, during which the Government have stood by calmly and silently while a national police force with paramilitary powers has, de facto, been created. These are powerful reasons for not being prepared to take the Tories on trust. They are powerful reasons for suspecting their pretence to be the protectors of democracy. They are powerful reasons for our cynicism at their impartiality when wanting to change electoral law. They are powerful and overwhelming reasons why my right hon. and hon. Friends should vote against the Bill reciving a Second Reading.
  9.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): After several minutes of generalised all-purpose rant from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), I hope that I shall be forgiven for returning to the subject of the Bill. In June, in the debate on the White Paper, I said that democracy depends on getting right the broad principles and the mechanics. This Bill is about getting those mechanics right, and I believe it is a major step towards achieving that aim. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
  The Bill contains three very important proposals which many will believe are long overdue. First, it contains the proposal to extend the vote to Britons living overseas. What is surprising about that is that it has taken so long to come about, not that we are bringing it forward now.
  The second proposal is to extend postal votes. Surely none of us wants to go through another election with large
  826
  numbers of our constituents disfranchised as a result of holiday arrangments into which they entered in good faith without knowing, and having no reason to know, that there would be a general election.
  The third proposal is, I recognise, the most controversial feature of the Bill: to restore the credibility of the deposit by fixing it at a more suitable and sensible level.
  We should not ignore other changes which are brought about by the Bill. While not so central as the three that I have mentioned, nevertheless they are important. I would mention the extension of absent voting to parish and community council elections. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) in his place, as I remember that this has been a favourite topic of his for some time. I hope that he and other hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome it.
  There are changes in expenses limits and changes which make combinations of elections on the same day easier. There are changes to simplify the election timetable, to deal with the difficult issue of the demise of the Crown during an election period, to update the penalties for election offences, to make it easier to add names to the election register after a notice of election has been published and to allow an unaddressed and free delivery service to be provided rather than each envelope having to be addressed before it can be part of the free post. There are also changes of importance to political parties which have computers to allow for the provision of magnetic tapes and floppy discs containing electoral register information, instead of just the hard copies as at present. These important and useful reforms are contained in the Bill.
  I want now to say something about consultation, as this has been a controversial issue in some quarters. I am not sure that many of the points that have been made are entirely fair. Perhaps I could briefly trace the history of this measure. The Select Committee on Home Affairs decided in July 1982 that it would consider the Representation of the People Acts. The Select Committee gave this matter careful consideration, as is entirely typical of that estimable Committee, and it reported in April 1983. It did a thorough job and came out with 22 firm recommendations, 18 of them unanimous—a figure not to be forgotten when one considers what is to follow. Among the dignitaries on the Select Committee was the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), now an Opposition Front Bench spokesman but then a Back Bencher, who was free to think rather different thoughts from some of those that have been voiced today by the Labour Front Bench.
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: That is wrong.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong. If he wants me to deal with the matter now, I am willing to do so. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he was absent when some of the votes were taken, I hardly think that it is a particularly good defence. If he has a better point than that, I shall of course give way to him.
  The Select Committee in the other place which considered the matter reported on uniform procedures for the European Parliament in a report published in January 1983 and recommended that votes should be given to British citizens resident in the European Community for a period of 10 years. Its consideration is also relevant to matters contained in the Bill.

  827
  In October 1983, the Government announced their intention to bring forward proposals in this Session of Parliament and embarked upon a period of consultation during which my right hon. and learned Friend sent letters to each of the leaders of the parties represented in this House asking them if they would kindly submit answers to questions on matters under consideration for inclusion in the Bill and making it clear that, as well as obtaining written responses, my right hon. and learned Friend was only too willing to arrange meetings at which these matters could be more extensively discussed. Every invitation extended for a meeting that was accepted resulted in a meeting being held and the matters being thoroughly discussed.
  As a result of those discussions, a White Paper was produced in January 1984 which set out the Government's thinking. Seven consultation papers were produced: two in January 1984, dealing with the extension of the franchise and absent voting; three in February 1984, dealing with the electoral registration timetable and the free delivery of candidates' election communications in the election campaign; one in August 1984, dealing with penalties; and one this month, dealing with the availability of the register of electors. All of those were widely distributed to obtain opinions.
  As well as Ministers being available for consultations with the parties, Home Office officials were available to continue discussions with officials of all of the parties represented in the House, as well as others who wished to see them. We had the debate in June and we now have the Bill.
  Having regard to the careful procedure that I have outlined, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), with the greatest respect to him, had a difficult furrow to plough when he said that we had not handled the Bill in a manner befitting a constitutional measure. What more, by way of consultation, would it be reasonable to expect any Government to have embarked on than the careful list that I have suggested?
  It has become a feature of one or two Opposition spokesmen—on the basis that other people may not know the facts—to say that there has not been consultation and that the Government have sought to ride roughshod over the Opposition, when really the Opposition have shown precious little interest in putting their views forward.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman obviously has a crystal ball, because I was about to couple his name with that point. The hon. Gentleman has complained in rounded terms. The Scottish National party responded in one letter to the invitations sent by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. After that, it attended none of the meetings at which consultation papers were discussed. We have heard nothing more from the SDP, nor have any papers been forwarded from the Scottish Office suggesting that anything was raised with it that should have come to us.
  Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister not aware that we wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland? Our main complaint was in relation to the agenda for the changes. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my speech, he would
  828
  know that I pointed out the need to reform electoral law on the overall expenditure of political parties and the electronic media, radio and television. He has not attempted to deal with those important facts.
  Mr. Mellor: That is an attempt to get round the point. The hon. Gentleman is agreeing entirely with the point that I made. His party made one response at the end of last year. Since then there has been nothing, and now we are blamed for no consultation. It does not make sense.
  I, and I believe many hon. Members—not just Conservative Members—believe that overseas voting is one of the major innovations of the Bill, and long overdue. The right hon. Member for Gorton made an attack that was at least witty, although that of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North was not. That attack was a travesty of the position of hundreds of thousands of British citizens who, as part of their service to the companies which employ them and to the nation, spend part of their working lives overseas. They are as much British as we are. It is no good the hon. Member for Knowsley, North engaging in animated conversation with the right hon. Member for Gorton. As he has made a charge, he should listen to my reply. Among those hundreds of thousands of people, I dare say, are some of his constituents. There are no class barriers to working overseas these days, as anyone who has travelled on a plane to the middle east will know only too well.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton talked about underage peers, escaped fugitives and tax evaders. That might have delighted some of the groundlings on the Labour Back Benches, but those who usually admire the quality of his argument felt that he fell sadly below the level of the bench. It is an extremely difficult proposition to try to oppose what is manifestly a sensible proposition.
  The hon. Member for Battersea was absent in embarrassment from the debate on the White Paper. I am not sure that it is an improvement for him to be embarrassed in person now as a result of what he said on the Select Committee which his colleagues on the Front Bench, on which he now sits, have scattered to the four winds. It is a dereliction of an argument that we should have an argument that people who live overseas are tax dodgers and so should not vote. Apart from anything else, it is inaccurate; but that is no surprise. Since when has paying tax been a qualification for voting in British elections? Are we suggesting that those in receipt of supplementary benefit and pensions should be disfranchised? I hardly think so.
  Had the right hon. Gentleman's point about back registers been true, it would have been a point of substance. However, back registers are kept. We have managed to contact many electoral registration officers, who say that they have back registers for the relevant period. If they do not, back registers from 1948 have been kept on behalf of the Home Office by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Therefore, there is a complete record upon which voters overseas could make claims about residency in a certain constituency to gain a vote for seven years.
  The right hon. Gentleman strongly criticised our decision to move the close of poll at a general election from 10 pm to 9 pm. Again, it is one of those matters that the hon. Member for Battersea was content with during the Select Committee consideration—
  Mr. Dubs: I was not there.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that. He does not show himself in his best light by saying that. He should take his duty as a member of the Select Committee with great seriousness. Knowing him, I am sure that he did. Why does he not admit that he held a different view two years ago? That would do him a great deal more credit than trying to pretend that he was not there. If he had been, there would have been a Division on every proposal to which his hon. Friends now take exception.
  We gained the unanimity for which we were all looking, yet we are now told that party advantage is involved. None of the Labour representatives on the Select Committee saw the matter in that way. Rather than the asseverations of the right hon. Member for Gorton, they preferred the rather more dispassionate and objective evidence of Dr. David Butler—the great panjandrum on these matters—who said that on his analyses of the 4 per cent. of the public who vote between 9 pm and 10 pm, there was no party advantage either way.
  In so far as any one is incommoded by the decision to move from 10 pm to 9 pm for the close of poll, the aim of our arrangements on postal votes is to ensure that people can obtain a postal vote if, for some reason, they cannot attend the poll between 7 am and 9 pm. Whatever else troubles the House about the proposals, I hope that the removal of an hour from the polling day will be viewed as relatively insubstantial.
  The debate was made more memorable by the involvement of two of the most distinguished parliamentarians of our time—the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I am sure that I speak for all who participated in saying how glad we were that they spoke in the debate.
  The right hon. Member for South Down took issue with the provision about postal votes in a wider basis. I am glad to say that not many other participants took that view. As I said at the outset, it must be accepted that we can no longer maintain the present distinctions between people who are away on employment and those who may be away on holiday or because of urgent family business. Most people recognise that even though that may constitute an open invitation—a menu card for postal voting—once a decision has been taken to extend and widen the availability of absent voting facilities, it is difficult—without piling anomaly upon anomaly—to create another category of availability of postal votes. It is far better to say that we have reached a point where there are a large number of good reasons why someone should want to vote by post and to acknowledge and accept that by making one qualification, which is what we do in the Bill.
  I am, of course, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting with such clarity the issue that faces us and recognising that not everyone reaches the same conclusion. However, the alternative of continuing with our restrictive view of postal votes is no alternative—and certainly not a route that I would want to take.
  Anyway, we must bear in mind that the present arrangements on postal votes are based more on people's willingness to accept the rules than on anything that the framework of law imposes. If someone is prepared to tell a lie about where he is, there are no penal sanctions, and he can get a postal vote if the electoral registration officer believes him.
  830
  Of course, we understand the real difficulties that are faced in Northern Ireland. It gives us no pleasure at all to seek restrictions in voting procedure changes in Northern Ireland that do not apply in Great Britain, but the alternative that faces us is either to add to the difficulties of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland or to refuse to bring forward changes in the rest of Great Britain that we feel are long overdue in a context where the electoral process, whatever people may say about malpractice, is nothing like the same as that which prevails on the other side of the Irish sea.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Are the Government then willing to go case by case through the possibilities of malpractice which might be raised by the arrangements proposed to be made in the rest of Great Britain and, if they do not appear to be substantial in Northern Ireland, not to stand in the way of the extension of those facilities to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Mellor: Absolutely. I was going to say that I took the right hon. Gentleman's point about the removal of the right for a postal vote in Northern Ireland. There appears to have been a misunderstanding. The fact is that that right was removed with no fuss in January this year in relation to the European elections. Our intention to do the same in this legislation was expressed in the consultative document issued in January this year. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in Committee we shall want to look again at those matters with great care. I accept the sincerity of his view. I say again to Northern Ireland Members present that it gives us no pleasure to make these restrictions. We do so in good faith. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be available to deal with some of those matters in Committee.
  I was a little troubled that the official Opposition appeared to be jumping too willingly on the bandwagon. I thought that they would have had discussions with their opposite numbers in the Social Democratic and Labour party of Northern Ireland—
  Mr. Dubs: Never.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman, who is not having a good evening, says, "Never." I do not know why he says that, because surely that is a reputable group. It wrote a letter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, in response to the consultation exercise, saying:
  "We have expressed the view to the Secretary of State that the electoral process is under direct threat in Northern Ireland because of the extent of electoral abuse which is being organised by extremists. In our view, that situation requires immediate and radical action to protect the citizen's right to vote. Your letter contains no proposals related to this problem, and shows little appreciation of its urgency."
  Since then the Government have introduced the proposals to deal with the difficult issue of personation in Northern Ireland. The restrictions proposed in the Bill will be fully considered in Committee.
  I should like to refer to the speech by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I can understand that he wanted to shore up the flimsy structure of the Opposition's case against the measure. His eloquence was considerable, and it is a privilege to participate in the debate with him. However, no amount of eloquence could disguise his somewhat mean-spirited approach to the Government's proposals and particularly towards my right hon. and

  831
  learned Friend who, I suspect, he will find to be a more formidable figure than emerged with any clarity from his speech.
  The right hon. Gentleman made three points. First, he suggested that it was part of the promotion of the narrow sectional interests of the Conservative party that the Bill was being introduced. I say once again —it bears repeating—that it is extremely difficult to equate that with the fact that the Bill contains the acceptance of 15 out of 22 recommendations of an all-party Select Committee of the House. Two of the seven that were not accepted are still under consideration because they relate to the public order law review that is going on.
  The right hon. Gentleman lent his name and reputation to the suggestion that there has been no consultation. I do not suppose that he did so in the clear knowledge of the consultation exercise that I outlined, but I should be interested to know what consultation he believes could have gone beyond that. His answer might well be the Speaker's Conference, and he challenged us in round terms about why the Government had thrown it over. We accept that several important changes in electoral law this century have been preceded by a conference of all the parties, meeting under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, but it is widely accepted that the Speaker's Conference has not been a satisfactory method of taking electoral law out of the political arena.
  The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but perhaps I could quote two people to him. The first is Dr. David Butler, who said:
  "It is hard to see the virtues of a Speaker's Conference…They have not been good bodies, producing reports that command intellectual respect."
  Your distinguished predecessor, Mr. Speaker, Lord Selwyn Lloyd, said after his experience—which he plainly did not enjoy—of chairing the 1972 to 1974 conference:
  "We were too large a body…it was difficult to assemble the necessary evidence…I was glad that no attempt was made to set up another Conference while I was Speaker."
  Mr. Foot: Some of us have always believed that Select Committees should not have the final word of advice to the House of Commons on such matters. When the Government submitted evidence to the Select Committee, did they say, "We wish to make it clear that this is a substitute for the Speaker's Conference?"
  Mr. Mellor: It was not necessary to do so. Before the right hon. Gentleman waxes too lyrical about a Speaker's Conference, he should be brought face to face with some of the facts that did not appear in his eloquent and passionate attack on the Government. He quoted to us the Labour Government's adherence to a Speaker's Conference, but I remind him of what happened in 1969 when there was a Speaker's Conference on a representation of the people Bill introduced by the Labour Government. The Conference recommended that the age for voting should be reduced from 21 to 20. What did the Labour Government—those respecters of Speaker's Conferences—do? They pushed through, in the teeth of opposition in the House, a voting age of 18.
  Mr. Tony Banks: It should be 16 years.
  Mr. Mellor: I am glad to discover that the representative of teenagers is as eloquent as ever. I was not referring to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. Although the Speaker's Conference suggested that there should not be another hour of polling, the Labour Government imposed that extra hour. That is hardly good evidence of the Labour Government's adherence to the principles of a Speaker's Conference. Is it not rather hypocritical and canting to suggest that the Government should have had one in this case?
  Mr. Foot: Is it not true that, much more recently than that, a major issue of changing the franchise was referred to a Speaker's Conference by the Labour Government? Is it the Government's policy not to have a Speaker's Conference on this matter, and when was that policy decided?
  Mr. Mellor: I have just said that we are sceptical of it because of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues played ducks and drakes with it. I should have thought that that was a straightforward matter.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is no magic about the figure of —1,000 for the deposit. It is not as iniquitous as has been suggested. It emerged from the Select Committee, and the Labour party—in the person of its deputy leader—gave evidence to the Select Committee, proposing a figure of £600 with the threshold to remain unchanged. Our figure of £1,000 and a threshold reduced to 5 per cent. is not as outlandish as it has been made to appear during attacks in this debate. We are in no sense firmly wedded to a figure that would be unacceptable to the House, but we shall not be driven from it by people who said one thing a year ago and who are saying something completely different today. We shall consider carefully the many things that will be said in Committee.
  This Bill, in place by the next election, could enfranchise as many as 3 million people. We estimate that, even on a cautious assessment of take-up rates, at least 1 million more people will vote next time who, without the measure, could not do so. This is a principled and important Bill which promotes the health of our democratic system. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 293.

  Division No. 43]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Ashton, Joe

  Buchan, Norman

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Barnett, Guy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Barron, Kevin

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beggs, Roy

  Clarke, Thomas

  Bell, Stuart

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Benn, Tony

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Coleman, Donald

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Conlan, Bernard

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Blair, Anthony

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boyes, Roland

  Cowans, Harry

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Crowther, Stan

  833

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Michie, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)

  Deakins, Eric

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dewar, Donald

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Dixon, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dobson, Frank

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dormand, Jack

  Nellist, David

  Dubs, Alfred

  Nicholson, J.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Eadie, Alex

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Eastham, Ken

  Park, George

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Parry, Robert

  Fatchett, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Pendry, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Prescott, John

  Forrester, John

  Radice, Giles

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Randall, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Redmond, M.

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  George, Bruce

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Golding, John

  Robertson, George

  Gould, Bryan

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Rogers, Allan

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ryman, John

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Home Robertson, John

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Short, Mrs R. (W'hampt'n NE)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Snape, Peter

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Soley, Clive

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lamond, James

  Stott, Roger

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Strang, Gavin

  Leighton, Ronald

  Straw, Jack

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Litherland, Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Loyden, Edward

  Tinn, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Torney, Tom

  McCusker, Harold

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wareing, Robert

  McGuire, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Welsh, Michael

  McKelvey, William

  White, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McTaggart, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  McWilliam, John

  Wilson, Gordon

  Madden, Max

  Winnick, David

  Maginnis, Ken

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Marek, Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Mr. Robin Corbett and

  Maxton, John

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Meacher, Michael

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Alton, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Ancram, Michael

  834

  Arnold, Tom

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Ashby, David

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkins, Robert ('South Ribble)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Fox, Marcus

  Baldry, Tony

  Franks, Cecil

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Roger

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Beith, A. J.

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Galley, Roy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Benyon, William

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Best, Keith

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gorst, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Blackburn, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Greenway, Harry

  Body, Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Grist, Ian

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Ground, Patrick

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grylls, Michael

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brinton, Tim

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hannam, John

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Browne, John

  Harris, David

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Harvey, Robert

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayes, J.

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Butcher, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butterfill, John

  Heddle, John

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Henderson, Barry

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Cartwright, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cash, William

  Hill, James

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Holt, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hooson, Tom

  Chope, Christopher

  Hordern, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon

  Howells, Geraint

  Cope, John

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Critchley, Julian

  Jessel, Toby

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Dover, Den

  Kennedy, Charles

  Dunn, Robert

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  Key, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evennett, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fallon, Michael

  Knox, David

  Farr, Sir John

  Lamont, Norman

  Favell, Anthony

  Latham, Michael

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  835

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Speed, Keith

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Speller, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spence, John

  Lester, Jim

  Spencer, Derek

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Squire, Robin

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Stanley, John

  Maclean, David John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, John

  Stern, Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stewart, an (N Hertf'dshire)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Moore, John

  Sumberg, David

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Norris, Steven

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Trippier, David

  Pawsey, James

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Penhaligon, David

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir lan

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pollock, Alexander

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, Barry

  Waddington, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wainwright, R.

  Powley, John

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Walden, George

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wallace, James

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ward, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Watson, John

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Watts, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Wheeler, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Whitfield, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Whitney, Raymond

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Silvester, Fred

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. lan Lang.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 204.

  Division No. 44]

  [10.13 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Ashby, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Ancram, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Arnold, Tom

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  836

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Fox, Marcus

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Franks, Cecil

  Baldry, Tony

  Freeman, Roger

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fry, Peter

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Galley, Roy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Benyon, William

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Best, Keith

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Gorst, John

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gow, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Blackburn, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Greenway, Harry

  Body, Richard

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Grist, Ian

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Ground, Patrick

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Grylls, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hannam, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Harris, David

  Browne, John

  Harvey, Robert

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Hawksley, Warren

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hayes, J.

  Budgen, Nick

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hayward, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Heddle, John

  Butterfill, John

  Henderson, Barry

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Carttiss, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Cartwright, John

  Hill, James

  Cash, William

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Holt, Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hooson, Tom

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hordern, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Howard, Michael

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cope, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Couchman, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Critchley, Julian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Kennedy, Charles

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Dover, Den

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Durant, Tony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evennett, David

  Knox, David

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lamont, Norman

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Latham, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Farr, Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Favell, Anthony

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Lester, Jim

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Forth, Eric

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  837

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Spencer, Derek

  Maclean, David John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, John

  Squire, Robin

  Mather, Carol

  Stanley, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Steen, Anthony

  Mellor, David

  Stern, Michael

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Moore, John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Mudd, David

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sumberg, David

  Neubert, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Norris, Steven

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir lan

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, Barry

  Trippier, David

  Powley, John

  Twinn, Dr lan

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waddington, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Walden, George

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Waller, Gary

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Ward, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Watson, John

  Ryder, Richard

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wheeler, John

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Whitfield, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Whitney, Raymond

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Silvester, Fred

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  Wolfson, Mark

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wood, Timothy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Speed, Keith

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Speller, Tony

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

  Spence, John

  Mr. lan Lang.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Boyes, Roland

  Alton, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Anderson, Donald

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnett, Guy

  Caborn, Richard

  Barren, Kevin

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Beggs, Roy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Beith, A. J.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Tony

  Clarke, Thomas

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cohen, Harry

  Blair, Anthony

  Coleman, Donald

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Conlan, Bernard

  838

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Marek, Dr John

  Corbett, Robin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Cowans, Harry

  Maxton, John

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Meacher, Michael

  Craigen, J. M.

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Crowther, Stan

  Michie, William

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Deakins, Eric

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Dewar, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Dixon, Donald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Dobson, Frank

  Nellist, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Nicholson, J.

  Dubs, Alfred

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Eadie, Alex

  Park, George

  Eastham, Ken

  Parris, Matthew

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Parry, Robert

  Ewing, Harry

  Patchett, Terry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)

  Penhaligon, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Prescott, John

  Forrester, John

  Radice, Giles

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Randall, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Redmond, M.

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  George, Bruce

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Golding, John

  Robertson, George

  Gould, Bryan

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Rogers, Allan

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hardy, Peter

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ryman, John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Home Robertson, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Howells, Geraint

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Snape, Peter

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Soley, Clive

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lamond, James

  Stott, Roger

  Lead bitter, Ted

  Strang, Gavin

  Leighton, Ronald

  Straw, Jack

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John David

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Litherland, Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Loyden, Edward

  Tinn, James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Torney, Tom

  McCusker, Harold

  Wainwright, R.

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  McGuire, Michael

  Wallace, James

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Wareing, Robert

  McKelvey, William

  Weetch, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Welsh, Michael

  McTaggart, Robert

  White, James

  McWilliam, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Madden, Max

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  839

  Wilson, Gordon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Michael Cocks.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill (`the Act'), it is expedient to authorise—
  840

  (a) the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—

  (i) any expenses of any returning officer for an election of parish or community councillors which are attributable to the postponement of the election under the Act; and

  (ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums charged on and paid out of that Fund under any other Act;

  (b) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act; and

  (ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    Resolved,
    That any Act resulting from the Representation of the People Bill may repeal section 103(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (vehicles used for conveyance to or from the poll exempted from duty etc.)—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Local Government
10.26 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.
In this order, the Government seek the approval of the House for the cancellation of the GLC and metropolitan county council elections that would otherwise be held next May.
Despite the controversy which surrounded last Session's paving Bill, both Houses of Parliament agreed that it was right to put on the statute book what is now part II of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 — provision to suspend these elections subject to the approval by both Houses of an affirmative order to this effect. In other words, both Houses accepted the Government's view that it makes no sense to hold elections to councils which, if Parliament enacts the Local Government Bill, would only have 11 months to run. Never before has a whole council been elected for a term of less than a year.
Right from the outset, the Government made it clear that the order bringing part II of the paving Bill into force would not be made until this House had approved the main principle of abolition by giving a Second Reading to the Local Government Bill. This we did last week by a majority of 135.
The main purpose of this order is therefore to suspend these 1985 elections and to extend to 1 April 1986 the term of office of the existing councillors of the seven abolition authorities.
In the most unlikely event—that is the view which is now widely recognised as realistic — of the main abolition Bill failing to reach the statute book, the elections would be reinstated as swiftly as possible. Section 1(2) of the paving Act provides power to reinstate the elections by order, also subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I have already given the House a firm commitment, which I am happy to repeat, that, if the main Bill falls, that order would be introduced as soon as it was practicable to do so. However, the House may share my view that, given the Government's clear manifesto commitment and last week's substantial Second Reading majority, that is most improbable. I am in no doubt that the Bill will be enacted. In those circumstances, it would be unnecessary and contrary to precedent for elections to the abolition authorities to be held next year.
This order will bring part II of the paving Act into force on 1 February 1985. Part II comprises two sections—section 2, which is concerned with the ordinary elections to the Greater London council and to the metropolitan county councils, and section 3, which is concerned with the quorum for meetings of those councils.
With effect from the coming into force of this order, section 2 of the Act suspends the ordinary elections of councillors of the GLC and MCCs and extends until 1 April 1986 the term of office of serving GLC and MCC councillors. Any councillor elected to fill a casual vacancy will likewise serve until 1 April 1986.
Section 2(3) adapts the rules for the filling of casual vacancies.
Mr. Tony Banks: In the event of there being a whole range of casual vacancies on the GLC, for example, may we have an assurance from the Secretary of State that the Conservative party will actually contest them?
Mr. Jenkin: I think that if the hon. Gentleman and his friends were so unwise as to engage in another series of electoral stunts they would meet with exactly the same debacle as last time, so I would not advise him to embark on that course.
The effect of section 2(3) is that a by-election to fill a vacancy arising on or after 1 October 1985 will not be held unless, when the vacancy occurs, the total number of unfilled vacancies exceeds one third of the total number of members. That is entirely in accordance with the normal rule that vacancies are not filled within six months before an election, although in this case, of course, the council will disappear.
Finally, section 2 amends the provisions made in the Local Government Act 1972 relating to the years in which elections to metropolitan district councils are held. This is a purely consequential amendment. The effect is to ensure that the cycle of metropolitan district elections continues undisturbed by the suspension of the metropolitan county council elections. The corresponding provisions of the 1972 Act in relation to the Greater London council are repealed by section 2(4).
I may be asked why 1 February has been chosen as the appointed day. The answer is that that allows a reasonable time for both Houses to give their approval to this order, while giving three months notice of cancellation of elections, which is sufficient time to avoid abortive expenditure and unnecessary work.
The cancellation of the 1985 elections was one of the major issues of debate during the passage of the paving legislation and I do not propose to repeat the arguments today. The reasons are simple. It would be a waste of expenditure and quite unprecedented to hold elections in circumstances where the councillors so elected would serve for less than a year. After much debate, both Houses of Parliament took this view. Indeed, it was reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), whom I do not see in the Chamber, when he said:
"I can sympathise with the Secretary of State's claim that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. I fully realise that, but the natural thing to do in those circumstances is to let local authorities continue in existence for another year."[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 469.]
That is precisely what part II of the paving Act does.
Mr. Robert C. Brown:How can the Secretary of State say with such confidence that if elections were allowed, as they ought to be, the councillors so elected would serve for less than 12 months? Does not that presuppose the decision of both Houses of Parliament?
Mr. Jenkin: I do not want to weary the House with tedious repetition, but if at any stage the main abolition Bill falls, the paving Act contains the power to reinstate those elections. I have given a categorical undertaking that, in that event, the order to effect that reinstatement would be presented as soon as might be possible. I do not take for granted the passage of the legislation. I have accepted — as many hon. Members and many people

843
outside the House have accepted—that it is probable that the legislation will reach the statute book. That being so, it is quite unnecessary to hold the elections.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has raised the question of further by-elections. I find that most of those who called most loudly for the GLC elections are now remarkably silent on that issue.
Mr. Tony Banks: No. The right hon. Gentleman must wait and see.
Mr. Jenkin: On 20 September there was an attempt to hold four by-elections. It was forecast that Londoners would turn out in tens and fifties of thousands to vote for the pro-GLC candidates. People of all parties were supposed to flock to their banner. Those four stunt by-elections were the flops of the year. Compared with the results in 1981, 8,000 fewer people voted for the four Labour candidates. Less than one elector in five even took the trouble to register his vote for a Labour candidate. Where are the other stunt by-elections that were promised? They are as hard to find as a living dodo. I suspect that we have heard the last of them.
The order also brings section 3 of the paving Act into force. That is the section that allows the Secretary of State to prescribe a smaller quorum for meetings of the GLC or of an MCC. The present statutory quorum is one quarter of the whole number of members of the council. Section 3 allows the Secretary of State by order to reduce that number if he considers it necessary for the transaction of the business of the GLC or of a metropolitan county council. That order-making power is subject to the negative resolution procedure, and can be prayed against.
Ideally, this order would confine itself to elections. It should not be necessary to provide for the substitution of a smaller quorum. However, a number of councillors have been threatening to obstruct the will of Parliament. They would be in a position to bring their council's business to a standstill simply by refusing to attend council meetings. It is to safeguard against such sabotage that section 3 was included in the Act, enabling the quorum to be varied.
I have honoured the promise that I made on Second Reading. I have not sought to make the order to activate part II of the paving Act before the principle of abolition had been debated and approved by the House. It has now been approved by the Second Reading given to the Bill last week. It would be unjustifiable to delay any longer the coming into effect of the order. I ask the House to approve the appointed day order.
10.38 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I have no hesitation in saying that we reject the Secretary of State's arguments for this order. As he well knows, he is creating a precedent in presenting this order. It is yet another precedent in a long and rather unenviable line of precedents that the right hon. Gentleman has set in local government legislation.
The order abolishes elections that would involve between 13 million and 14 million electors in the GLC and metropolitan county areas. The Secretary of State and his colleagues are taking away the votes of that many people and not, as has been the case in previous local government reorganisations, replacing them with votes for successor authorities. In no sense can the Secretary of State claim
844
that, in producing the order and his arguments for it, he is following the precedent even of former Conservative Secretaries of State.
In spite of what the Secretary of State has said today, he is taking the decision of this House and that of another place for granted in assuming that the Local Government Bill, which recently received a Second Reading, will become law. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not taking the House for granted but that he was confident that the Bill would be carried. If that is so, why does he not leave things as they are? Why does he have to bring the order to the House to abolish elections? He has no answer to either question. The reality, in spite of what he has just said about by-elections to the GLC, is that he, the House and the country know full well that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are frightened of an expression of opinion through the ballot box by the people of London and the met counties. That would be a major test of public opinion on this issue.
Mr. John Wheeler: There has been one.
Dr. Cunningham: Well, I cannot believe that the way in which this measure was cobbled together at the last moment and stuffed into the Conservative party manifesto produced any real test of opinion. I do not believe that it featured highly in elections anywhere. On the contrary, it was hidden away. Perhaps I can ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who said last week that the commitment to abolish the GLC and the met counties was
"put in nine days after the election was called against the wishes of the party policy committee." — [Official Report, 4 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 191.]
I invite the Secretary of State to say whether that is a true record of events.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is not here to defend himself, might have had more inside knowledge of these matters that I do not share. All I know is that after many months of discussions, as I said last week, this matter was included by a decision of the Cabinet. If it is such anathema to the Labour party, how come the Labour party's Environment spokesman placed not one recorded word in any speech handout on this subject throughout the 1983 general election? Are we to believe that he did not read the manifesto? Did he not know all about it? Did he try to pretend that it did not exist?
Dr. Cunningham: Wriggle as the right hon. Gentleman will, he is not able to duck the charge that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup levelled at him and the Government that the commitment was shoved into the manifesto at the last possible moment without any proper consultation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were months of discussions. I invite him to tell the House who was involved in the discussions: certainly not leading Conservatives on the GLC group, certainly not the right hon. Gentleman's own representative on the GLC. As the right hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, they say very different things today.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: The hon. Gentleman prays in aid the statement of my right

845
hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) — he has prayed in aid his statements on a number of occasions — that the policy was rushed through at the last minute against the wishes of the policy-making committee. Is he aware that the county of Humberside was created 10 years ago against the wishes of the people, in a plebiscite in which 85 per cent. of the people of south Humberside voted against its creation, when the Prime Minister was my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup?
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing in favour of local choice and consultation. In my remarks I have said that there has been no consultation. Also there has been no proper inquiry or investigation into the nature of the proposals. Previously when elections to outgoing authorities, or authorities which have been wound up or which were disappearing, have been cancelled they have been balanced by the introduction of new elections to new successor authorities. That was the case in the 1974 election when existing councils ran in parallel with the new ones which were elected in 1973 until the changeover occurred.
It is absolutely wrong for the Secretary of State to claim, as he has claimed in the past although I noticed that he did not make the claim this evening, that he is following precedent in what he is doing with this order and the actions he is taking as a result of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984. The principle is quite different. It is one which we on this side of the House stand by: that local democratic accountability should be preserved. It would be far better for everybody concerned, including although he seems reluctant to agree, the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman, if in this case that principle were to be preserved.
The proposals put forward by the Government do not match up to any credible attempt either to reorganise local government properly in a non-partisan manner, or to take account or make any test of the opinions of the people who are affected by the change.
It should not be argued—indeed, it cannot be argued —that the changeover date should be seen as settled at this stage of the parliamentary process. That implies another assumption: that the Bill will go through as it stands unamended and in the time scale the Government envisage. Given the Government's experience of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984, that is a very arrogant assumption for the right hon. Gentleman to make. He knows as well as we know that not only in the other place but in this House a significant number of his right hon. and hon. Friends are fundamentally opposed to what the Government are suggesting should happen. There is a bald assumption that everything will proceed just as the Government intend.
The West Midlands seems to be the only metropolitan county council for which re-warding has been completed. Therefore, the electoral arrangements are entirely different from those of the other metropolitan counties and the GLC. In that sense, two different wardings are likely to run in parallel—the existing ones and the new ones which result from the Boundary Commission changes which have been put into effect by an order made in 1982.
We must surely presume that if a by-election were to occur in the West Midlands after 2 May it would be held on the new ward basis. That is an anomalous state of affairs. The existing authority, elected on old wards, on
846
old boundaries, is to continue in place but any by-election would apparently take place on new ward boundaries. Is that so?
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Government are well aware of that point. I shall be discussing it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, with whom responsibility in that matter rests. Proposals to deal with what the hon. Gentleman has perfectly fairly identified will be brought forward in good time before that boundary order takes effect.
Dr. Cunningham: That is just another example, along a road littered with such examples, of how little thought and proper preparation has been put into what the Government are proposing to do. Here again there is a glaring anomaly in the situation as proposed by the Government. It is not good enough to say to the House in the middle of this debate, only because the Labour party had been able to pick up the point, that the Government will respond. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman come to the House and explain it, since he obviously knew about the situation, and say what the Government's intentions were? That would have been a far better way to approach the matter than to have to respond to a question from the Opposition.
The longer the House looks at the Government's proposals and has the opportunity to examine them in detail, the clearer it is that the charges of not only the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup but of other Conservative Members, as well as people in the authorities themselves, are substantiated.
The Government's botched-up approach to local government reorganisation is a shambles. It is shot full of holes, contradictions, errors and matters which have not been properly thought out. The order is not necessary at this time. It is not necessary for the House to approve it. Perhaps it is a little too optimistic to say that nothing would go wrong for the Government, but if the order had not been presented and were not approved by the House it would not affect the Government's proposed timetable. Indeed, it would do something for the Secretary of State's reputation and for that of his right hon. and hon. Friends if it had not been presented at this time.
The order should not be approved now. The House should recommend the Secretary of State not to submit it until at least the Local Government Bill has received the Royal Assent. At that time only would it be necessary to abolish elections to the authorities and not before.
10.53 pm
Mr. John Wheeler: I support the order. It is entirely right that at this stage the order should come before the House, the House having formally given a Second Reading, with a large majority, to the Local Government Bill. It would be entirely wrong to suggest or imply that there would be an election for the GLC, with which I am more particularly concerned, when that authority has a life of only about 12 months ahead of it, the House having given a clear sign of its intentions.
There have been examples of elections being cancelled because of local government reform. I remind the House that there will be London borough elections in May 1986 when Londoners will have the opportunity to elect more than 1,000 councillors who will be responsible for running London's services and affairs. It is significant that in the

847
reform of local government in London, of the remaining functions of the GLC 95 per cent. in cost terms will be transferred to the control of the elected borough councils.
Mention has been made of the desirability of testing public opinion. Such a test has already taken place in London. On 20 September this year there were four by-elections. It was the most boring of political experiences for the people of London. They were not interested in the elections. They did not participate to the extent of 75 per cent. not turning out to vote. It was significant that the leadership of the GLC had threatened Londoners with a number of by-elections. The GLC leader has clearly shown that the result of the by-elections was such that there was no point in continuing with them.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: While the hon. Gentleman is reflecting on the by-elections, will he tell us what the turn-out was in Westminister, North, what the vote was and why his Conservative association had to be strong-armed into not contesting it?
Mr. Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that. He knows the arithmetic of the four by-elections. I shall repeat the results for the benefit of the House. About 25 per cent. turned out in the by-elections. In north Westminster it was slightly above that figure. That is not altogether surprising considering that the present leader of the GLC was the candidate in the division in Paddington and considering also the extent of the propaganda expenditure incurred in the run-up to the by-election.
I well recall that after the result was declared, every conceivable excuse was trotted out to account for the reason why the electorate did not turn out to vote. It was said to be raining, a bad register and so on. It was raining during the GLC election in 1981, when the turn-out in the same division was 44 per cent. The electorate found the whole by-election issue extremely tedious and did not participate.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair to the House. Will he give as a comparison the national figures in the general election if no Conservative candidate had stood?
Mr. Wheeler: I shall not be tempted down that road. We are concerned with an order that is perfectly reasonable and desirable in view of the expression of the House on the Local Government Bill, before us a few days ago.
We must bear in mind the cost implications of by-elections. It would be wholly inappropriate to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds of ratepayers' money merely to return a council which, in the case of London, would have 12 months or less to serve. I believe that the order should be supported and I shall vote for it tonight.
11 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I must declare an interest as a Londoner whose vote is being taken away, but that is not why I wish to address the House. As far as I can make out, this is the first time in our history when a Government have reduced the franchise. There have been reorganisations in the past of one kind and another, but tonight we are being asked to take away the votes of those who previously enjoyed them.
848
The Secretary of State, who speaks of votes as if they could be calculated in terms of efficiency alone or common sense in terms of a better way of organising things, appears to forget that votes were won in this country not by the grace and favour of successive Governments, but by systematic public campaigns, and systematic campaigns of law breaking to win the rights that we have. I am referring historically to that. The right to worship as we wish was won against laws passed by Parliament that sought to impose uniformity on methods of worship; the rights of trade unions were won by systematic law-breaking of the Combination Acts; the rights of working class men were won after riots and disturbances, led by the Chartists, had been forced on a very unwilling House of Commons and an exceptionally reluctant House of Lords. The Prime Minister would not be in her position as a voter, a Member of Parliament or Prime Minister if the suffragettes had not systematically broken the law, chained themselves to the railings, been imprisoned, force-fed, released and then rearrested under the infamous cat and mouse Act that was passed during the lifetime of many present tonight.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is being dramatic and seems to be inciting people to break the law. Will he answer this question? Since the environment spokesman of his party, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), argued in favour of unitary authorities, and since that would have meant elections to but one level of government, is it not inevitable, beyond peradventure, that precisely the same process would have taken place—that there would have been a reduction in the number of elections held for layers of local government?
Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman only confirms my long suspicion that he does not understand the impact of his own Bill, because he is taking executive power from elected people and using the prerogative — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. We are discussing not the other legislation, but the power to abolish the Inner London education authority by statutory instrument. The Secretary of State is using the prerogative of the Crown and taking power from elected people. That is a wholly different matter from the reorganisation of the structure of local government.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Benn: Many hon. Members want to speak. I am putting a point to the House. I have not intervened before—
Mr. Tracey rose—
Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman has a serious point, I shall try to answer it.
Mr. Tracey: Indeed, I have a serious point to put to the right hon. Gentleman. His right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is on record, on the point about unitary authorities, as saying that if his party were elected in the general election on that policy it would proceed with no more Royal Commissions and no more reviews, but direct to legislation. That was said by the right hon. Member for Gorton. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on it?
Mr. Benn: I dealt with the point in answering the Secretary of State's question. The issue, as the hon.

849
Gentleman knows very well, is the removal of powers from the elected local authorities to the Executive using the prerogative of the Crown, in some cases without having to come back to the House of Commons at all.
The point that I want to make is that if the Secretary of State, who is introducing the order, were to study our history, he would find that the pressure for democratic rights was not an abstract pressure. It was not that anybody thought that elections in themselves were of value; it was the consequence of the extension of the franchise that people wanted to see. In 1832, 1867, 1884, 1918 and in subsequent Bills, the enlargement of the franchise brought much-valued social progress. Those who remember—some are still alive—what the House of Commons was like before women were granted the vote—which was only in 1918—will remember that in those days, when Members of Parliament were answerable only to male constituents, women's issues and rights got short shrift in Parliament.
If one considers local democracy, it is clear that, as it spread. health, education, housing and transport became much improved. I have with me—it may have been cited previously—the development of the city council in Birmingham from 1838, when the municipal charter was granted: 1842, the police force; 1861 the public library; 1867, the art gallery; 1870, the school board; 1872, the first medical officer of health; 1874, the first municipal hospital; 1875, the city took over the supply of gas; 1875, the fire brigade; 1876, the water supply; 1890, the first municipal houses; 1898, the supply of electricity; 1904, its own tramways; 1908, maternity and child welfare; 1916, municipal savings; 1919, the orchestra; and 1939, the municipal airport. All those things were made possible by the extension of the franchise. It is no good saying that the GLC has no functions left, because the Government have removed those functions. They have performed a characteristic administrative trick of destroying the functions of an elected body and then describing it as unnecessary.
The public must understand clearly that this is not an administrative reorganisation. The Secretary of State is committed to the destruction of the services provided by local government, and therefore he has chosen to attack the democratic institutions that provide them. That is what this is about. It has nothing whatever to do with the need for a better organisation. I forget whether the Secretary of State was a member of the Government who set up the GLC, but I was a Member of Parliament at the time. There was no argument then about the need for those services; there was an argument about how they could best be provided. No one outside should believe that we are having a limited debate about how best to run local services. The Government wish to cut services as part of their central economic policy. This is a by-product of their economic and social policies and has nothing to do with the better government of London or the metropolitan counties.
I give a special warning to another place, and in doing so I differentiate myself momentarily from Ken Livingstone's notice on County hall. I did not agree with his slogan, "Peers, Thank you for saving democracy in London." It may be tactically useful to the GLC to butter up some bishops and wangle some wets into voting against the legislation, but the Lords have never believed in democracy. I searched through all the debates on the Reform Bills last century to find the best quotation from
850
the House of Lords on the democratic process, and I offer to the House a quotation from a dissent to the Third Reading of the Reform Act 1867, which was registered.
The grounds for the dissent are stated clearly. The first was:
"Because the Bill, creating in almost every City and Borough in England a new Constituency more numerous than that which exists, impairs, where it does not destroy, the power of the present Electors, and substitutes for it that of a new Body inferior to them in Property and Education."
The second reason was:
"Because the Confidence justly placed in Constituencies of approved Worth cannot reasonably be transferred to such Men now first entrusted with electoral Power; and it is to be feared that when Labour makes laws for Capital, Poverty for Property, legislation, no longer directed by educated Intelligence, will impair the individual Freedom of Action and the Security of Possession which have been the Foundations of our Prosperity and Wealth."
I warn Ken Livingstone not to put too much hope in the other place, for it has never believed in democracy. It is half filled with hereditary peers, and padded out with the patronage of successive Prime Ministers.
If the other place passes this order, which will go to it soon, let me remind it of another Act of Parliament, passed on 19 March 1649. It is an Act to abolish the House of Peers, passed by the House of Commons. It is one of the Acts of the interregnum. I shall read it for the benefit of the other place, because I think that the peers are more likely to be influenced by this than by another lunch with the campaigners for the preservation of the GLC. It begins "The Commons of England". I doubt whether those words have been uttered in the House since then, so Let me remind those who have forgotten what they are:
"The Commons of England assembled in Parliament, finding by too long experience, that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the People of England to be continued, have thought fit to Ordain and Enact, and be it Ordained and Enacted by this present Parliament, and by the Authority of the same, That from henceforth the House of Lords in Parliament, shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away; And that the Lords shall not from henceforth meet or sit in the said House called The Lords House, or in any other House or Place whatsoever, as a House of Lords; nor shall Sit, Vote, Advise, Adjudge, or Determine of any matter or thing whatsoever, as a House of Lords in Parliament."
That was clearer legislation than that introduced by the Secretary of State. If a non-elected House takes away the votes of the people of Britain, it signs its own death warrant the day that it does so. Nobody should have any illusions about that.
I shall now relate the order to the wider attack. We are always told by the Tory party that the proper way to get our rights is to vote. However, when the GLC was elected on a cheap fares policy, the Government wheeled out Lord Denning from the chamber of horrors, and he said that that manifesto was illegal. Now that that has been amended, they wheel out a Bill to abolish the GLC. No Tory Members should try to tell the British people, certainly not Londoners or those who live in the metropolitan counties, that they are prepared to see change made by democratic means, because they are not. The attack by rate—capping, the introduction of quangos—which is only the Royal prerogative reappearing in the modern language of administration—the use of ministerial fiats, the abolition of trade unionism at GCHQ, sequestration by the courts and the national police force are designed to crush all opposition to the Government of the day.
That is why the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) expresses

851
his doubts. No doubt, if one could get him into a Sub-Committee, one would have an interesting discussion about some of the managerial problems that we are told we are discussing. But he knows what we know—that the Tory party, by reverting to a principle that has not illuminated its thinking for many centuries, is trying to crush all opposition, however expressed.
I say seriously that if those rights, which were never granted graciously from the top, but were won by law breaking from underneath, are taken away, that will be an open invitation to return to law breaking as a means of winning back rights that the Government are taking away. If that happens, although I believe that the Prime Minister will not be allowed by her party to get away with it—for it is only with the party that the capacity to remove her now rests—everything that flows from the clutch of policies, of which this is one, will be the responsibility of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and every hon. Member who votes for the order tonight, and any peer who votes for it when it reaches the other place. This is a very much graver matter than can be settled by an exchange of witticisms, comments or even quotations from other people's speeches on other occasions.
Tonight, the House is being asked to reverse its own history, and, in so far as it does, it should recognise that putting the clock back is a package deal that has other consequences. This, and other measures, will reawaken the determination of the British people to govern themselves and not to be told what to do by Ministers cloaking themselves in prerogative in order to destroy the rights of those they were elected to represent.
11.14 pm
Mr. William Shelton: I tried to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but I had some difficulty. I think that he is in some confusion when he speaks of enlargement of the franchise. If he considers the examples that he gave from the last century he will find — or if he asks his researcher, he will no doubt tell him—that the references are to giving votes to those who did not have them. That is the usual meaning of the phrase, "enlargement of the franchise".
The order proposes not to take away votes from those who have them, but to take away a vote from those who at present have three, so that they then have two. However, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the motion, he will see that there will be an additional vote for the Inner London education authority and so, hey presto, there will be three again. Therefore, I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that to take away a vote from those who have three is an incitement to violence. I cannot believe that most hon. Members follow the right hon. Gentleman in that.
Mr. Jack Straw: During the past year there has been a great deal of complaint from Conservative Members that people have votes in local elections when they do not pay rates. The implication has been—and it has been mentioned by Conservatives outside the House —that those who do not pay rates should not have votes in local elections. Is that the hon. Gentleman's view?
Mr. Shelton: No. Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is completely confused.
852
My point is that the quotations about the enlargement of the franchise referred to giving votes to those who did not have them. But the motion takes away a vote for the GLC from those who have the vote for local councils and for Parliament, and gives—if the right hon. Gentleman so wishes—a vote for ILEA. That is not, in any normal sense, a restriction of the franchise. The right hon. Gentleman was also deeply confused when he spoke about a centralisation of powers. I am sure that he has read the Bill, so I shall remind him that on abolition of the GLC —if that is what the House decides—all the services provided by it alone, or together with the boroughs, will pass to the boroughs— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —with a few exceptions.
I shall list those exceptions. First, there is ILEA. There will be an increase in representation with regard to ILEA, because we shall now be able to vote directly for that body. Then there is London Transport, which has already become London Regional Transport, and the recommendation concerning that was made by an all-party Select Committee. I agree that the fire service will involve a joint board, but of borough members. Flood protection is of tremendous national importance and responsibility for that will go to the Thames water authority. There are historic buildings, ancient monuments and the arts. But the arts will be dealt with mainly by the boroughs. If anyone calls that a centralisation of powers that will lead to violence in the streets, he is deeply confused.
Mr. George Park: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that by the time all these quangos, joint boards and other devices are put into effect, 67 per cent. of the services now run by the metropolitan county councils will come under the Secretary of State's jurisdiction?
Mr. Shelton: No new quango is being formed, one new joint board is to be formed. I am talking about the GLC. I do not have sufficient knowledge to talk about the metropolitan counties. When I was a member of the GLC about 15 years ago I thought that it had come to the end of its useful life.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) saying that the legislation was hastily cobbled together. I have no idea whether it was or was not, because I am not in the Cabinet. If my right hon. Friend tells me that the proposals were agreed by the Cabinet I believe him.
It is strange that the 1983 alliance manifesto proposes
"abolishing one of the existing tiers of local government"
which will
"inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, and the GLC."
Was that purely by chance and cobbled up overnight?
Even the Socialists in "Labour's Programme 1982" say:
"The main difficulties of the present system are clear enough. There is an irrational split of functions between the two tiers … a confusing overlap of responsibilities".
In a typically Socialist way that expresses a dilemma but does not suggest any way to solve it. At least the Conservatives and the alliance gave a pledge.
It is said that no referendum was held. In the 1983 election the Conservatives won 56 out of 84 London seats.
Mr. John Cartwright: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House, but like many of his colleagues who quoted from the alliance

853
manifesto he left out a sentence. That sentence referred to the proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties:
"against the background of our proposals for the development of regional government."
There is a difference between replacing authorities and putting nothing in their place, as the Government propose.
Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Nevertheless the alliance was unhappy with the present system of local government and proposed to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
I was a member of the GLC between 1967 and 1970. Even then its powers had been eroded. When I mentioned the centralisation of powers a moment ago, I wonder if the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was aware of how many powers the GLC today operates alone, without the co-operation of the boroughs. It operates about four such powers. One could say more if one included for instance the collection of information. Very few people know that it operates only four such powers. The only powers of importance that the GLC exercises today without borough co-operation are the fire service, waste disposal, land drainage and building control — not for the whole of London; just for Inner London.
I applaud the Government's decision. Having decided to abolish the GLC, what do we do about elections in May 1985, which will be less than 12 months before abolition, should the House so decide? There are three choices. The first is to let the elections go ahead.
I understand entirely why some Labour Members relished the thought of elections going ahead, but I am surprised that they still take that view after Labour's miserable showing in the four by-elections that took place. Those who say that the elections should go ahead, to be regarded as some form of referendum, are doing as much damage to our constitution and the House as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield seemed to believe that the GLC's abolition would do to Britain's peace and tranquility. Quite apart from the cost and the fact that councillors would have been in office for less than a year, there are precedents to support the Government's position. In 1963·64, for example, local elections were cancelled with the reorganisation of local government.
Mr. Sidney Bidwell: Surely the essence of the argument is that the House has not yet decided to abolish the GLC. The hon. Gentleman should address his mind to that.
Mr. Shelton: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say "should the House so decide" to abolish the GLC. If he checks Hansard, he will find that I said that.
One of the benefits of a good Government is that it plans ahead. This motion is another example of a good Conservative Government planning what should happen in a year's time or two years' time. The Opposition should welcome this demonstration of careful planning.
The first possibility was to let elections take place. The second was to extend the term of the present councillors. The third was to install a provisional council formed by members of the borough councils. Initially, the Government recommended the third plan. It is a sign of the Government's flexibility and genuine readiness to engage in consultation that they changed their plan and took the second course.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend not under-rating somewhat an event that took place not so very far from this place?
Mr. Shelton: I accept that it is difficult for Labour Members to realise that the Government are prepared to consult. I remind them that they did so on the composition of the Inner London education authority.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend please acknowledge that there was an element of force majeure in what the Government had to do in that the other place decided contrary to what Her Majesty's Government intended?
Mr. Shelton: I remind my hon. Friend that the Government's decision on ILEA reflected pure, voluntary good will. It had been decided that ILEA should be a joint board of borough councillors. That was known as the Marshall solution, following the recommendations of the Marshall inquiry. However, they changed their mind to go along with majority feeling and decided that there should be direct elections. This new election should reassure Labour Members that the franchise is not being eroded.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman will surely remember that the Secretary of State for Education and Science said that he reinstated ILEA because of the overwhelming feeling on the issue and the arguments. It was not a matter of good will. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reinstatement was due to the convincing nature of the arguments for taking that course. Why does the same test not apply on this issue? The feeling is similar and the arguments against the Government's policy are equally overwhelming.
Mr. Wilkinson: We have not had the arguments.
Mr. Shelton: As my hon. Friend says, we have not had the arguments. I confess that, on balance, I favoured a joint board. I was wrong, and I believe that the Government were right to change their mind. I think that it is right to have direct elections. I have some doubts about having a single-purpose elected local authority, because there will not be the necessary conflict between competing claims for funds as, for example, in local government and central Government, and there may be some difficulty as a result. I look forward to the ILEA elections. I wish that they would take place in 1985 rather than 1986. I do not like the transition period. However, I am afraid that it is inevitable. There is little or no way of getting the measure through without that transition period.
It is time that I gave way to allow other hon. Members to participate in the debate. I support the order, because it is right. When we look back in five or 10 years the Government's decision will be vindicated. For some 15 years, I have thought that the GLC should be abolished, and I am glad to vote for this measure.
11.31 pm
Mr. John Cartwright: The major objection to the order—
Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I certainly would not dare to suggest that I should insist on the right of any hon. Member to be called, but I draw your attention to this fact: if we include the Front Bench speakers and the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), who has just been called, so

855
far in this debate five London Members and one provincial Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) — will have been called. Hon. Members representing the Tyne and Wear county council area, Merseyside and other metropolitan county council areas are present. I suggest seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those hon. Members will feel a sense of outrage if this continues to be a London debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am sharply aware of the hon. Member's point. Obviously I must take many factors into account in determining which hon. Members I should call. I shall, of course, bear in mind the hon. Member's comments.
Mr. Cartwright: The major objection to the order is that it abolishes elections to authorities that Parliament has not yet decided to abolish. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) may regard that as planning ahead; I think that most people would regard it as total arrogance.
The fact is that this order was not planned all that far ahead. We all know that we are debating this order because of the actions of the other place, where last summer the Government moved an amendment to the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill producing this affirmative order procedure. They did so under pressure of criticism that they were abolishing elections even before a Second Reading debate in this House. When the amendment from the other place was debated in this House on 30 July this year, only the alliance and our occasional allies, the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) voted against the amendment; the official Labour party abstained.
The reasons for the alliance's decision to vote against the affirmative order procedure to abolish elections were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who criticised that procedure which allowed no amendment. My hon. Friend quoted the case of Conservative Members who supported the principle of abolition, but believed that the Government would make a mess of the drafting of the Bill, which clearly they have done. My hon. Friend said that such hon. Members might
"suggest that there are particular and detailed objections to the Bill that arise not from total opposition to its intentions and basic provisions."
My hon. Friend said that those hon. Members might not wish at that time to approve the order. He went on:
"I do not want this to come as a surprise to those people, which is why I underline it now. They will find that there is nothing that they can do to the commencement order." — [Official Report, 30 July 1984; Vol. 65, c. 39.]
That is one of our objections to the procedure. There is no room for amendment — no opportunity for hon. Members who have reservations about the abolition Bill to amend the Bill.
The House is being asked to agree a procedure over which it has virtually no power. There are hon. Members, including those on the Conservative Back Benches, who may wish to amend the abolition Bill in a variety of ways. Some of them have already put their names to substantive amendments which will be debated on Wednesday and Thursday. At present there is no way in which any of us can be sure what form the abolition Bill will finally take.
856
There is an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and some of his hon. Friends which calls for a new scaled-down authority to replace the GLC. If that amendment is passed, or receives substantial support, which leads to a modification of the Minister's plans, or if a similar amendment is carried in another place some months hence, then the Bill with which we shall have to deal will be different from the one with which we are now concerned.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) rightly reminded us that one only has to remember the saga of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill 1984. It started life as one type of Bill but ended up as a different type. The Bill that left this House on 22 May was designed to cancel elections and set up interim bodies. It had one minor financial clause only. The Bill which returned to this House from the other place on 30 July had a different purpose — to extend the life of the councils and to introduce major financial restrictions on their autonomy. The Bill was changed out of all recognition. The Bill accepted by the House of Commons on Second Reading was different from the Bill which was finally enacted. On that basis, none of us can be sure of the final form of the Local Government Act.
It is, in my judgment, wrong and arrogant for the Government to seek to force through the order tonight. It should be left until after clause 1 has been debated on Wednesday and Thursday.
I do not often these days agree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but I agree with him when he says that the order will lead to the biggest reduction in the franchise since 1832. Every previous Bill enacted in the House dealing with elections has extended the franchise or left it the same, all the way through from the great Reform Bill 1832 until the Bill given a Second Reading today which extends the franchise to those people who are on holiday and those resident overseas.
It is ironic that on the day on which the House of Commons has agreed, in principle, to extend the franchise to 500,000 more people it should go on to be asked to approve an order which deprives 40 per cent. of the electorate of their right to vote in next May's county council elections. That would not be so bad if the other 60 per cent. of the electorate also lost that power, because it would be a move to one-tier local government throughout the country. It would not be a reduction of democracy but a consolidation of two votes into one.
It would not be so bad if the bodies which were to take over the functions of the GLC and the metropolitan counties were all elected. No one will directly elect the London fire and civil defence boards; no one will vote in the election of the London Planning Commission; no votes will be cast in the election of joint boards for waste disposal, although all those bodies are taking powers away from a directly elected body in London. On the same basis, no one will vote for joint boards for police, fire and transport which will remove many of the functions of the directly elected metropolitan county councils.
The order will deprive a large section of the population of its vote. Electors in London and the metropolitan counties will not have a vote on 2 May 1985 even though electors outside those areas will be voting for authorities that provide many similar services.
The order will also have an effect on councillors who were elected in 1981 for a four-year term. There are likely to be by-elections next May, not for the political reasons

857
that caused the by-elections in Grater London, but because people who were elected for four years have planned their lives on that basis and did not expect and should not be ecpected to carry on for a further year.
If the Government believe what they say—that there is genuine public support for their abolition plans—they should let the elections go ahead. They should put their fate in the ballot box and allow a new Greater London council and new metropolitan county councils to be elected. That would be much better than trying to coerce existing members to continue in office. The order is a shabby measure with the smell of gerrymandering about it. We shall vote against it.
11.39 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: When one listens to a lesson in history from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) one has the impression that history itself is speaking. One of the sad things about the order is that it has given him a degree of credibility that he would not have had if we were not seeking to pass this somewhat shabby and disreputable measure.
I believe that this will constitute an unhappy precedent for our party. It would have been better and wiser to secure the enactment of the Local Government Bill first and then to take the necessary steps to abrogate the Greater London Council elections. That would have been the correct and wise chronology. I fear that the legislation on which we are embarked and which is to be debated on Wednesday and Thursday will prove as unhappy an experience for the Conservative Government as the devolution Bill proved for the Labour Government. That is not the subject of this debate, but it is indeed an unhappy measure.
I also believe that the road to political condemnation is paved with the consciences of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I did not vote against the paving Bill, but now —unlike then—we know what the Local Government Bill contains. We know that it arrogates even more centralised power to the Secretary of State and that it will lead to the creation and proliferation of quangos, joint boards and other bodies on which borough councillors will serve although they were not elected to do so and may not have the necessary time or qualifications. But that is for another day.
I suspect that the Government, with their very big majority, may succeed in laying the body politic of the Greater London council to rest, but I fear that its spectre will rise to haunt us. In the future, anything that goes wrong with London's governance will be laid at our door and if the Labour party ever returns to power —unfortunately, these things sometimes happen—it may use this precedent to do away with elections of far greater import than those due to take place next spring.
Mr. Tony Banks: We are democrats.
Mr. Wilkinson: Labour Members may shake their heads now, and I am glad that they do, but I suspect that my fear may well prove to be justified.
Many Members of this House would have the other place do our work for us. That has been a growing tendency of this Parliament, but I shall not resort to it. If my conscience dictates on behalf of my constituents that the amendment of the coming legislation requires a vigorous and critical approach I shall pursue such an
858
approach, and if I judge this order to be unworthy I shall act accordingly. My action today will be to abstain because I do not believe that the measure merits passage.
11.44 pm
Mr. Bill Michie: I oppose the order for the cancellation of the 1985 elections for the GLC: and metropolitan county councils. My theme will be similar to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Any remarks that I may make about Conservative Members should be understood not to include the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The hon. Gentleman will understand why.
The order is one more step on the road to dictatorship. Centralisation is now on its way, and dictatorship will certainly follow. This is a time when much frustration is being caused because an insensitive Government do not understand the problems of the provinces or the inner cities, or the pressures of unemployment. At such a time, the Government are bringing in even more legislation to curtail the freedom of the individual. The nation is already divided. Trade union legislation is crushing the fundamental rights of trade unionists to defend and represent themselves. Millions face unemployment for the rest of their lives. The arm of the law is used to suppress democratic rights and to do the dirty work of central Government. The Government are continuing to remove any opposition to their views, and putting pressure on people by imprisonment, various forms of restriction, bankruptcy and force. The Government are now taking the final step—the removal of the right to vote. That is why I oppose the order, and that is why there is so much frustration and despair in the country.
Why do the Government not address themselves to the real issues and evils of the present day? Why do they not try to stop the rot in our industries? Why do they not try to bring back hope to those in despair? Why do they not use the good offices of local government, which not only upholds local democracy but contributes directly through services, the stimulation of jobs, care and understanding. When there are so many problems everywhere, why, instead of helping people and using the good offices of local government, do the Government remove the one element that clearly has served its purpose very well?.
No one says that the system is perfect. No one says that there is no room for change. What the people say is, "For God's sake, do not remove the one area of democratic control where we can make ourselves heard through the ballot box." If the people do not like something, they can remove it. That is not a job for central Government. That is what my right hon, Friend the Member for Chesterfield was saying.
Governments can change things, but they should not remove something just because it happens to be a thorn in their side and obstructs policies that the people recognise as insensitive. Sooner or later, the price must be paid.
Why not use central Government to stimulate the economy to protect freedom, and to allow local people to have their say through the ballot box?
I have been worried by some of the comments made by Tory Ministers and Back Benchers. They talk about democracy. They may think that by defending the Government they are defending democracy. I suggest that they are betraying democracy, and that it is time that they had the guts to stand up and fight.
11.49 pm
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: It is perhaps not unusual that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) should forget that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has had a provincial reincarnation and that his speech was not relevant to the debate. It was much more a repetition of the farrago of words that we have had during the past few months, based on the unreal world in which he dwells. His speech had little or nothing to do with local government or the order.
I am a realist and I know that the Bill will pass through this House and another place [Interruption.] It will do so for two reasons. First, the Bill was in our general election manifesto.
Mr. Eric Deakins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you remind the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) that we are discussing an order and not a Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the order.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I have done so, but it was difficult with the noise of Opposition Members, for you to hear that the order arises out of the Bill.
Hon. Members: No, it does not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has dealt with the Bill. We are now dealing with the order.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said three times that the order arises because the House has given the Bill a Second Reading. The order and the Bill—the two are inseparably linked, but I shall speak merely about the order — will pass through both Houses because there is a principle, which has been enshrined for many years in another place, that legislation which appears in a party's manifesto is not blocked by another place. That happened several times when there was a Conservative majority in another place —which there is not now—and a Labour Government.
There is one advantage in the extra year that will result from the order and the extension of the term of office of members of the GLC—we shall have more time to see Mr. Livingstone in action. We shall have more time to hear him join his allies, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Sinn Fein, and give him more time perhaps to apoligise for having called Jews Fascists. His calling the Board of Deputies of British Jewry Fascist is the biggest racial insult that I have heard during my public life. [HON. MEMBERS: "When did he do that?"] In an interview on Monday 10 December. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will refer that speech to his national executive and call for the expulsion of that member for such language.
I have dealt with the reality and shall now deal with what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said. He said that there are significant numbers of Conservative Members who might not support the order or the Bill. He made a mistake. There might be a number of significant Members, but there is not a significant number of Members. Many who have said that they do not like the order will recall that they said that they wanted to abolish the GLC in their manifestos. As this order flows from it, it is important to recognise that fact.
Mr. Wilkinson: Would my hon. Friend agree that there need be no conflict between a desire to abolish the GLC and an equal wish to see an appropriate, directly elected, slimmed-down body in its place and that it is perfectly reasonable to oppose this order since it pre-empts the will of Parliament? It is that which sticks in most people's craws, to use that most unparliamentary expression.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view. I merely recall that the democratically elected council in the area he serves has specifically called not merely for abolition but for no directly elected body to replace it. That is the view of most people who follow these matters very carefully.
Mr. Corbyn: While the hon. Member is dwelling on this point, would he care to tell the House what the member of the Greater London council and the Inner London education authority from Hampstead thinks about the abolition Bill and the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I said when I spoke on Second Reading, and I repeat it in the context of the order, that Mr. Alan Greengross is wholly and totally committed to the abolition of the Greater London council, as stated in the election manifesto. That is a fact that I have reconfirmed with him, following the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) last week.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Not again, no. In 1967 elections were due for the London borough councils. It was the Labour party, supported by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, then representing Bristol, South-East, who postponed those elections for one year — and postoned them very clearly for political advantage. On this occasion the order we are being asked to pass is being put forward because it would be the height of stupidity to have an election for the very limited period for which electors would be asked to vote. We need to realise that, even with £10 million worth of propaganda, four phoney GLC by-elections got under 30 per cent. of the voters out to vote. I recall also—
Mr. Tony Banks: Could I inform the hon. Member that the amount of money that the GLC has spent so far in this financial year on its advertising programme is not £10 million but £4·8 million. Last year it was £1·4 million. The projection for next year is £1·2 million. Could we have correct figures?
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: We have the figure of £10 million directly and indirectly spent on political propaganda, including phoney adverts by an organisation called GLEB. May I remind the House that at the general election in 1979 my opponent was a certain Mr. Kenneth Livingstone and that he was seen off from Hampstead. My opponent in 1983 was a certain Mr. McDonnell, and he was seen off from Hampstead, too. I appreciate that there are many problems connected with local government outside London and I am sure we shall hear more about them during the debate this evening on the order. I am sure that the House would not expect me to talk about the problems of areas such as the Socialist republic of south Yorkshire. That can be well done by Labour Members.

861
We are being asked today to act in a sense of realism. The Bill has been given its Second Reading and has therefore properly persuaded my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bring forward the order. He clearly does not intend to put all the electors of Greater London and the six metropolitan counties through the farce of an election. It does not matter if the political parties have to spend their money, but why should the ratepayers have to spend money on elections for a period so short as to be meaningless.
My right hon. Friend is right. The general public, who have begun to see through the barrage of propaganda, now realise that the organisations for which they were being asked to vote have no real functions and no real purpose. Conservative-controlled local councils throughout London, all of which, without exception, have said that they want abolition, all of which want the powers as rapidly as possible, and none of which want a directly elected replacement, are right, and my right hon. Friend is right, to ask for the order to be passed tonight.
12.1 am
Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is fair to say that the House is getting used to seeing constitutional monstrosities coming before it, as the Government, with their enormous majority, tread down elected representatives of the people on both sides of the Chamber.
Tonight's measure can only be described as a constitutional outrage, a constitutional obscenity, a constitutional disgrace or a constitutional scandal. No matter how hard Ministers try to tart up this tatty order —I have no doubt that the Minister will do that when he replies—there is no way that the Minister or any Conservative Member can deny that tonight we are embarking on a serious precendent. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) so rightly said, it is a dangerous precedent that the Government may well come to regret, although not for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The Government cannot deny that no Administration has ever had cause to deprive the British people, or a major part of it, of what is in any language their inalienable democratic right to vote for an administration of their choice through the ballot box at a local election, which would have been in May next year, without a major Bill already on the statute book, and included in the Bill the reason for the abolition or postponement of an election.
Let no one forget that, had it not been for the action of their Lordships in the other place, my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne, North would have been ruled until 1986 by nominated Tory councillors, or, to be fastidiously correct, by councillors nominated by a Tory Minister. Indeed, as things stand, a major part of Britain's electors is to be lumbered with an administration which it may or may not wish to continue in office for a further year. Only the ballot box could determine the true wishes of the electorate in Greater London and the metropolitan county councils.
The Secretary of State has waxed eloquently about the months of discussion in committees in the Tory party prior to the general election last year, when this issue became an election manifesto commitment. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the major issue in this Parliament —and the Minister must concede that—should find a place in the manifesto nine days after the election was
862
declared. Are we to believe a former Tory Prime Minister? I am sure that no one in the House would be so unworthy as to suggest that the word of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) should be doubted. If we believe him, this pledge was thrust into the manifesto after the election was declared. It is difficult to believe that a major Government commitment was not in the draft manifesto long before the election was declared. In any event, without wishing to be offensive to any of the Tory Front Bench, I would prefer to accept the word of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup than that of anyone sitting on the Treasury Bench.
There is no valid reason for the abolition of the Tyne and Wear county council other than sheer, unadulterated political spite. The electors of Tyne and Wear will not take kindly to having their democratic rights nicked, stolen—call it what we may—for any reason other than that they have persisted in voting Labour since a previous Tory Government gave birth to the metropolitan county councils.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to the dangerous precedent of the abolition of elections. He suggested that a future Labour Government might use this dangerous precedent to abolish general elections. Perish the unworthy thought of the hon. Gentleman. However, that thought had not escaped my mind. Several months ago I wrote to the Secretary of State protesting about the proposal. In a lengthy letter I posed the question of the evils of the abolition Bill. I asked what guarantee had the electorate that in 1988, with a Tory Government who were so desperately unpopular that they would clearly lose the election, they would not use their massive majority to push through a Bill to postpone the general election using the argument that they would be saving the country from a dangerous Marxist Labour authority.
12.8 am
Mr. Harry Cohen: There is a rumour that the Government will distribute an official Christmas present this year. Labour Members do not believe it because we all know that they are too mean. However, the rumour is that it will be a deck of playing cards made out of sandpaper for all the people to whom they have given a rough deal. That means all those in London and the metropolitan counties who have had their votes taken away.
This order is all about dogma before democracy. The Government are so obsessed with their dogma of cuts, and their political vendetta against local authorities and the GLC, that they are prepared to abolish elections to further that obsession. The Government are increasing public spending in several areas—for example, on Trident, and the waste there, Fortress Falklands, the British Telecom City bonanza, the cost of the coal industry strike, which they have described as a worthwhile investment, and the dole money paid under their unemployment strategy. They are spending public money when it suits them and wasting it when it suits them. However, the wastage has to be paid for through cuts in social services, education, housing and other factors in local authority budgets. Then they have the nerve to say that there is no alternative. That is absolutely ludicrous when the priorities are put side by side.
There is also the Government's political vendetta. They have become obsessed against Ken Livingstone at the GLC and now against the rate-capped Labour local authorities. It is because those Labour authorities are

863
showing that there is an alternative to dismal, doleful Toryism. They have sought to match their public services to local needs. They have promoted economic development and job creation, and employed community policies that are both popular and relevant in their areas. With such programmes, those councils would be re-elected with massive majorities if they were allowed to go to the electorate. Hence the Government are coming forward with the order to abolish them and the elections.
Last week we debated the Local Government Bill. Conservative Members were wrestling with their consciences on the matter of their mandate. Listening to them was like being an intruder on their private grief. Of course, it was a mess all of their own making. It is exactly what happens when an authoritarian petty tyrant writes in a commitment on a whim. The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister did that to avoid any real commitment to tackling unemployment.
Manifesto commitments are not to be taken lightly. The Government will be condemned if they break their commitment. They should not promise what they cannot deliver or what has not been properly thought out. They will be condemned much more if they implement that commitment, particularly in the Local Government Bill. During the general election, at no stage did they say what the alternative to the GLC and the metropolitan counties would be or that they would abolish the elections and people's right to vote for their own regional and city governments.
If the Government push ahead with that manifesto commitment—so called—their manifesto will have to be rewritten, certainly for the next election. If they do not do it, we shall have to do it for them. Perhaps we shall have what can be described only as an honesty manifesto—for example, that the Conservatives are for creeping centralisation. That is actually being quite charitable, considering the reserve powers of the Secretary of State. A plethora of clauses give him powers. Clause 93 is a classic, giving him the power to do anything that he wants that he regards as necessary and expedient. It is a blank cheque.
What has happened to the Prime Minister's famous insert into her conference speeches, that she was protecting the individual from the power of the state. I hope that we shall hear no more of that. What with the Government using the police and the courts against trade unionists and the overwhelming powers that they are taking to themselves in the Bill, it is not creeping centralisation, but much more like galloping centralisation.
The Conservative party will have to say in its honesty manifesto that it is in favour of quangos and more complexity. The previous manifesto was sold to the public on the basis that a Conservative Government would make life simpler, but they have made it about as simple as Einstein's theories. A web of quangos and joint boards will replace directly elected councillors. People will not know where to go and who to see if they have a problem or complaint.
The Conservative party will have to say in its manifesto, "Conservatives put people on the dole." It is the party of unemployment. That would be an automatic inclusion, with unemployment presently running at 4
864
million; but they even had the cheek to boast in the debate on the Local Government Bill that they would put another 7,100 public servants out of work.
The manifesto would also have to say, "Conservatives waste public money." Last week's Coopers and Lybrand report estimated that the provisions would cost £69 million, which is completely unnecessary expenditure. It will cost ratepayers more as the quangos determine their rate precepts—
Mr. Michael Fallon: Rubbish.
Mr. Cohen: Those precepts will increase considerably.
On top of all that, an important inclusion in the honesty manifesto will be that, "Conservatives are for diminishing democracy." The order is about abolishing elections. That would be bad enough—indeed, it is diabolical—but they are doing it on a partial, biased basis. They are doing it on a party-political basis, because only Labour-controlled authorities will be abolished, not Tory-controlled shire county councils. It will also be remembered that the Government tried to gerrymander the House on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. First, they tried to ensure that they obtained a Tory majority in the borough nominations; they even floated the idea of London Members of Parliament being involved. They were all temporary devices to ensure that they had a majority.
However, the Secretary of State has gone beyond that and taken the powers unto himself. From an answer to a parliamentary question that I put down, I learnt that his powers will extend to deciding whether the GLC can buy teabags.
The abolition of the elections is massively unpopular; the opinion polls show that more than 70 per cent. of Londoners are opposed to it. During the consultations on "Streamlining the Cities" many people, including Conservatives, spoke against the abolition of elections. They included voluntary organisations, local authorities —not just those involved directly—the staff of local authorities, trade unions, churches, pensioners' organisations, women's organisations, ethnic minorities, housing associations and professional organisations.
Even the arts came out against abolition. If the Government will not take account of those views, they will have to include in their honesty manifesto, "Conservatives are uncaring, undemocratic Philistines."
Mr. Fallon: Rubbish.
Mr. Cohen: As a result of this order and .the Local Government Bill, London will be the only capital city in the Western world without its own directly elected, city-wide government, and it has been shown overwhelmingly that Londoners do not want that. The Conservative honesty manifesto will not win many votes, but it is the truth and—
Mr. Fallon: Rubbish.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is not helping our proceedings by keeping up a running commentary of abuse. I hope that he will desist.
Mr. Cohen: I was on my last sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Government's honesty manifesto will not win many votes, but it is the truth, and the Minister knows it.
12.20 am
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Much has been made by the Government Front Bench of precedents for the abandonment of elections, but for two years after the passage of the Local Government Act 1972 o there existed not one set of elected councils, but three. There were the old county borough councils, which were going out of existence, there were the district councils elected in 1973, and the metropolitan county councils. Now for most of the country, the reality will be no local elections for 1985.
The Government wish to avoid elections as much as possible. Despite the hoo-ha about the opinion polls, they know that in much of the country they are very unpopular and would suffer in any local elections. We are being asked to transfer the sort of inner-party autocracy that already exists in the Tory party to the major conurbations. There will be no elections if—
Mr. Derek Fatchett: Is not my hon. Friend a little concerned that, as the debate has developed, Tory Members have left the Chamber—
Mr. Allan Rogers: I have not.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I have not.
Mr. Fatchett: There is a noticeable improvement on the Tory Benches by the presence of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). However, is not my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) worried that there is not a Tory Member who wishes to make a contribution to support his Government? It is not a problem of Tory Members wrestling with their consciences. They must have decided that they do not support their Government.
Mr. Wareing: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I appreciate that most of the Tory Members are not here in the Chamber, and those who are present are not all here either. They certainly have nothing to contribute to the debate.
Under this order, there will be no elections. People in the conurbations will not therefore be allowed to determine what transport, police, fire service and economic development policies there will be, because, like the water and health authorities, those services will be run by people who have got their jobs by indirect appointment. There will never be a coherent, clear policy presented to the people in the conurbations. They will not be able to determine what sort of administration they desire.
The reason for all this is simple. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has made it clear that the Labour party thinks that this is a battle for democracy against the autocrats in the Tory Government. Autocracy began inside the Cabinet. The real professionals in the Tory party have been sent on to the Back Benches. Few in the Cabinet now will resist the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister's whim that we are debating, and it is her whim that will be debated on successive nights this week when we discuss the Local Government Bill. The essential point is that what the Tory party failed to win in the local elections of 1981, it now seeks to win by silencing opposition the in the metropolitan counties. It has tried everything else.
I notice that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is no longer in the Chamber,
866
but I understand that he has some interest in Great Universal Stores — the patron saint of the small shopkeeper. That was the organisation that took Merseyside county council to court over its "Fares fair" policy.
Mr. Fallon: I am not surprised.
Mr. Wareing: But the hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that Great Universal Stores was defeated even in the High Court; and it did not have the courage to go as far as the other place, because, I suggest, it realised that Merseyside county council was performing its fiduciary duty to its ratepayers. Many of them do not have the use of a car and do not live in the luxiourous areas represented by so many Conservative Members. Those people cannot afford the luxury of sitting in a slovenly manner on the Tory Benches—
Sir Ian Percival rose—
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as the one Conservative Member who actually wants to participate in the debate also rose to his feet. If the Government think that the judges made the wrong decision in the case of Great Universal Stores, might they not start thinking about abolition of the judges' bench?
Mr. Wareing: With this Conservative Government, anything is possible. Their belief in democracy is clearly skin-deep. Even those who reside in Southport on Merseyside now benefit from the fairer fares policy, and that is particularly true of those who are of the age of the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir. I. Percival), who I now see rising to his feet. They have concessionary fares.
Sir. Ian Percival: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was asked if he could explain why there were so few Conservative Members present. Has it occurred to him that we are sick and tired of hearing the same old claptrap over and over again? He may ask why not more of us want to contribute, but we have made our contributions. We know what is right. I know what is right for the people of Southport and I do not require the hon. Gentleman to tell me. We shall support the Government in the Lobby the minute that we have the chance.
Mr. Wareing: Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I can offer to acquaint the people of Southport, particularly the pensioners, of the debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might care to debate with me in Southport, and in front of pensioners, the problems involved in travelling round Merseyside.
Mr. Nigel Spearing:: Is not the more likely explanation of the absence of Conservative Members—including the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir. I. Percival)—that they know that the order has the whiff of totalitarianism about it and that it comes from 10 Downing street?
Mr. Wareing: Yes, a sufficient number of Conservative Members smell—[interruption]—not only the whiff of totalitarianism but of defeat for the Prime Minister. They want to distance themselves from such policies, which they believe will ultimately lead to the demise of the Conservative party.
The Tories are using the weapon of trade union legislation and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act

867
against the official Opposition because the Government fear the day when our arguments will win accord with the public and sweep them from office. That will happen soon.
The decision on the elections comes before Parliament makes a decision on the main Bill. Assuming that it goes through both Houses unamended, Royal Assent is not likely before next year. Yet the elections, which as a Merseyside county councillor, I would welcome, are to be swept aside. In May 1985 the people who elected me cannot say whether my stewardship has been good or bad. I prefer the people in my ward to make that decision, not the diktat of the Gauleiter of Marsham street. This is a deliberate attempt to prevent opposition.
Conservative Members believe that their consciences will be salved by saying "Well, it was in the manifesto." It was put there by the Prime Minister nine days after the election was declared without any discussion with her policy committee or reference to London Members in her party. Conservative Members are not voting tonight for their manifesto commitment. By refusing elections for the metropolitan counties, they are not ensuring that district councils will take over the services, because on Merseyside only 15 per cent. of expenditure by the Merseyside county council will go to the district councils. The joint boards, the indirectly appointed bodies which have no coherent policy, will take over.
Conservative Members who have any belief in democratic accountability will exercise their right to vote against this intolerable measure which is more akin to Fascism in Spain under Franco than to the democracy on which this House has been built throughout the ages.
12.33 am
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In future years people may ask what we were doing in 1984, when there was so much unemployment and poverty and when so much money was spent on armaments, discussing the abolition of elections in Greater London and the met counties. Our discussion is not irrelevant to those problems. It is indicative of the Government's attitude to those problems that they are abolishing elections. They are abolishing them because of what many local authorities have been able to achieve. Before coming to the Chamber I was looking at the election address for the 1898 London county council elections. The then Conservative party in London, which said that it was moderate — we have heard about that before — was campaigning for the abolition of the London county council because it did not like the direct works department, the attempts to clear away the slum landlords, to clean up the Thames, to introduce a proper fire service and all the other things upon which Londoners now depend for a decent life.
Ever since those days the Conservative party has been opposed to the principle of a Londonwide elected authority. The Government are using their majority to force through this squalid order to destroy the right of Londoners and those in the metropolitan counties to vote for a local authority. If anyone imagines that the day after the local authorities are abolished consequent upon the order he will be able to influence decisions, let him bear in mind the quangos and the problems associated with them. If anyone in my constituency has a housing problem or any problem connected with the local authority or the GLC, he can see an elected representative, take up the
868
matter and possibly obtain satisfactory, or possibly not. He can vote to remove that person from office if he wishes to do so. Let him try to do the same to representatives of the gas board, the electricity board, the Thames water authority or even the health authorities. Democracy is to be removed from many vital services.
Conservative participation in the debate about the future of local government and the abolition of elections could well be described as abdication. Conservatives have used their friends in the media to rubbish the idea of democracy. When the four by-elections took place in Greater London in September, the Conservative party did not participate. That was a bit thick, Conservatives having called the leader of the GLC the most hated and most wanted man in Britain. They have said that the Labour administration at County hall is an evil on the face of the earth but they refused the opportunity to participate in the by-elections. Had they won them, they could have gained control of the GLC.
The real reason for the Conservative party's non-participation was fear. It was not prepared to send its supporters to knock on doors to tell the electorate why its vote was being taken away. The Conservative party has still not satisfied anyone in London of its reasons for wishing to destroy the GLC or the metropolitan counties outside London, or take away the right of people to vote. Opinion polls show an increasing level of support for the principle of elected local government and a decreasing level of support for the Government. There are 33 Conservative Members who would lose their seats if an election were to take place on the issue of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. They should be well aware of that.
The proposals that we are discussing are indicative of the continuing centralisation of power under an increasingly paranoid Government. Since 1979 they have been systematically removing funding from the inner city areas. They have been systematically trying to control local authority finance. They have been systematically removing powers from local authorities and systematically penalising the poorer areas of the country.
We know that Britain's problems are severe. Against that background, why are the Government afraid of allowing those in the poorest areas to vote? Unemployment rates in London are well above the national average. In my constituency there is 21 per cent. unemployment, which is a common figure for many in London's inner city areas. The Government are denying these people the right to vote. They know that they will vote for a local authority that will try to provide jobs and services to alleviate the hardships that exist within London. They will continue to vote for a GLC, or successor bodies, that will campaign politically to get resources back into the inner city areas and thereby stop the poorest people being stamped down by Conservative Members.
The order is indicative of the Government's contempt for the poor and for democracy. When the order is passed, it should be remembered that a Conservative Member said during the debate that he was concerned that a future Labour Administration might be tempted to use these measures as precedents for further abolition Bills or as reasons for denying elections in other spheres. I have no fears about that. Conservative Members should understand that Opposition Members are members of a democratic party. We are born of democracy, because the Labour

869
party has fought for it. [Interruption.] We have fought for democracy in all places and in all spheres. The order is the beginning of the abolition of other forms of elections. Anyone who organises to oppose the Government is immediately opposed by the Government and their puppets in the media and, eventually, some squalid little Bill is forced through the House late at night. The day of reckoning for the Government will come. Government Members will have a rude awakening if they ever step outside the chamber late at night or during the day—I realise that some have other jobs to do — and test opinion to find out what people really think about being denied the right to vote, and the abolition of the local authorities. They will be surprised to learn of the respect felt by many for what the GLC and metropolitan councils have done in improving planning, fighting for the rights of women and ethnic communities and for industrial jobs, and so on.
The Government may well succeed in forcing this nasty little order through the House and in officially destroying next year's elections—with the ridiculous excuse of the cost of printing ballot papers, when they spend £17 billion on defence. The Government have contempt for democracy and for the poorest people. They will rue the day they passed this order, because they know what will happen to them when the people finally get an opportunity to vote.
12.41 am
Mr. Roland Boyes: A number of Opposition Members wish to participate in this debate, so I shall try to limit my remarks to a few minutes.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who is no longer in the Chamber, asked why we should bother holding elections when those elected will remain in office for only one year. During the past few months, the running theme of our arguments has been that, if the elections are not held, the assumption is that both Houses of Parliament will pass the abolition Bill and that the legislations will receive the Royal Assent. The Opposition believe that it is disgraceful and unacceptable that there will not be elections in 1985.
There was an interesting reaction from Conservative Members when the word "democracy" was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). It is clear that Conservative Members have forgotten what that word means. I think that I am the fifth Opposition Member in succession to speak — the Government ran out of speakers nearly one hour ago, so few are the Conservative Members who desire to defend the order.
Surely the election in 1985 would have given the people an opportunity to decide. We are democratic because we would have been prepared to let the people in the met counties, including Tyne and Wear county of which my constituency is a part, hear the case put by the Conservatives—they are the opposition in my area—and the case for the retention of the Tyne and Wear county council. We would have been prepared to let the people decide what they want. The Conservatives could have put the case about profligate spending, and so on. The people know what the Tyne and Wear county council has done for them in an area of massive unemployment. I could spend some time citing figures, but suffice it to say that the male unemployment rate—even on the Government's fiddled
870
figures—is 22 per cent. and that nearly 50 per cent. of the unemployed in Tyne and Wear have been out of work for more than a year.
If I had been a Conservative Member, I would not have wanted to put my case to the people who have suffered such deprivation for so long, because I would have known that the election result would have been a foregone conclusion. The only word that can express the Government's position is cowardice. The Government were too cowardly to put their case to the people of Tyne and Wear county, the other met counties and the GLC.
Ministers have made great play of the fact that the decision to abolish the GLC and the met counties was contained in the Conservative manifesto. Let me remind the House of what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said about the manifesto;
"they must recognise that a democratic Government still have to justify to the House what they are doing even though proposals were set out in the party's manifesto. No democratic Government have ever been able to say, 'it was in the party's manifesto, so we shall do it.'"—[Official Report, 4 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 191.]
Let us see what that means. The right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) said that he was fed up with hearing the same old claptrap. The claptrap may be coming from the Conservative Benches. Two respected opinion polls have been published—one by MORI for The Sunday Times, and one by Harris for The Observer. They were published the week after the Government had spent hours and hours presenting their argument to the country. The first opinion poll was taken throughout the country and not just in London and the metropolitan counties. It showed that 46 per cent. of the people were against abolition and only 30 per cent. were in favour.
A by-election is taking place in Enfield, Southgate this week, and an opinion poll has been taken there on the people's attitude to the Government's proposals. The Harris poll found that 47 per cent. of the people were against the Government's proposals and 31 per cent. were in favour of them.
Mr. Eric Forth rose—
Mr. Boyes: Conservative Members are not convincing the country with their arguments. The Government's case is not proven. They should drop this order until the abolition Bill has been decided by Parliament.
Mr. Forth rose—
Mr. Boyes: There is still time to have an independent inquiry. Five Opposition Members have wanted to speak but not one Conservative Member has stood up. The Government's case has not been proven and they have no right to expect support in the Lobby on this order.
12.47 am
Sir Ian Percival: I am driven to speak by the extreme observations of the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes). This is a serious issue and it is possible for there to be two different points of view. Do not Opposition Members realise that everything that can be said has been said? They may hold their views passionately, but it was a rather sick joke when an Opposition Member said that the Labour party is the democratic party. Does he not remember the time when the Labour Home Secretary was obliged to put forward the Boundary Commission's recommendations which did not suit the Labour party?
Mr. Ernie Roberts rose—
Sir Ian Percival: I shall not give way. The Home Secretary was under a statutory duty to propose that the recommendations be adopted and so he laid the order. His party was whipped to vote against it. That is an example of democracy and parliament fighting for it.
The arguments for and against the Government's proposals have been fully rehearsed. It does nothing for Opposition Members to put forward extravagant arguments that have no bearing on the point. Conservative Members have not taken up much of the time of the House this evening because we have made up our minds. We are aware of the arguments. We are convinced that the Government are right and we shall support them.
12.49 am
Ms. Jo Richardson: For hundreds of years there have been battles to extend and preserve people's right to vote and the duty to preserve that right is deeply ingrained in all of us. I do not think that anyone in the House, in London or elsewhere would ever have believed that in 1984 Parliament would be called upon to destroy a vote.
In all those battles no group has been so disadvantaged, obliged to fight so hard and held back from voting for so long as women. The women of London are very angry at the taking away of their vote, the cancellation of the elections and the prospect of the Greater London council ceasing to exist. The GLC has given women a voice in London—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it!"] It is no use Conservative Members shaking their heads. They should listen. They do not listen to anyone. The GLC listens to women. [Interruption.] There is nothing for hon. Members to laugh about. Let me tell them a story.
The GLC is the successor to the old London county council. Like other hon. Members, I was fascinated to read the record of the first election to the LCC, written by the record keeper to the council and entitled, "Sexism and the first London County Council election, 1889". At that time women did not have the vote and it was a matter of contention whether they could stand for election. Indeed, it was another 20 years before they obtained the right to stand for Parliament. In the end, however, three women stood for the first LCC election and two were elected—Lady Sandhurst, who was returned for one of the two Brixton constituencies, and Miss Jane Cobden, daughter of the famous Richard Cobden, who won one of the two seats for Bromley and Bow.
When the two ladies took their seats at county hall the council seemed determined to reinforce the feminist view that had come into the council chamber and as well as welcoming the two women members they took the very progressive step of electing an alderman who was a woman to make a women's triumvirate in the chamber. Those women were scarcely a threat to local government democracy, but they were vulnerable because they were not masculine. The person who had stood against Lady Sandhurst in the election challenged her right to her seat, took the case to the High Court and won. Although the women retained their seats they were not allowed to vote or to speak, so they sat it out, unable to do any more than to attend council meetings. Finally, they got fed up with that and decided to speak and to vote. They were then challenged yet again, someone else took them to the High Court and they lost.
872
The anger throughout London and in the council itself, however, was such that campaigns were pursued until those women and others after them were able to take their seats and to vote in the council chamber. Those battles have been won. Women in London today are determined that the battle for the GLC shall be won as well. That is what we are discussing this evening.
Much has been said in the debate about the Tory manifesto. One woman said to me the other day that she found it strange that, although our Prime Minister is a woman, there was no woman's perspective in the manifesto. As far as the women of London are concerned, the Prime Minister has not contributed a woman's perspective. All her policies, including the abolition of these elections and perhaps of the GLC, tend to disadvantage women and to cut them off from services that have been of enormous benefit to them.
Many women may well have voted for the Prime Minister and the Tory Government at the last general election. Very many of them will be thinking again about what they should do at the next general election. Indeed, many of them are wondering whether the Government will go on to abolish the next general election as well.
12.56 am
Mr. Tony Banks: The time of night—or early morning—chosen to discuss an order such as this is of crucial importance. The Government must be hoping that their proposals will receive as little publicity as possible.
By their failure to speak in the debate, Conservative Members have shown that they do not wish to be associated with the proposal — or, perhaps, that they cannot summon up adequate arguments to support their own Government.
It is appropriate that we should be discussing the order at such a time, because our democratic rights are being stolen from us. The Government, like a thief in the night, are taking away the democratic rights of Londoners and of people in other areas.
There has been another interesting feature of today's proceedings in Parliament. Earlier, we discussed the Representation of the People Bill, which proposes certain extensions—as the Government see it—to the franchise. Now, however, we are discussing an order that will take the vote away from 18 million people. The Government say that there are other opportunities to vote.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) said that only one vote is being taken away from the people of London. He should reflect on the fact that in the shire counties people have opportunities to vote in parish, district, shire county and general elections. In outer London constituencies, such as mine, we will, if the order is passed have only two opportunities to vote — in borough council and general elections. We have only two opportunities to vote, whereas in the shire counties there are four.
How many more proposals will the Government make, saying that voting is inappropriate and too expensive and that people must therefore lose their right to vote? The order will deprive London of 95 years of voting for city-wide government. This is a squalid little measure from a squalid little Government who will get their come-uppance in the local government elections in 1986.
12.58 am
Mr. Jack Straw: Only eight months ago, the Secretary of State advised the House, with all the conviction that he alone can command, of the merits of his Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, which at that stage not only abolished the 1985 elections but replaced the authorities by nominated bodies, thus transferring political power without elections.
We would do well to remember that this debate is taking place only because the Government have suffered abject humiliation at the hands of the House, another place and the British people. There would not have been the same pressure if it had not been for the fact that representatives here have woken up the deep unpopularity of the measures that the Secretary of State and his colleagues have advanced. None of these recommendations would have been accepted in April if only Conservative Members had bothered to listen to the arguments and to study the issues. Instead, as we have seen again today, the Government do not bother to consult their Back Benchers. That is no wonder, because they are not worthy of consultation. The Government know that almost anything that they present, unless it directly affects the pockets of wealthy voters, will be supported by Conservative Members, who will jump up and read Conservative research department briefings and troop through the Lobby behind the Government.
When he seconded the motion on the Loyal Address on 15 May 1979, the Minister for Local Government said:
"it is difficult to find that narrow strip of land that lies between rebellion and sycophancy."—[Official Report, 15 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 57.]
Far too many Conservative Members have found it too difficult today.
Mr. Robert Atkins: It is called the art of politics.
Mr. Straw: Is it? I know that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) once thought that the future of his political career lay in rebellion. He obviously now thinks that it lies in—
Mr. Tony Banks: He has got a Parliamentary Private Secretary's job now.
Mr. Straw: I am not sure that he has got a Parliamentary Private Secretary's job. Has he? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Maybe—
Mr. Tony Banks: He gets money for it.
Mr. Straw: I learnt only tonight that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has wisely decided not to continue as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Paymaster General. Perhaps the hon. Member for South Ribble has taken that job.
Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend may care to note that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), whose principal responsibility at the moment is as a Parliamentary Private Secretary on the Films Bill, has admitted to the Committee that he has not been to the cinema for some six or seven years? That is the extent of his competence and knowledge.
Mr. Straw: I do not think that there are any cinemas in his constituency.
There was little justification for this measure when it was first introduced and then amended, but there is now
874
even less justification for abolishing the elections. The first reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, is that we now know that the manifesto commitment that was presented to the British people lacked all legitimacy. It is claimed by none other than the Prime Minister—I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to savour these words —that the Conservative party
"can reasonably claim to be the leading democratic party in the world."
It is a modest claim in a modest speech—her Carlton Club lecture which was given last week. We all enjoy the spectacle of the Conservative party, flexible as ever, as the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) told us, fighting for years—in some cases centuries—against a major principle, such as democracy, as it did until Disraeli persuaded it that democracy might be in its interests. We now see what has happened to him. The Prime Minister wants to go back to Lord North. It is fascinating to us, who are members of what we believe to be a party of principles, however inconvenient they might sometimes be, to watch the flexibility of the Tory party fighting democracy. The democrat used to be a term of abuse used by Tories. Now Tories suggest that they are in favour of democracy and that the Conservative party is the most democratic party in the world. If so, I ask the Minister, how, in an internally democratic party, can a commitment find its way into the manifesto against the wishes of the party policy committee? I assume that, if it is a democratic party, it has a constitution and that there are votes. The right hon. Gentleman must answer that question.
If the Tory party practised what it preaches about democracy —I am interested to find that evidently it does not—plainly that commitment was railroaded into the manifesto against the wishes of the party as a whole and it lacks any legitimacy either in the country or in the Conservative party.
The second reason why there is even less justification for this measure which abolishes elections to precede the abolition of the authorities is the evidence which has emerged about the cost of this farrago of proposals. We have all noted that the Government have gone very coy indeed about their claim that £120 million is to be saved from the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan authorities. I am glad that they have. The message has not quite reached some of their hon. Friends. I took part in a radio interview with the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who claimed that as a result of this change 9,000 bureaucrats would go. It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman believes that all of these savings will come from savings in administration. If that is so, the metropolitan counties would have to save £50 million from administration. The metropolitan counties spent only £47 million upon the administrative costs of all their services. In order to achieve those administrative savings, those services would almost have to be wiped out.
However, since those wild claims were made and since our debates last week there has been the fascinating story in the Financial Times—not denied, not even commented upon tonight by Ministers—that to dismantle the GLC and London's capital fund could add £750 million to public borrowing. The article was written by Mr. Robin Pauley, who was so derided by the Secretary of State during the proceedings on the Rates Bill for his, Mr. Pauley's, leaks from the Treasury that the Rates Bill would

875
cost £900 million. Mr. Pauley proved to be entirely accurate on that occasion, as he will on this, since his information is impeccable. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman winds up the debate he will tell us a little more about the Treasury's briefing of the Financial Times: that the abolition of the GLC will add £750 million to public borrowing. Had that been anticipated by the Prime Minister when she forced that commitment into the manifesto, I do not believe the Government would have gone ahead with the legislation.
The third reason why there is even less justification for this measure than there was is the personality of the Minister for Local Government who apparently has the principal responsibility for piloting this measure through the House. As we heard last week, his claims that he had always been in favour of the abolition of the GLC ever since the early 1960s were not entirely accurate. What the right hon. Gentleman told this House on 18 March 1971 bears repeating. Indeed, it should be repeated daily. We must not forget that he told the country only recently that he had always been opposed to the abolition of the GLC ever since the 1960s. His exact words were:
"I believe and have always believed in the abolition of the GLC, consistently since I represented London back in the 1960s".
He said on 18 March 1971 when moving the Second Reading of the Greater London Council Bill:
"It"—
the GLC—
"has progressive and expanding programmes, it is making life better for Londoners, and it will make it infinitely better for Londoners in the 1970s and the 1980s".—[Official Report, 18 March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 1741.]
We let the Minister off rather lightly last Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman owes the House and the country an apology for deliberately misleading them about the position he took on the GLC during the 1960s and 1970s. He said on the radio that he had always supported the abolition of the GLC. That is utterly inconsistent with speech after speech that he has made in the House. I now offer the right hon. Gentleman the chance to set the record straight.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
Mr. Straw: If we cannot have the organ grinder, let us have the monkey.
Mr. Dickens: It takes a gorilla to know a monkey. May I say, in defence of my right hon. Friend, that when I first came into the House in 1979 I introduced a ten-minute Bill to abolish the metropolitan county councils, and my right hon. Friend was most supportive.
Mr. Straw: I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that although he may think that the world revolves around him, I was talking about his right hon Friend's record. If the Minister did support the abolition of the GLC throughout the 1960s and 1970s, how did he manage to write that now notorious pamphlet and make so many speeches in the House? I hope that at some stage he will have the courage and guts to explain to the House the problems that he now faces.
We have heard the many forebodings of my hon. Friends about where the anti-democratic actions of the Government are likely to lead. I share many of them. Let
876
me read to the house a report that appeared in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph on 24 December 1983 on the Lancashire county council's proposal to abolish the metropolitan county councils. A county councillor told the policy resources committee that she foresaw a day when elected representatives would be "not worth a fig". She said:
"Will the shire counties be next in their place? Will we have Government sponsored people on district councils to put them on the right lines? How long will it be before we have 1984 when elected representatives are not worth a fig? I see this day coming and I am fearful."
That comes not from a Labour councillor but from a woman elected as Conservative county councillor for Lancashire.
Ultimately, although we are concerned about services, the order and the Local Government Bill are about democracy. The Government tonight are seeking to fly in the face of democratic principles that they claim to hold dear and the democratic rights of 13 million voters in London and the metropolitan counties. It is a completely disreputable and dishonourable order, and it should be opposed.
1.13 am
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) dips yet again into my voluminous speeches and writings. I have been looking through what he has written and spoken over the past few years. But I must disappoint my hon. Friends because I have not been able to find anything either interesting or memorable.
Let me briefly remind the House of the purpose of the order that we are discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that in the paving Bill both Houses of Parliament agreed that it was right to put on the statute book what is now part II of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984—the provision to suspend elections. So the principle was then agreed. However, it was subject to the approval of both honourable Houses by way of an affirmative order, and that is what we are asking the House to agree to tonight.
In effect, both Houses—including the House at the other end of the Corridor—accepted the Government's view that it makes little sense to hold elections to councils which, if Parliament enacts the Local Government Bill, will have only 11 months to run. Never before has a whole council been elected for a term of less than a year. That was the principle agreed in the Bill, although I appreciate that Opposition Members do not accept that.
From the outset the Government made it clear that they would introduce an order instituting part II of the paving Bill, and that that would not be made until the House had approved the main principle of abolition by giving a Second Reading to the Local Government Bill, which it did last week by a majority of 135.
I come now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He made an interesting and important speech, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). The tenor of his speech was that the struggle for democracy has been long and hard. He said that great advances had been made only by systematic breaking of the law. He listed a great parade of the various advances of democracy.
The right hon. Gentleman's memory was a little selective. It stopped short when he took office. It was a

877
parade of the Labour party's great crusade of extending democracy. During the first Wilson Government, the Cabinet took action that could not be described as democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, in 1967 that Government postponed the London borough elections for a year—from 1967 to 1968. It is possible that those elections were postponed because the Labour Government were unpopular, were losing by-elections at Meridon, Dudley and Acton, and therefore it became convenient to postpone them? When it suited the Labour Government, they postponed the elections.
Having learned how to do that, in 1969 the right hon. Gentleman participated in one of the most disgusting pieces of gerrymandering that this House has ever seen. The Labour Government wanted to postpone the boundary revisions of 1969 because they would have abolished a number of small inner London seats. They tried not to introduce the measure, but then introduced a Bill only for London. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers that marvellous episode in the great progress of Labour party democracy. They introduced a Bill to gerrymander London alone. They found themselves in a mess because it involved Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Surrey and all the areas around London. Overcome by shame, they withdrew the Bill and did nothing. The record of the Labour party on democracy is poor.
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Baker: I am sorry, but I will not give way as I wish to answer the debate.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said in effect that we are introducing the measures because we are frightened of having elections. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman read last week's New Statesman. Perhaps it is a little too Right-wing for him. If he had read it, he would have seen an article by Peter Kellner, the political editor, who is one of the most accurate and best commentators upon local government election results. He was analysing the November local government results all over the country, and the article was under the heading:
"Worst council results of Kinnock leadership"
Analysing what happened in November, Mr. Kellner said:
"Labour came third in local council by-elections in November—the party's worst month since Neil Kinnock became leader."
In the month of November, taking all the council and county council by elections—
Mr. Michie: What about the county council elections?
Mr. Baker: I am coming to the county council elections in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should wait for it. Mr. Kellner stated that in all the council elections in November, of all the people who voted, 40·1 per cent. voted Conservative, Alliance 29·9 per cent., and Labour 27·3 per cent. What was interesting was that buried deep in those results was a by-election for a county council that is to be abolished—the West Midlands county council. There was a by-election in Coventry, South West in which the Conservative candidate stood on a ticket to scrap the council. He won with a swing of 4 per cent. and—
Mr. Michie rose—
Mr. Baker: I am sorry, I cannot give way.
The seat that was contested was Coventry, South-West. This is what Mr. Peter Kellner said about Coventry, South-West, which we held with a swing of 4 per cent:
878
"It is … precisely the sort of ward Labour needs to win."
The seat was represented by an old friend of us all Audrey Wise, from 1974 to 1979. Mr. Kellner says:
"Last month's result, however, represents a 4 per cent swing to the Tories".
Therefore, according to the evidence the recent electoral contests that we have had have been shown to be valueless, and we are doing rather well. Let me refer—
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baker: No, I must reply to the debate.
Mr. Straw: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baker: I must reply to the debate.
Mr. Hughes rose—
Mr. Straw rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order.
Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want it to be placed on record that this Minister was given more time than he asked for, and it is dishonourable of him not to give way. The way that he is behaving is outrageous.
Mr. Baker: I should like to refer to the GLC by-elections. They show the unscrupulous attitude of Opposition Members. Two of the candidates who stood and were re-elected in the stunt by-elections were Mr. McDonnell, the deputy leader of the GLC, and Mr. Ken Little of Edmonton. They were just re-elected in September at the stunt by-elections. But in this week's London Labour Briefing, Mr. McDonnell says that all the wet members of the GLC on the Labour side who were not prepared to risk bankruptcy and illegality in setting a rate should stand down and resign their seats and allow the Labour party to replace them
"with a councillor who is willing to stand firm in support of party policy. In my view if any councillor refuses to stand down:now and goes on to support compliance and cuts … he or she is as much a scab as any miner currently crossing NUM picket lines."
I do not ascribe those views to the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) or Blackburn, but that is what Mr. McDonnell said. He is saying that his colleague who has just been re-elected, Mr. Ken Little, must stand down. Mr. Little has been told that he must obey the caucus, not the people who re-elected him. That shows entirely the attitude of—
Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Minister has very little time in which to reply to the debate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
Mr. Baker: The example that I quoted of Mr. McDonnell trying to force out of office one of his elected colleagues shows that Labour's approach to local government in London is not one of concern for the people or for essential services. The hard Left in London has used local government as a platform for its Left-wing dogma and political ambitions, and I wish to use—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), and to order [5 December]:—
The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 169.

Division No. 45]

[1.26 am

AYES

Adley, Robert

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Alexander, Richard

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Ancram, Michael

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Arnold, Tom

Gow, Ian

Ashby, David

Gregory, Conal

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Grylls, Michael

Baldry, Tony

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Batiste, Spencer

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bellingham, Henry

Hanley, Jeremy

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hannam, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Harris, David

Blackburn, John

Harvey, Robert

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Body, Richard

Hawksley, Warren

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hayes, J.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hayward, Robert

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Heddle, John

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Henderson, Barry

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hickmet, Richard

Braine, Sir Bernard

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Brinton, Tim

Holt, Richard

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Hooson, Tom

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hordern, Peter

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Howard, Michael

Browne, John

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Bruinvels, Peter

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Buck, Sir Antony

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Budgen, Nick

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Butcher, John

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Butler, Hon Adam

Hunter, Andrew

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Carttiss, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cash, William

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Chapman, Sydney

Key, Robert

Chope, Christopher

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Churchill, W. S.

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lamont, Norman

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lang, Ian

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Latham, Michael

Cockeram, Eric

Lawler, Geoffrey

Colvin, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Coombs, Simon

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Cope, John

Lester, Jim

Couchman, James

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Crouch, David

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Mather, Carol

Dickens, Geoffrey

Mellor, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Needham, Richard

Dover, Den

Nicholls, Patrick

Dunn, Robert

Norris, Steven

Durant, Tony

Onslow, Cranley

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Ottaway, Richard

Evennett, David

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Patten, John (Oxford)

Fallon, Michael

Pawsey, James

Favell, Anthony

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Proctor, K. Harvey

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Fletcher, Alexander

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Forman, Nigel

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Forth, Eric

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Fox, Marcus

Rowe, Andrew

Franks, Cecil

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Freeman, Roger

Ryder, Richard

Fry, Peter

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Gale, Roger

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Galley, Roy

Sayeed, Jonathan

880

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Thornton, Malcolm

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Thurnham, Peter

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tracey, Richard

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Trippier, David

Shersby, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Silvester, Fred

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Sims, Roger

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Skeet, T. H. H.

Viggers, Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Waddington, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Walden, George

Speed, Keith

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Speller, Tony

Waller, Gary

Spence, John

Ward, John

Spencer, Derek

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Watson, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Watts, John

Squire, Robin

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Stern, Michael

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Wheeler, John

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Whitfield, John

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Whitney, Raymond

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Wiggin, Jerry

Stradling Thomas, J.

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Sumberg, David

Winterton, Nicholas

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Wolfson, Mark

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Wood, Timothy

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Terlezki, Stefan

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Mr. John Major and

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Mr. Michael Neubert.

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Dewar, Donald

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dobson, Frank

Ashton, Joe

Dormand, Jack

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Dubs, Alfred

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Barnett, Guy

Eadie, Alex

Barron, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Beith, A. J.

Ewing, Harry

Bell, Stuart

Fatchett, Derek

Benn, Tony

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Bermingham, Gerald

Fisher, Mark

Bidwell, Sydney

Flannery, Martin

Blair, Anthony

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Boyes, Roland

Forrester, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Foster, Derek

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

George, Bruce

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Godman, Dr Norman

Bruce, Malcolm

Golding, John

Caborn, Richard

Gould, Bryan

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Canavan, Dennis

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Cartwright, John

Hardy, Peter

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cohen, Harry

Heffer, Eric S.

Coleman, Donald

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoyle, Douglas

Cowans, Harry

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Craigen, J. M.

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dalyell, Tam

John, Brynmor

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Deakins, Eric

Kennedy, Charles

881

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Radice, Giles

Kirkwood, Archy

Randall, Stuart

Lamond, James

Redmond, M.

Leighton, Ronald

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Litherland, Robert

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Robertson, George

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Loyden, Edward

Rogers, Allan

McCartney, Hugh

Rooker, J. W.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

McGuire, Michael

Rowlands, Ted

McKelvey, William

Sedgemore, Brian

McNamara, Kevin

Sheerman, Barry

McTaggart, Robert

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

McWilliam, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Madden, Max

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Marek, Dr John

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Skinner, Dennis

Maxton, John

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Meacher, Michael

Snape, Peter

Meadowcroft, Michael

Soley, Clive

Michie, William

Spearing, Nigel

Mikardo, Ian

Stott, Roger

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Strang, Gavin

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Straw, Jack

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Thome, Stan (Preston)

Nellist, David

Tinn, James

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wallace, James

O'Brien, William

Wareing, Robert

O'Neill, Martin

Welsh, Michael

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Winnick, David

Park, George

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Parry, Robert

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Patchett, Terry

Pavitt, Laurie

Tellers for the Noes:

Pike, Peter

Mr. Don Dixon and

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Mr. Allen McKay

Prescott, John

Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 22nd November, be approved.

Local Government
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 15th November, be approved. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
    Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Greater London Council
  1.32 am
  Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg leave to present a petition that has been signed by more than 50,000 women in London. Its purport is to show
  That the Government's plan to abolish the Greater London Council and to replace it with non-elected boards, and to cancel the 1985 GLC elections, is an affront to democracy and to the liberties of the people of London;
  That the Government's proposals would seriously reduce the quality of public services available to Londoners, and increase the rate burden in most London Boroughs;
  That abolition of the GLC would be against the interests of women in London, for these specific reasons.
  The reasons are listed in the petition, and include child care projects, employment and training opportunities and other projects of general benefit.
  I have great pleasure in presenting this petition. If there had been more time, we would have had more signatures. But it generally reflects the feelings of women and other citizens in our capital.
  To lie upon the Table.

Cream Heat Treatment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
1.38 am
Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of the Cream (Heat Treatment) Regulations (Scotland) 1983. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for keeping him at this late hour, but, in view of the importance of the issue, I am sure that he will forgive me.
The regulations came into effect on 18 November 1983, two days after they had been theoretically debated in Parliament. I say "theoretically", because they were only one of 11 measures for debate, and in the subsequent Division they were grouped with nine others. The debate hardly touched on the case for heat treatment for milk, cream and other dairy products. The issue that night was the impact of European UHT milk and the earlier action by the Community which prevented United Kingdom opposition to imports.
That lack of serious consideration has characterised the progress of this and other regulations governing the production, distribution and sale of milk, cream and other dairy products.
The earlier Milk (Special Designation) (Scotland) Order 1980 was brought in without taking into account the implications for the small producers of effectively enforcing the heat treatment of all milk in Scotland. The consequences were understood by the local authorities which had to enforce the regulations. Indeed, some of them spoke out at the time. I understand that about 200 small producers in Scotland have gone out of business as a result of the 1980 order. At least when that order was implemented people had reasonable time to react, since it came into effect in mid-1983.
In a letter from the Scotish Office dated 3 November 1980, it was said that the Government had no plans to extend the requirement for heat treatment to include cream, yoghurt or other milk products. Yet, a little over two and a half years later, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Scotland wrote to 11 organisations indicating its intention to introduce heat treatment for cream.
I understand that the representative of those most likely to be affected, the Small Farmers Association, was not among those consulted. Had it been consulted, objections would have been made and perhaps we should have had second thoughts about the order. No objections were made by any of the organisations. That is not surprising since the regulations eliminate the small, independent producer and benefit the larger producer.
The order came into effect without those most closely affected being consulted or even being aware of its existence. The first that producers of cream in my constituency knew of it was when they were contacted by environmental health officers one month after the order had come into effect explaining their obligations and saying that they should cease selling their cream. That is no criticism of the district council, because it had received little prior notice.
In the circumstances, it is interesting to examine the reasons for justifying this secondary legislation. Salmonella poisoning arising from milk has been a small, if persistent, problem for many years. According to
884
written answers, between 1970 and 1983 the number of outbreaks varied between two and 10 and the number of people affected between 21 and 730. In one year—1971 — no outbreaks were attributable to milk. Over the entire period there were 12 deaths.
The dairy industry's record on food poisoning is such that most other food industries envy it. That includes National Health Service kitchens. It is significant that none of the outbreaks can be traced to cream or other dairy products, as all of them have involved milk.
I have seen no evidence to link even the incidents involving milk with small milk producers with fewer than 20 cows. I am informed that one case was attributed to cream, although parliamentary answers suggest that there has been none. The case involved pasteurised or treated cream, so it does not add to the argument.
Equally significant is that it has not been thought necessary to introduce the same rigorous controls on the sale of cream in England or in Wales. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of salmonella poisoning arising from cream, I received a parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State giving reasons for the introduction of the regulations which suggested that there was a proven risk to health.
All this might have been understandable in the real world of politics if there had been tremendous public pressure for regulations to be introduced. However, it seems that the Government have not had one representation to suggest that heat treatment regulations should be introduced to cover cream.
The implications are all too obvious. Choice is effectively destroyed for the consumer as an attractive, quality and varied natural product is replaced by a standardised and homogenised mass-produced material which is related more to shaving foam than to cream. Small businesses will be destroyed along with jobs in local communities in favour of large organisations which already have, or can afford, the expensive equipment that is required to pasteurise cream. Even for the smallest producer, the cheapest equipment available amounts to an investment of about £10,000. That has a bearing on the local economy, including local printing, packaging and distributon, which centres on the small producer. All those enterprises suffer.
My constituent argues convincingly that tourism will suffer. He has a thriving business selling his cream, providing farm teas and showing customers round his private and unsurbsidised farm museum. All that is prejudiced by his inability to sell his cream.
The best protection for the consumer is knowing the man who produces the cream. Locally produced cream for the consumer means that he knows the dairyman and the farmer. He will see the cows and he will be able to judge for himself the public health risks, if any, that he is taking. That cannot be said of the cream coming from the large producers, or of the milk. It is ironic that, on a day when the front page of The Scotsman carries an article about a Scottish farmer who says that he will not drink his own milk because he believes that it is being polluted by dioxide and that he has had independent testimony to that effect from scientists, the combined forces of the farmer and the district council are unable to prevent his milk being uplifted by the Milk Marketing Board for general sale. However, the regulations that we are discussing prevent my constituent from selling his cream to his neighbours.

885
Those who are being asked to cease production are not cowboys. My constituent has consistently won an order of merit for the cleanliness of his milk and for his cream. I understand that my hon. Friend must be concerned with public health, but we appear to have no evidence that the sale of unpasteurised cream constitutes a health risk. If there are zealots in the Department who wish to eliminate salmonella, should they not be applying their minds to banning imported poultry, which is far more of a risk, or preventing people from having holidays in foreign countries? I hasten to add that I do not favour either of those measures, but they would do more to reduce the incidence of salmonella poisoning than attacking those who produce small quantities of cream.
I am conscious, of course, of the problems of bovine leucosis, which I understand can survive the pasteurisation process; yet the testing of herds for it is not compulsory. From a series of parliamentary answers that I obtained on 1 August, I am forced to the conclusion that there have been no representations in support of the regulations.
There have been no replies to the consultation documents sent out by the Department. Indeed, the people affected were not consulted. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that no public health problems exist and that the consequences of the regulations and the costs of compliance are unknown to the Scottish Office. This is a classic example of regulations which destroy jobs, incentives, enterprise, competition and a quality product—things to which all Conservative Members subscribe.
I understand that the regulations are being reviewed. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to consider seriously exempting small producers—perhaps allowing them to sell unpasteurised cream from the farm gate—or making a blanket exemption for people who produce less than a given quantity. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend to suggest an appropriate amount. It is not unreasonable to review these regulations with a view to change, because the future of small, quality producers is at stake. The regulations have not been given the consideration due to them because of their consequences.
1.51 am
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I thank the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) for choosing this topic for an Adjournment debate. I know that he has a long and continuing interest in this subject. It is to his credit that he has raised this topic, which affects a small number of persons who run fairly small enterprises. None the less, it is important that the House should turn its attention to their needs as well as to the greater needs of our constituents.
I certainly subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's argument about the way in which the Government have played safe in introducing buying orders—originally on raw milk and subsequently in the 1980–83 period on cream. The Under-Secretary of the State must accept responsibility for public health. We must err on the side of safety. The Government have got the balance wrong. They have gone over the top and are prejudicing unnecessarily the rights of small producers in view of public health needs.
A small organisation in my constituency produces milk products from unpasteurised milk, specifically Bonchester cheese. I commend that cheese to the Under-Secretary of State. I make special trips to Harrods to buy it—it is about the only product I can afford to buy there—and I am alive to tell the tale. The arguments about cream
886
advanced by the hon. Member for Stirling showed how ridiculous the regulations are. They are even more ridiculous when they apply to the contamination of cheese made from unpasteurised milk. Small producers of unpasteurised cheese milk would suffer if they had to incur the capital costs of the machinery involved in small-scale pasteurisation, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Stirling. The figure of £10,000 was mentioned to me, too. The use of such machinery would produce bland cheese, unsuited to market requirements, and the small producers would not be able to receive the premium prices they are able to commend at present. The products would probably not even be mentioned in the marvellous publication "The Taste of Scotland" produced by the tourist board. We must ensure that public health is protected, but we must not legislate bacteria out of existence. We cannot go on producing sterile foods that have no character or flavour.
As the hon. Member for Stirling said, it is a matter of freedom of choice. I subscribe to the view—perhaps I can put it more forcefully than he did — that this requirement runs just about counter to every chapter of the Conservative manifesto in terms of liberties, distinctive ways of life, trade prospering, free enterprise, incentives to small businesses, lifting restrictions on fanners, reducing the burdens on small firms, diversifying regional economies and supporting tourism.
Tourism is important. People have conducted tours of small businesses such as that which produces Bonchester. The concluding paragraphs of the 1983 Conservative manifesto talked about cutting a path through the jungle of modern bureaucracy. The Conservatives claimed, that that was hard going. It is as hard going for the producers of small, high value products such as unpasteurised cheese as it is for cream producers.
The Government should consider the matter carefully when they review the regulations, because, although the number of people affected is not great, the Government can easily put small businesses out of business by playing it safe and going for the easy option and banning production on the basis that there might be future health risks.
1.55 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) have made an eloquent appeal against the heat treatment provisions of the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 based on the constraints this imposes on small businesses and the limitation of the freedom of choice for the individual.
It was good to hear that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had read the Conservative party manifesto. We hope that he might perhaps be converted by it. He seemed to be convinced by parts of it.
The latter point about the freedom of individuals is one underlying the basic doctrines of our democracy and is one of the tenets, which my hon. Friend and I hold dear. It is, nevertheless, necessary on certain occasions for the good of the individual and for the greater well-being of others to constrain that freedom. I merely draw hon. Members' attention to the laws and regulations that have been passed in this House in recent years and in particular to the provisions that have been

887
introduced to regulate the use of seat belts in cars, and the tightening up of standards in respect of transport and building. The underlying principle in all of these actions has been to improve the standards of services and facilities for the general public. The driving force behind the action on untreated cream is that of protecting public health and I should like to return to this point shortly.
First, however, it may be useful to remind my hon. Friend of the background to the introduction of the regulations under discussion this evening. During 1983, this country was faced with an adverse judgment by the European Court of Justice in respect of the ban on imports of UHT milk. The Government rightly considered, however, that if imports of milk were to be permitted it would be essential to ensure that public health be safeguarded as far as possible. The terms of the court "judgment" confirmed that the United Kingdom could take measures in this field and, following discussions with the Commission and the industry, we established a system of certificates and standards. These are principally embodied in the Import of Milk (Scotland) Regulations 1983, for Scotland. Concomitant with this system it was necessary to establish standards to apply to the production and manufacture of domestic milk products. For this reason the Milk-Based Drink (Hygiene and Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 and the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 were promoted. These estalished parameters for domestic trade against which any imports could be measured. Generally speaking, the regulations merely embodied the standards and practices operated by the dairy industry. In view of the legal obligation on the Government to accept imports, it was necessary to promote the regulations as quickly as possible but formal consultations were undertaken with the industry in adddition to many meetings on an informal basis.
While the regulations were being prepared, consideration was given in Scotland to sales of untreated cream. My hon. Friend will be aware that at that time action was being taken in respect of sales of untreated milk in Scotland. This resulted in a ban on the sale of untreated milk on 1 August 1983. As was made clear in the period leading up to the ban and subsequently, action was required in Scotland to require heat treatment of milk in view of the numerous instances of food poisoning resulting from the consumption of untreated milk. In recent years the instances of poisoning had been numerous and over the previous decade some 12 people had died as a direct result of drinking untreated milk. My hon. Friend will no doubt recall the outbreak at Keith when some 200 individuals were affected and the subsequent outbreak on Islay in my constituency affecting some 70 people.
The requirement to pasteurise is in no way intended as a criticism of the management techniques of farmers. Salmonella infection can be transmitted in the best-managed herds and passed through cow's system to the milk. The only reliable means of killing salmonella and rendering the milk safe is by a form of heat treatment. To protect the health of the consumer in Scotland and in particular to minimise the risk to the young and the elderly, a programe of compulsory pasteurisation was introduced. A system of exemptions was also established to enable producers who faced severe economic difficulty and in
888
whose area no alternative supply of heat-treated milk was readily available to continue to sell untreated milk after 1 August 1983.
Seventeen applications for exemption were received, of which 14 were granted. Each exemption lasts for a period of one year and is subject to review. When consideration was given to exemptions this year, 11 were renewed. A continuation of the exemption was granted to many of those only as a result of the introduction of a milk quota system which, as my hon. Friend will be well aware, still places certain difficulties on direct sellers of milk. It is to allow time for the position to be clarified that those producers have been given exemption. Subject to the status of direct sellers being clearer, only four producers will continue to be exempted from the ban after 31 March 1985. All the exemptions are in island areas.
I have outlined in some detail the arrangements which apply in respect of untreated milk in Scotland to show the extent to which we are limiting the sales of untreated milk. The arguments in respect of freedom of choice for the consumer and the effect on small businesses apply equally and it was with this background that we gave serious consideration during the preparation of the regulations to introducing a compulsory ban on the sale of untreated cream in Scotland. The health arguments for requiring heat treatment of cream are no less than those in respect of milk. In fact, cream as a medium is more likely to promote the growth of harmful bacteria. For that reason, when sales of cream were reintroduced after the war there was a major drive by the sellers of cream themselves to pasteurise their product. The code of practice recommended that cream be heat treated to preserve its shelf life and to protect the health of the consumer. The pattern of sales in Scotland has resulted in most cream passing through a few manufacturers and for several years around 99 per cent. of all cream sold has been heat treated. For this reason, actual recorded outbreaks of food poisoning resulting from cream are very few indeed. Logic and the evidence from milk before heat treatment was introduced, however, tell us that if cream was not heat treated outbreaks of salmonella poisoning would occur. Therefore, to improve the quality of milk and milk products on offer to the consumer, we believe that a complete ban on untreated products should be introduced.
On that basis, the consultation document was issued on 18 July 1983 and the letter referred to the proposed ban. I note my hon, Friend's comments about the Small Farmers Association. The Scottish National Farmers Union has a producer-retailer sub-committee which encompasses most of the small producers in Scotland as well as the large ones, but no comments were received on that aspect of the regulations. Since the regulations came into effect we have been made aware of difficulties, due to the ban on the sale of untreated cream, being experienced by only two producers in Scotland, one in my hon. Friend's constituency and the other in the constituency of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. In view of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State undertook to re-examine the application of the Cream (Heat Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 in this regard and the operation of certain other aspects of the regulation which have been drawn to the Department's attention by certain enforcement authorities.
My right hon. and noble Friend is still considering the regulations, and I would not wish to pre-empt the

889
outcome, of his deliberations. Nor, however, would I like to hold out too much hope that a re-examination of the regulations will provide the outcome desired by my hon. Friend. In reviewing the regulations my right hon. and noble Friend has to have regard to the availability of supplies of pasteurised cream and to our policy in respect of public health that exemptions should not be permitted simply for economic reasons.
The success of pasteurisation speaks for itself. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to the ice cream regulations which have required compulsory pasteurisation of that product since 1956. All manufacturers of ice cream must comply with that arrangement. Since pasteurisation was introduced nearly 30 years ago. there have been no recorded outbreaks of disease attributed to the product.
More recently, in August 1983, with the introduction in Scotland of the general requirement that milk be pasteurised, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of cases of salmonellosis following the consumption of raw milk. While raw milk may still be consumed on the farm, pasteurisation is a measure which is outstandingly successful in protecting the public from this source of food poisoning. I think I need neither dwell on this point, nor apologise for our having introduced a measure that benefits the industry by the production of food that can now, without qualification, carry this high standard of safety.
My hon. Friend has drawn to my attention the differences that exist between England, Wales and Scotland. The difference in policy in Scotland results from more recorded incidences of outbreaks of food poisoning and a recognition that there was a degree of public concern not prevalent elsewhere in the United Kingdom which had to be met. It was therefore decided that, in view of the health arguments and the pattern of milk sales in Scotland, it would be feasible to move towards a complete ban.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned in particular the question of the cheese milk used for Bonchester cheese. After the good advertising
890
that the hon. Gentleman has given that product this evening, I may even make a trip to Harrods to purchase some and sample it.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is a recommendation that cheese milk should be pasteurised. That recommendation is made by the milk and milk products technical advisory committee in its code of hygienic practice for the manufacture of cheese, published in 1963. That code of practice has been generally implemented by creamery cheese-makers, and compliance with the code of practice has ensured that no recorded outbreak of milk-borne infections have occurred from cheese.
There are no plans at present to involve cheese milk in a compulsory heat treatment scheme such as exists for ordinary milk and for cream, and the hon. Gentleman may tell his constituent so.
The arguments are equally applicable to cream, and a similar move was appropriate. In reviewing the regulations, my right hon. and noble Friend will keep the principle of improving safeguards to protect public health in Scotland to the fore. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that the Government have a duty in this area and that we are endeavouring to fulfil our responsibilities towards the public as a whole. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and noble Friend is fully aware of the circumstances of his constituent. I am sure that he is equally aware of the circumstances of the constituent of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. The arguments put forward this evening will be borne very much in mind in reaching a conclusion.
Over many years there have been campaigns in Scotland—indeed, campaigns have been conducted in some national newspapers — to introduce the heat treatment of milk to safeguard public health, and—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Two o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food and Environment Protection Bill
  Food and Environment Protection Bill
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
CIVIL SERVICE
  Contract and Procurement Procedures
  Contract and Procurement Procedures
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Jurors (Oath)
  Jurors (Oath)
  Plastic Bullets (Injuries)
  Plastic Bullets (Injuries)
PRIME MINISTER
  Peking Official Visit
  Peking Official Visit
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
HOME DEPARTMENT
  European Parliament (Election Procedures)
  European Parliament (Election Procedures)
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  Drugs (Prisons)
  Drugs (Prisons)
  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Drug Offences (Juveniles)
  Drug Offences (Juveniles)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Science Facilities
  University Science Facilities
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
  Blind and Deaf (Teaching)
  Blind and Deaf (Teaching)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
TRANSPORT
  Vessels (Hazardous Cargoes)
  Vessels (Hazardous Cargoes)
  Seafarers (Health and Safety)
  Seafarers (Health and Safety)
  Marine Inspectors (Investigations)
  Marine Inspectors (Investigations)
  Roads (Compensation Scheme)
  Roads (Compensation Scheme)
  Buses
  Buses
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  Driving Tests, Keighley
  Driving Tests, Keighley
  A3 (Road Accidents)
  A3 (Road Accidents)
  A3 (Improvement)
  A3 (Improvement)
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Serpell Report
  Serpell Report
  Drink Driving
  Drink Driving
  Regional Airports
  Regional Airports
  Liner Conferences (Regulations)
  Liner Conferences (Regulations)
  Compact Spare Wheels
  Compact Spare Wheels
  Bus Industry
  Bus Industry
  Birmingham International Airport
  Birmingham International Airport
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Motor Cyclists (Accident Statistics)
  Motor Cyclists (Accident Statistics)
  Lorry Weight Limit
  Lorry Weight Limit
  Merchant Shipping (Review)
  Merchant Shipping (Review)
  Dartford Tunnel
  Dartford Tunnel
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
  Minister of State (Speech)
  Minister of State (Speech)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  BT Share Issue
  BT Share Issue
  Manufacturing Companies (Overseas Output)
  Manufacturing Companies (Overseas Output)
  Trailers (Imports)
  Trailers (Imports)
  VAT (Newspapers)
  VAT (Newspapers)
  Cynon Valley (Employment)
  Cynon Valley (Employment)
  Devon, North (Financial Assistance)
  Devon, North (Financial Assistance)
  Metering Approval Scheme
  Metering Approval Scheme
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  China
  China
  Restaurant Dishes (Labelling)
  Restaurant Dishes (Labelling)
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Leeward Islands Air Transport
  Leeward Islands Air Transport
  Manufactured Exports
  Manufactured Exports
  EC Exports and Imports
  EC Exports and Imports
  Administrative Costs (EC Membership)
  Administrative Costs (EC Membership)
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Polyurethane (Joint Ventures)
  Polyurethane (Joint Ventures)
  Vosper Shiprepairers Ltd. (Pension Fund)
  Vosper Shiprepairers Ltd. (Pension Fund)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Urban Development Grant
  Urban Development Grant
  Divis Flats, Belfast
  Divis Flats, Belfast
  RUC (Internal Security)
  RUC (Internal Security)
  Security Forces (Plastic Bullets)
  Security Forces (Plastic Bullets)
  UDR (Firearms Certificates)
  UDR (Firearms Certificates)
SCOTLAND
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Remoter Rural Areas (Strathclyde)
  Remoter Rural Areas (Strathclyde)
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
  Health Boards (Staff)
  Health Boards (Staff)
  Teachers' Salaries (Review)
  Teachers' Salaries (Review)
ENERGY
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Civil Plutonium
  Civil Plutonium
  Coal Production
  Coal Production
THE ARTS
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Royal Opera House
  Royal Opera House
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
WALES
  Investment
  Investment
  Education
  Education
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  A465 (Glynneath and Aberdulais)
  A465 (Glynneath and Aberdulais)
  Garden Festival
  Garden Festival
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Freeport (Cardiff)
  Freeport (Cardiff)
  Advanced Technology
  Advanced Technology
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Dairy Quotas
  Dairy Quotas
  Integrated Operations Area
  Integrated Operations Area
EMPLOYMENT
  Miners (Pay)
  Miners (Pay)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Earnings (Statistics)
  Redundancy Payments Office, Glasgow
  Redundancy Payments Office, Glasgow
  Retraining
  Retraining
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Short Brothers
  Short Brothers
  Unemployment (London)
  Unemployment (London)
  Mr. Kelsey (Unemployment Benefit)
  Mr. Kelsey (Unemployment Benefit)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Departmental Select Committees
  Departmental Select Committees
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Parliament (Budgetary Discipline)
  European Parliament (Budgetary Discipline)
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Personal Allowances and Taxation
  Personal Allowances and Taxation
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Farmers (Value Added Tax)
  Farmers (Value Added Tax)
  Children's Clothing and Footwear
  Children's Clothing and Footwear
  Select Committee Reports
  Select Committee Reports
  Commercial Bills
  Commercial Bills
  Riding Hats (VAT)
  Riding Hats (VAT)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Chile
  Chile
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Departmental Advertising
  Departmental Advertising
  Child Tax Allowances
  Child Tax Allowances
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Cot Deaths
  Cot Deaths
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Health
  Dental Health
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Family Planning Clinics
  Family Planning Clinics
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act (Trafford)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act (Trafford)
  Funeral Expenses
  Funeral Expenses
  Hearing Damage
  Hearing Damage
  Induction Loops
  Induction Loops
  Day Care Arrangements
  Day Care Arrangements
  Domiciliary Care Staff
  Domiciliary Care Staff
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  Pregnant Women (Diet Costs)
  Pregnant Women (Diet Costs)
  ICC Hospital Services
  ICC Hospital Services
  Racism (Nursery Schools)
  Racism (Nursery Schools)
  NHS Employees (Fringe Benefits)
  NHS Employees (Fringe Benefits)
  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Limited List Prescribing
  Limited List Prescribing
  H2 Receptor Blocking Drugs
  H2 Receptor Blocking Drugs
  Smoking (Health)
  Smoking (Health)
  Social Prevision (Unemployed)
  Social Prevision (Unemployed)
  Oglesby Report
  Oglesby Report
  Drug Misusers
  Drug Misusers
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  "London Housing Aid Centre"
  "London Housing Aid Centre"
  Barnstaple and South Molton (EC Grant)
  Barnstaple and South Molton (EC Grant)
  Public Inquiries
  Public Inquiries
  Playing Fields
  Playing Fields
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Planning (London)
  Planning (London)
  European Charter of Local Self-Government
  European Charter of Local Self-Government
  Environment Council
  Environment Council
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  River Mersey
  River Mersey
  Civic Trusts (Grants)
  Civic Trusts (Grants)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  EC Funds (Ilfracombe)
  EC Funds (Ilfracombe)
DEFENCE
  REME Static Workshops
  REME Static Workshops

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

Less Favoured Areas Assistance Scheme
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to inform farmers of their rights under Less Favoured Areas designation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, in England and Wales a special procedure has been instituted to enable farmers to determine whether or not their holdings lie within the newly designated extension to the Less Favoured Areas. In this way farmers may be told in writing precisely which parts of their farms are within the line, and of the types of aid available. In Scotland and Northern Ireland comparable arrangements are in operation to achieve the same ends. Farmers in the original Less Favoured Areas may obtain the same information from published maps and advisory leaflets.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for that excellent reply. I just hope that he is getting the response that he hopes to get from the farmers, because this is an exceedingly useful and very satisfactory scheme and I would recommend it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her response to my reply. It is indeed a considerable additional assistance to farmers in the difficult Less Favoured Areas of this country. It will represent about £12 million to £14 million for some
2
36,000 farmers who are either wholly or partly in the Less Favoured Areas. If any farmers feel after being notified that they have grievances about it, we have instituted an appeals procedure.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords. while thanking the noble Lord for that answer, may I ask him whether farmers up in the hill districts, whether they are dealing with sheep or with milk, come under this designation? I want information—that is all.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in the United Kingdom the headage payments for animals are not given for milk cows in the Less Favoured Areas. They are for sheep and beef cattle.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, as there are likely to be substantial changes in the balance between farming and the environment, partly, one hopes, as a result of the paper that the Government are, I believe, to present to the Council of Ministers this week in Brussels, and as this is bound to affect farmers' rights in the Less Favoured Areas, can my noble friend say when we can expect the promised White Paper on this subject?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not sure that we have in mind to issue a White Paper. The next step, I think, is that my right honourable friend the Minister will shortly be announcing new grant rates as a result of the public expenditure statement which was made nearly a month ago. When my right honourable friend does that, we shall again be having very much in mind the need to encourage conservation in our grant policy, just as we did a year ago when we made some small but significant changes to the grants which we gave to the Less Favoured Areas for conservationally sympathetic investments.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we warmly welcome the extension of the Less Favoured Areas, which, as he is aware, has been under consideration for at least 25 years? Can he say how many farmers will be advantaged by this in England, Scotland and Wales respectively? How much additional money can they expect to receive per acre as a result of this new arrangement?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am afraid I have the figures only on an area basis but as a result of this operation—the noble Lord said that the matter had been under consideration for a great many years and I am delighted that it was my right honourable friend the present Minister who managed to carry it to a successful conclusion—the total area in Wales for both the old and the new LFA will be 1,449,100 hectares; in Scotland, 5,791,000 hectares; in England, 1,796,900 hectares; and in Northern Ireland, 822,000 hectares. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, an answer as to exactly what it means to a farmer to qualify in this way but what I think I ought to say is that farmers who are now finding themselves in the new Less Favoured Areas—in Wales, out of the figure that I gave, the new Less Favoured Areas amount to 410,700 extra hectares—will have been able to claim the higher rates of capital allowances as from the 29th February last, so there will happily be some retrospective payments of capital allowances. So far as the headage payments are concerned, as from 1st January next the farmers in the new Less Favoured Areas will be finding that they are able to claim £22.25 for cattle as headage payments and £2.12 headage payments for sheep.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, my noble friend seemed doubtful about the White Paper on farming and the environment, but has it not been very widely forecast over the past few months that there is to be such a White Paper? Is my noble friend actually telling noble Lords that there is not to be one?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am not telling my noble friend that there is to be one.

The "General Belgrano"
2.42 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, with the leave of the House and at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who is unable to be here because of illness, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that the Captain of the Belgrano was entitled to believe on 2nd May 1982 that his ship was safe from attack outside the Falklands exclusion zone, as the Government's decision to change the terms of engagement was not conveyed to Argentina until 7th May 1982, and whether they further agree that this has been admitted by the Secretary of State.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in view of that very intelligent answer from the Minister, can he tell the House whether it is not the case that on 1st May 1982 the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated publicly that:
"No further military action is envisaged at the moment except to keep the exclusion zone secure"?
4
In view of the fact that the "Belgrano" was outside the exclusion zone and leaving the exclusion zone, would it not be reasonable to suppose—particularly as no state of war existed—that the captain of the "Belgrano" was entitled to assume that he was not going to be attacked, on the word of the Secretary of State?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords. The captain of the "Belgrano" was not entitled to assume any such thing. He should have referred to the warning issued by the British Government on 23rd April and conveyed to the Security Council on 24th April. It stated:
"In this connection, Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of the British Forces in the South Atlantic, will encounter the appropriate response".
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Admiral Lombardo of the Argentine Navy has stated that the instructions to the Argentine ships were to attack the British Force—the British ships? In those circumstances, is it not probable that the captain of the "Belgrano" had that message in front of his mind rather than the dimensions of the exclusion zone?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I feel certain that my noble friend is right, and I hope that that observation will not be lost on those who think otherwise.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, may we pray that we shall never see the day when a warship carrying the ensign of an enemy of this country can ever feel safe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope and believe that the noble Lord is right.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, is it not time that the "Belgrano" was sunk for good and all?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I look forward to that day with keen anticipation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if in the message sent by the Secretary of State to the Security Council it was said that any approach by warships would be treated as an act of hostility, it surely follows that any retreat by such a vessel would not attract action by Her Majesty's Forces. Was not the "Belgrano"' steaming away from the exclusion zone at the time when it was attacked?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a bizarre interpretation of the words I have recorded, if I may say so. The operative sentences, of course, related to the threat which such vessels posed to United Kingdom forces. That was why the response was evoked which we offered.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in view of the comments made by the Minister's noble friend below the gangway regarding the signals received by the Argentine Navy, would it not be in the interests of the Government, of Parliament and of the public if the Government were now to publish a full White Paper

5
stating what communications were received and when—particularly by GCHQ at Cheltenham—which still remain a mystery and about which Ministers are telling different stories?
Secondly, is it not the case—as I asked in my original Question—that the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that no further military action was envisaged? Is it not further the case that both he and the Attorney-General expressed disquiet that the proposed action was not in accord with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter under which the British Government were defending themselves over their actions in so far as the Argentine Navy was concerned?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord's imagination grows more vivid by the day, if I may say so. The fact of the matter is that the "Belgrano" posed a threat to units of the United Kingdom Task Force which could not be ignored. That is why we had to take the action that we did.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I, too, would very much like to see a White Paper on this subject were it not for the fact that clearly no amount of rational explanation as to what occurred is going to satisfy some Members of your Lordships' House? Would he not agree also that the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, shows a total lack of understanding of naval operations? Would he also not agree that the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, to GCHQ betrays a total lack of understanding about the security arrangements of our intelligence in this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on all three counts.
Lord Kinnaird: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the only fact in which the public is interested is that we won the war?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I may not understand naval operations but that I can understand plain English and the distortion of it in the mouths of Ministers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure which distortion the noble Lord appears to have apprehended. Perhaps I may quote the second sentence of the same warning from which I quoted earlier:
"All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft, engaging in surveillance of these British Forces will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly".
I cannot believe that there could have been any doubt in the minds of Argentine leaders.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, on a slightly ancillary point, in as much as the purpose—as I understand it—of Question Time is to elicit information from the responsible Minister; and in as much as there is never enough space on the Order Paper for all those Peers who are anxious to elicit further information, may I ask the Minister, or perhaps the Leader of the House, whether it is the Government's intention to encourage Questions which by their very form—that is, asking whether the Government agree—cannot be asking for any further information whatsoever?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as he asked me to do and as the House expects. Surely I am entitled to do that. The answer to the noble Lord must be that Questions are a matter for noble Lords. However, if I were to hazard a view based on the noises that I have heard recently in the House and the looks on many noble Lords' faces I would say that I think this subject is becoming a little bit tedious and perhaps the noble Lords concerned will consider it so.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whose function I misunderstood at that point. Will the noble Lord who answered—or did not answer—my original Question explain why, if his last answer is correct that it was the case that the Government believed that the "Belgrano" was a danger to the British task force, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could say that no further military action was envisaged, and why he and the Attorney-General put forward their reservations and their doubts as to the action that was proposed to be taken?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the views of my right honourable friend the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, or the Attorney-General, were not related to the threat which the Argentine vessels posed to the United Kingdom task force. That was a matter which fell to be assessed by the commanders on the spot.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House if he would accept our congratulations on a miracle of understatement when he used the words "little bit tedious" in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I should say that I feel it is my duty always to be as courteous as possible at all times.

The Clergy: Mr. Gummer's Comments
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper:
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the comments concerning the Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy attributed to the Paymaster-General.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, my honourable friend preached this sermon in his private capacity as an elected member of the Church of England General Synod.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his usual courteous and informative reply. Having been made

7
aware of the Answer, however, may I please ask whether he is aware that Mr. Selwyn Gummer was invited to the church at Cambridge University to preach a sermon and not to read out a political tract? The condemnation and attack on the leader of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain (no one should laugh that off) and the leader of the Anglican Church (and I do not think we ought to laugh that off) and the leader of the Free Churches (and I do not think that this House should laugh that off) was considered—if the noble Lord on the Front Bench finds that amusing he is entitled to do so; but he should go outside and condemn all these people and not make little funny faces when he knows he cannot be seen.
Perhaps I may be allowed to continue and briefly ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House (for whom I have the greatest respect) to give an assurance that what was said at that time will in no way be followed up with any restriction on clegymen of all denominations from making any comment as they think fit. The Government will maintain their right to attack such statements, but they should do so in a proper place. May I have an assurance that in future no pulpit will be used by Her Majesty's Governemnt to make a full-scale attack on all religions in this country?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord raises two points. The first concerns what my honourable friend actually said. In view of the fact that he was speaking in a private capacity, and the Government have no responsibility for what he said, I shall suggest that my noble friend sends a copy of his speech to the noble Lord. I have read it and I do not think that many of the constructions put on it by the noble Lord are borne out. He can judge for himself and I shall make sure that my honourable friend sends him a copy of the speech.
On the second point, I would be exceeding any authority that I may have if I were for one moment to suggest that the right reverend Prelates in this House were not allowed to say exactly what they wanted, and I would not be very successful if I tried to stop their saying it outside this House. Therefore, the obvious answer is that they can say whatever they like.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his reply? I have read the full reported contents of that sermon which, as the noble Viscount will know, was distributed through the Conservative Central Office long before the Paymaster-General made it. However, I am pleased to hear the noble Viscount the Leader of the House say that it can in no way be constructed as the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the right reverend Prelates, whether of the Anglican, Roman Catholic or Free Churches, cannot expect to get away scot free when they attack the Government?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I had not noticed that they had got away scot free.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I therefore ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that I am very
8
pleased with his answer that the statement was in no way the policy of Her Majesty's Government and that they will in future not look at any religious denomination as being something of an irritant and turbulent?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think I should simply briefly reply that the Government have to expect many people in many different capacities in our national life to criticise them and they would not be here for very long if they were not prepared to accept that.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, in view of the progressive attitude that the Churches are now taking on human suffering and human equality, not only in this country but throughout the world—in Latin America, and southern Africa—do not the Churches now deserve commendation rather than condemnation?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I only answer the noble Lord's question—which I think is somewhat outside the scope of the original Question—merely to say that most certainly the efforts that the Churches made in Ethiopia have been highly commendable, as have the efforts—I hope the noble Lord will also agree—which have been made by Her Majesty's Government, both in this country and within the Community, where considerable amounts of aid have gone to Ethiopia through the help and work of the Prime Minister and the British Government.

Transport Act 1982: Fixed Penalties
2.57 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in implementing Section 51 of the Transport Act 1982 regarding Part III (Fixed Penalties) of that Act.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in February, it is our intention to implement Part III of the Act by April 1986. Guidance to chief officers of police about its operation and information for magistrates courts have been issued in Home Office circulars. A seminar about its provisions has been held for senior police officers and trials of a fixed penalty notice for endorsable offences for use by all forces are taking place.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she recall that when an amendment to the Transport Act 1982 was before your Lordships' House I quoted from the booklets issued by the Home Office for 1979–80? Is she aware that in subsequent correspondence with Ministers I referred to the Home Office booklets of 1981 and 1982? Is she further aware that the Home Office booklet for 1983 has been published only in the last few weeks and that there is very little change whatever

9
in the shocking disparities in practice between one police force area and another? As the amendment which was put into the Transport Act states that the Secretary of State should give guidance in working towards uniformity, could this not be done quickly? Is it not shocking that one might have a great deal of fixed penalty offences in one area but in others none at all, depending on which police area one lives in?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we recognise that there are sometimes wide differences and that they are not desirable. However, the extent to which fixed penalties are used by police forces under the present system remains a matter for chief constables. We are working to implement the new system as quickly and effectively as possible on a basis which will remove the present differences.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the allegations of telephone tapping and interference with the mail of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Avon who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Council of Environment Ministers on 6th December.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the insolvency of companies and individuals, the winding-up of companies, the disqualification and personal liability of persons involved in the management of companies and the avoidance of certain transactions at an under-value, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when the Bill will be available in its printed form? I understand that there was an arrangement for it to be made available today to your Lordships, but I gather that that has been postponed.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the Bill will be available to your Lordships tomorrow morning in the Printed Paper Office.
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Newall: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and
10
Lotteries Act 1963 so as to remove restrictions on the number of days on which horse-racing and greyhound racing may take place; to enable pools on dog races to be operated in connection with more than one event and on more than one track; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill
The Bill, having been brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48, was read a first time.
Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Hong Kong: Future
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young) rose to move, That this House, having considered the views of the people of Hong Kong as set out in the reports of the Assessment Office and the Independent Monitoring Team published in White Paper, Cmnd. 9407, approves Her Majesty's Government's intention to sign the agreement on the future of Hong Kong negotiated with the Chinese Government which was published in White Paper, Cmnd. 9352.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I do not need to remind the House of the historic importance of the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong. We are providing for the future of the 5½ million people of the territory, and one of the world's largest financial centres, into the middle of the 21st century. It sets out unique arrangements to deal with a unique problem bequeathed to us by history. It is right that we should have an opportunity to debate it in full. As always in your Lordships' House, we have in the Chamber many noble Lords who know the territory well, including one ex-governor. We shall all listen with great interest to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. I am sure that we shall have a thorough and well-informed debate.
The agreement is the outcome of two years of complicated and often difficult negotiations. The Government entered into these negotiations with the Chinese Government in 1982 against the background of the historical realities which determine Hong Kong's position today. In 1997 the lease on the New Territories will run out; under that lease, unless other arrangements were made, 92 per cent. of Hong Kong's land area would revert to China. The ceded territories, making up the remaining 8 per cent. could not survive as an entity in their own right. They have over the years been completely integrated with the rest of Hong

11
Kong. In these circumstances there was no real choice for the Government. To do nothing, which would in practice have meant the reversion of the territory to China in 1997 without agreed arrangements, was not really an option. The uncertainty in the meantime would have destroyed Hong Kong. It is clear that we had to seek, by negotiation with China, arrangements which would permit the maintenance after 1997 of Hong Kong's stability and prosperity, and to seek to enshrine these arrangements in a formal agreement with China.
In September 1982 during the visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Peking, agreement was reached to enter into negotiations with this purpose. It was clear from the start that any agreement must be one we could honourably commend to the people of Hong Kong and to Parliament, and one which they would find acceptable.
In the early stages of the talks we explored whether it might be possible, in the interest of minimum change, to secure agreement to continued British administration in Hong Kong after 1997, on the basis of our recognition of China's sovereignty over the whole territory. It became clear, however, that a solution along these lines would not be acceptable to the Chinese Government. We concluded that a breakdown in the talks, with all the uncertainties that this would have created, would not serve the best interest of the people of Hong Kong. Indeed, it would have had very serious consequences for prosperity and stability. We therefore decided, with the support of the Governor and the Executive Council in Hong Kong, to explore Chinese ideas for Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, enjoying a high degree of autonomy and the maximum possible degree of continuity in its system and way of life.
The draft agreement, laid before this House as a White Paper, is the outcome of those negotiations. I should like to pay tribute to the negotiators on both sides for the remarkable achievement which it represents; in particular to my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for his determined and patient diplomacy which played such a great part in the successful conclusion of these negotiations. I should also like to thank the Governor, Sir Edward Youde, and the unofficial members of the Executive Council of Hong Kong for their wise advice and for the courage with which they faced many difficult decisions. The many officials involved in the talks, from the Hong Kong Government as well as from our own Diplomatic Service, showed dedication and great resourcefulness.
The agreement is both comprehensive and detailed. It provides a firm basis for the future, and will, I believe. give confidence both to the people of Hong Kong and to the international community.
I will not go over the agreement point by point, as noble Lords will have had an opportunity to study it in detail since it was published on 26th September. There are, however, certain aspects which I should like to emphasis.
The first is that the joint declaration and annexes together constitute a legally binding international agreement. As the Chinese Foreign Minister recently said, the joint declaration is a form of international treaty and has the same force in international law.
Secondly, under the terms of the agreement itself the policies set out in the agreement will be stipulated in a basic law to be promulgated by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China; and they will remain unchanged for 50 years from 1st July 1997.
Thirdly, the agreement contains a sufficient degree of detail to reassure opinion in Hong Kong and internationally about the future of the territory. It provides for Hong Kong to enjoy a high degree of autonomy as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, and makes it clear that the socialist system and policies practised in the mainland will not be applied to the Special Administrative Region.
The agreement provides that the Special Administrative Region will be served by an elected legislature: that the executive will be accountable to that legislature and to the courts: and the administration will be in the hands of the local people. It guarantees that Hong Kong's present system of law, including the common law, will be maintained. The present independent judicial system will be continued, but with a court of final appeal sitting in Hong Kong.
A public service in which appointment and promotion depends on qualifications, experience and ability will continue to serve the Special Administrative Region as it has loyally served Hong Kong in the past. The people of Hong Kong will continue to enjoy their exising rights and freedoms under Hong Kong law and the continued application to Hong Kong of the international covenants on civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights.
The agreement provides for Hong Kong to retain and strengthen its position as a world commercial, financial and communications centre. The Special Administrative Region will be able to negotiate agreements and participate in international organisations in appropriate fields, such as the GATT and the multi-fibre arrangement. It will have autonomy in the economic, financial and monetary fields. There will be no exchange control, and the Hong Kong dollar will be freely convertible. Investors will be able to put in or withdraw their capital freely. The Special Administrative Region will be able to determine its own shipping policies and to negotiate its own air service arrangements for international flights which do not touch on the mainland of China.
Existing land rights will be recognised after 1997, and the Hong Kong Government will be able to grant new leases extending up to the year 2047. The inhabitants of Hong Kong will continue to enjoy the right of free entry to and exit from the Special Administrative Region. There is all this detail and much more. I think that your Lordships will agree that this adds up to an impressively thorough document.
I referred earlier to our objective of an agreement acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. Since the publication of the agreement on 26th September the people of Hong Kong have had an opportunity to

13
express their views to an Assessment Office, appointed by the Governor and charged with preparing an accurate analysis and assessment of opinion in Hong Kong. The Assessment Office report, together with that of the independent monitors appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to oversee their work, was published as a White Paper and laid before Parliament on 29th November.
As anyone who has followed the Hong Kong press in this period will know, the debate in Hong Kong on the draft agreement has been both serious and intensive. I am struck by how realistic and level-headed much of this comment has been. Some three and a half million copies of the draft agreement were distributed in Hong Kong and two and half thousand direct submissions were received by the Assessment Office, many from organisations representing large memberships.
Noble Lords will have noted the conclusion of the Assessment Office report that,
"most of the people of Hong Kong find the agreement acceptable".
The message was borne out across the whole range of evidence received by the Assessment Office. The agreement was endorsed by all the principal representative bodies, including the Executive, Legislative and Urban Councils, the Heung Yee Kuk and all 18 District Boards. The overwhelming majority of the organisations and groups which expressed their views found the agreement acceptable. Of the just over 1,000 individuals who expressed a clear view to the Assessment Office, 677 found the agreement acceptable and 364 rejected it. I found this figure especially significant, even though the sample is small. It is normally those who do not agree to something who are the first to write about it.
These findings are reinforced by opinions expressed in the media and also by the evidence of independent opinion polls. One of these, the largest and perhaps the most scientific, shows that 81 per cent. of those questioned thought the agreement very good or quite good. The conclusion of the Assessment Office is unreservedly confined by the independent monitors. They also reported that the Assessment Office had fulfilled its remit properly, accurately and impartially.
The report sets out clearly the various very natural concerns which Hong King people feel about the future. This will be of enormous value to the Government in the years ahead, during the process of implementing the agreement and during our discussions with the Chinese Government in the Joint Liaison Group. I should like to address one or two of these concerns now.
One of them which has been brought out in the statement of the unofficial members of the Executive and Legislative Councils issued on 29th November, is the natural wish of the people of Hong Kong to be involved in the drafting of the Basic Law. The Basic Law will be passed by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, and it is for the Chinese Government to undertake the drafting of it. I am sure, however, that Chinese leaders will have noted the concerns of the people of Hong Kong on this score, Indeed, Chinese spokesmen have indicated publicly that the people of Hong Kong will be consulted, though the exact form of consultation has yet to be made clear. We welcome this.
Another concern raised in the Assessment Office report is about the role of the Joint Liaison Group. Fears have been expressed that the Joint Liaison Group might interfere in the administration of Hong Kong. In my view this fear, although understandable, is unfounded. The agreement states explicitly that the group will be an organ of liasion and not an organ of power. It will take no part in the administration of Hong Kong. The two Governments are agreed that it is the British Government which will remain fully responsible for the administration of Hong Kong up to 1st July 1997. We are determined to carry out that commitment.
The Government attach the highest importance to the Joint Liaison Group as a means of achieving the necessary close co-operation with the Chinese Government over Hong Kong in the next twelve years. I can also assure noble Lords that the Government will ensure that the interests of Hong Kong are properly represented in the group by involving officials from the Hong Kong Government in the British delegation.
Many people have also expressed concern about nationality. This was without question one of the most difficult subjects to negotiate. Each side had conflicting interests that were not easily reconcilable. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the resolution eventually achieved goes a long way to meeting the needs of the people of Hong Kong.
Arrangements on nationality are set out in a draft exchange of memoranda associated with the agreement. The terms of these memoranda have been agreed between the two sides and they were initialled at the same time as the agreement itself. The effect of the United Kingdom memorandum is that those who were on 30th June 1997 British dependent territories citizens by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong will be able to retain, if they wish, a status, which will be a form of British nationality, after 1997 and for the rest of their lives. This status can be retained by all such BDTCs whatever their ethnic origin. It will enable them to continue to use a British passport and to avail themselves of consular protection when in third countries.
I realise that there has been disappointment that we were not able to obtain transmissibility of British national status by descent after 1st July 1997. We fought very hard to retain this benefit, which is of course one currently enjoyed by British dependent territories citizens. But the Chinese Government were not prepared to agree that anyone born after 1997 should acquire British nationality by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong.
Despite the clear statements which were made when this matter was debated in another place there may be some continuing misapprehension about the possibility that people who are now British nationals could be made stateless by these arrangements. I am glad to take the opportunity to reassure noble Lords that this will not happen. We intend fully to comply with our obligations under the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness. Therefore, the draft legislation which the Government will in due course bring before the House will include provisions which will enable us to ensure that any British national in Hong Kong who would otherwise have become

15
stateless as a result of these arrangements will retain a form of British nationality. It will also enable provisions to be made for any children of ex-British dependent territories citizens who would otherwise be born stateless to acquire British nationality. Those ex-British dependent territories citizens whom the Chinese Government do not regard as their own nationals and who have no other nationality will not be left stateless, and neither will their children.
Concern has also been expressed on the commitment of the Chinese Government to the implementation of the agreement. While no absolute guarantees can be given about the future there is no reason to doubt that the Chinese Government will fulfil their obligations under this agreement. The Chinese Government freely entered into the agreement: and they are justifiably proud of their good record in observing international agreements. The Chinese Foreign Minister has publicly recognised that this is a legally binding agreement. Moreover, both economic interest and the course of Chinese reunification will be served by adherence to the agreement. To my mind these add up to very strong incentives to observance of its letter and its spirit.
The agreement is the product of long and sometimes difficult negotiations. Negotiations by definition require give and take. The agreement goes a long way. But it does not and cannot provide answers to all questions to which it will be necessary to provide answers over the next 63 years. I recognise that it will be necessary to elaborate further on some of the general principles set out in this agreement. One such area is that of constitutional arrangements and government structure of the future Special Administrative Region. The agreement provides an excellent framework to which the details will have to be added.
In this connection, I know that many noble Lords will have read with interest the White Paper on constitutional development which has been published by the Hong Kong government. This provides for substantial development towards representative institutions in the 1985 elections and the prospect of further development in this direction after a review in 1987. That review will also consider the question of direct elections. The Hong Kong Government's proposals take into account the general desire expressed during the consultative process for the proposals to avoid any sudden and dramatic changes which could prove unsettling to the territory.
The success of the agreement will depend not only on the Governments of China and the United Kingdom, but in a large part on the people of Hong Kong and their willingness to make it work. I am confident that they will rise to this challenge, and that they will make the territory even more successful than it is today. We, for our part, will remain utterly committed to Hong Kong up to 1997, as the administering power. Thereafter, I am sure that Hong Kong and Britain will remain closely connected through a complex of economic, cultural and personal ties, as the agreement provides.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary plan to travel to Peking
16
later this month for the signature of the agreement. They will also visit Hong Kong. Following signature the Government will bring forward legislation early in 1985 to provide for the termination of sovereignty in 1997 and to provide powers to make other necessary changes to the law in connection with it.
I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views on this agreement. For their part, the Government regard it as a very satisfactory outcome to the negotiations. We believe that it provides a sound basis on which a stable and prosperous Hong Kong can continue into the next century. I warmly commend it to the House. My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House, having considered the views of the people of Hong Kong as set out in the reports of the Assessment Office and the Independent Monitoring Team published in White Paper, Cmnd. 9407, approves Her Majesty's Government's intention to sign the agreement on the future of Hong Kong negotiated with the Chinese Government which was published in White Paper, Cmnd. 9352.—[Baroness Young.]
3.22 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for her informative opening speech and we also look forward in this debate to hearing the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, for the first time. Britain has problems of a greater or lesser degree of difficulty with most of the remaining imperial inheritance. Hong Kong presented a special—one could, I think, say unique—problem and one that was clearly not foreseen in the treaties and conventions of 1843, 1860 and 1898. As the noble Baroness has just said, in the first two, 8 per cent. of what is now known as Hong Kong was ceded in perpetuity, and in the convention of 1898 the remaining 92 per cent. was leased for 99 years. As in so many other cases, those who signed the convention saw 99 years as eternity, whereas, in fact, they left the present inheritors of the lease with a hard nut to crack.
Britain has been a lessee all these years. It has been clear that unless the owner of the freehold was prepared to grant a new lease or to sell the reversion, Britain would have to pack her bags in 1997. I doubt if Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, great man though he was in many ways, saw it quite like this. But the Chinese have never been in any doubt whatever. They have always seen Hong Kong as Chinese territory. But the development of Hong Kong as a great centre of finance and commerce has modified and tempered the Chinese attitude. It is this appreciation of its value to China that has made possible the agreement we are now discussing. Once again we congratulate the Foreign Secretary and all the others involved on a successful negotiation that provides hope for a stable transition to the new dispensation that is envisaged.
We are of course, concerned about the feelings and the future of the people of Hong Kong. We appreciate their apprehensions. The prospect of a new landlord always creates uncertainty. The Government decided to test their views by setting up the assessment office. I noted in the Observer newspaper of 25th November that in an opinion poll conducted by four Hong Kong newspapers, four out of five of the area's 5·6 million

17
people gave qualified, and in some cases grudging, approval to the provisions of the agreement about their future after 1997 and that a large majority favoured the return of the colony to the motherland, although 80 per cent. are uneasy about coming under Communist rule. It was a mixed reception against a background that people were accepting the inevitable.
Since then, as the noble Baroness has told us, we have received the reports of the assessement officer and the independent monitoring team. We are grateful to them for coping so well with so difficult a task. These are important documents. They reflected very broadly what the opinion polls had already revealed. Paragraphs 3.11 and 3.18 conclude that most of the people of Hong Kong find the draft agreement acceptable, and that covered—and I quote from the agreement—
"the principal representative bodies … the overwhelming majority of organisations and groups"
and,
"most of the individuals"
who submitted their views. This is an impressive consensus which confirms the conclusions of the opinion polls.
I also read with very great interest the summary of the debate in the Legislative Council on 15th and 16th October and noted that on 18th October all but two of the Unofficial Members voted to commend the agreement, while two only abstained. I am bound to say that I found the expressions of hope, the determination to make the best of the new arrangement, and the appreciation of the work of the negotiators very moving indeed. It reflected the kind of spirit that has made Hong Kong the great centre that it is. There were, of course, many reservations and doubts about aspects of the agreement, especialy about the drafting of the basic law, to which I shall return in a moment.
May I also pay a tribute to the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils for all their work, and for their wholly constructive reaction to the negotiations. Many of us have had the opportunity to meet them, and this has been very helpful. We are also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Rhodes for the way he has co-ordinated these meetings and chaired them as well. I should like to thank my noble friend for his contribution to Sino-British relations and for giving us what my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies describes in her report of the last delegation in October 1983 as,
"an example—at the age of 88!—of how to overcome physical and ideological obstacles with an infectious and superlatively informed enthusiasm".
It is a compliment that my noble friend thoroughly deserves.
This has not been an easy time for the Unofficial Members; and we understand that. Their general reaction has been to give the proposals support, but to say that,
"the ultimate success of the Joint Declaration depends on people's confidence that it will be implemented faithfully and that matters of concern and questions of detail which have been raised are satisfactorily resolved and clarified by the two signatory Governments".
18
What is clear from all the evidence and all the reports is that the way in which the affairs of Hong Kong are conducted over the next 12 years is absolutely critical. The history of Hong Kong over the following 50 years will depend partly on that and partly, of course, upon the Chinese Government. There must be a united determination and effort to ensure a stable and prosperous Hong Kong in 1997.
I agree strongly with those who recommend that there should be a progressive movement towards a more representative system, although one senses that it would be wrong to take any precipitate steps that might prejudice the stability of Hong Kong. The White Paper refers to the need for "civic education" both through the schools and in adult classes, and states that the Education Department has this in hand. We all hope that this will be promoted vigorously over the coming years.
The Unofficial Members have also recommended that the Government should publish an annual report on progress in Hong Kong from now until 1997. As my right honourable friend Mr. Healey suggested in another place last Wednesday, this could, if necessary, be debated in both Houses. There are strong arguments for this. I recall that when I entered another place many years ago we used to hold what we called a Welsh day. They could be very spirited affairs. We have moved on quite substantially in Wales since then, although we are no less spirited; but there is no reason why we should not have a Hong Kong Day, at least for a decade or so. We must make certain that the people of Hong Kong are participating fully in the machinery of the transitional period, in the Joint Liaison Group and in other bodies. In 1997 the people of Hong Kong must be in the driving seat—with the "L" plates removed!
One cannot expect a uniform approach to this unique situation, and people's views in Hong Kong have depended largely on the vantage point from which they have contemplated the agreement. There is great wealth in Hong Kong and there is also poverty; there is the older generation, there are the young intellectuals, and there are the expatriates. They all have an opinion.
The Agreement, and Section VI in particular, also did another thing: it brought a period of instability in Hong Kong to an end after the stock market and the local currency had lurched about in a crisis atmosphere, and Hong Kong's economy has performed well in recent months. We note, for example, that it is closer to being in balance than at any time since 1979: and export growth has been remarkable there. Inflation is down to single figures, and full employment is reported. There are also natural doubts about the future; and the decision of Jardine Matheson to move its legal domicile to Bermuda did not help. Here again the picture is a mixed one and I suppose that on the whole that is understandable.
May I now refer to some complex and unresolved issues? The noble Baroness has dealt helpfully with some of them. One of the most sensitive is, as she rightly pointed out, the nationality issue, and this is referrred to in the memoranda on pages 28 and 29 of the draft agreement. It was plain from the speeches in

19
the debate in this House on 21st May that many noble Lords feel deeply about it. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, with his great knowledge and experience, argued then that people are more likely to stay in Hong Kong if they have the assurance that they are free to leave, and also if the Government do their best to ensure that the effective rights of the present holders of British dependent territories citizens' passports will be no less after 1997 than they were before then. My noble friend Lord Rhodes made the same point.
The noble Baroness has helped us in this today in what she has said, and we are grateful to her. The position seems to be that China does not allow dual citizenship, and would thus regard all Chinese born in Hong Kong as Chinese citizens. Their nationality is based on bloodlines and not upon the law, as ours is. It is also the case, as I understand, that all Britain can offer Hong Kong Chinese is a non-citizenship paper conferring on former BDTCs British consular privileges and travel documents for use overseas. We shall now await the presentation of the Bill, to which the noble Baroness has referred, with great interest, because this. I think, will clarify the uncertainties which some of us have and, I hope, will remove the apprehensions of the people of Hong Kong as well.
We all appreciate the complexity of this arrangement. It is bound to produce problems large and small. but I think it is just as well that we should anticipate as many of them as we can now and take a compassionate attitude towards the people of Hong Kong, especially after 1997.
Some questions clearly arise upon the subject of defence, but I will say little about this now because it may be difficult to answer those questions at this stage. Little more is known other than that it will be the responsibility of China. Military matters occupy only seven lines in the 40-page document. It is not clear, for example, whether conscription into the armed forces, either to China's People's Liberation Army or a Hong Kong Special Administration Region force, would be introduced after 1997. We note that the agreement makes clear that Chinese troops stationed in Hong Kong will not interfere in the internal affairs of the SAR, but not when or where these troops will be sent; nor is there any guarantee thus far that Chinese soldiers will be subject to local laws while stationed in Hong Kong. I think that is a very important point, and I think it would he good to have an assurance from the Chinese Government that they will in fact observe the local law when they are stationed there. Further, can the noble Baroness say what would happen to any Hong Kong Chinese soldiers now in the British services once these are withdrawn?
Another uncertain area is that in the second paragraph of Section 11; namely, the reference to the Basic Law to be drafted by the Chinese for application by the SAR after 1997. I was very glad to understand from the noble Baroness that she believes quite confidently that there will be adequate consultations. I find in the views I have read and heard—and the noble Baroness herself stressed this point—that there is a very strong concern that there should be adequate consultation with the people of Hong Kong when the Basic Law is being drafted.
20
For example, when the three representatives of UMELCO went to Peking last June they made three major proposals to the Chinese Government and, indeed, to Mr. Deng personally. These are set out in their most reasonable document which is called The Future of Hong Kong. They are:
"First that the Sino-British Agreement must be detailed and binding and the Basic Law must be based on the Agreement; second that the people of Hong Kong should participate in the drafting of the Basic Law and those sections relating to Hong Kong's internal affairs should be drafted in the territory and not amended except at the initiation of Hong Kong; and third, that a Committee of Chinese people of international standing should be appointed by China to monitor and advise on the drafting, implementation and subsequent amendments to the Basic Law".
These were the specific requests of UMELCO, and we do not yet know the Chinese reaction. What we do know is that the Basic Law will be part of the Chinese constitution and, as the noble Baroness said, will be passed by the Chinese National Congress. However, consultation with Hong Kong about them is of the first importance if confidence is to he sustained, and I am sure that that is clearly understood by all parties.
The conclusions of the monitoring team in paragraph 24 of the report are as good a summary of the mood as we can expect, and I think it is well worth reading out. It says this:
"But the verdict of acceptance implies neither positive enthusiasm nor passive acquiescence. The response to the Assessment Officer has demonstrated the realism of the people of Hong Kong. They know that their future now lies in their own hands; and the widespread concern to be involved, as the Assessment Office report has highlighted, in the drafting of the Basic Law is a timely and important token of their wish to stand increasingly on their own political feet."
To conclude, there are many promising and reasonable aspects to this agreement. If it develops as the parties now intend, there seems to be no reason why the people of Hong Kong should not feel confident for the future. But there are many imponderables, and no one can predict the future of the territory with absolute certainty. That is impossible. China is a great nation with a wonderful civilisation whose influence in the world can only increase over the coming years. China's participation in world organisations, and the positive co-operation of the United States and ourselves and the European Community with China, can only bring benefits to both sides. Mr. Deng Xiaoping appears to see this clearly, and we must hope that his successors will be as clear-sighted as he is. If the broad principles of this agreement are kept and built upon, Hong Kong can look to a good future and China herself will gain the confidence and respect of the world as well.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, before my noble friend concludes, may I ask him whether he will draw attention to the consular service and civil servants of British origin who have served us overseas for many years? I have seen in many parts of the world that they have often been forgotten when their pensions and status of service are no longer under the colonies or those parts of the world in which they serve. We have to watch their interests although we are saying farewell to the area.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend. This is a matter of

21
the utmost importance. I regret that I did not mention it in my speech. There are so many aspects of these problems to which one should like to refer. But I am sure the point will be dealt with by the noble Baroness when she winds up the debate.

CND: Allegations of Telephone Tapping
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat an Answer to a Private Notice Question concerning the institution of an inquiry into allegations of telephone tapping and interference with the mail of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament which has just been given in another place. The Answer which was given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is as follows:
"No, Sir. I am satisfied that the arrangements set out in the White Paper, The Interception of Communications in Great Britain, are strictly applied to all concerned.
"The complaints about the provision of postal and telephone services are matters for the Post Office and British Telecom, whose duty it is, in the first instance, to investigate any allegations of improper conduct on the part of their staff".
That completes the reply which was given by my right honourable friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the reply to that Private Notice Question given in another place, I should like to ask him if he would accept that in all quarters of the House the question of the rights of privacy of our citizens is regarded as very precious. Does he remember that from these Benches an amendment was moved to the Telecommunications Bill which—I was going to use the word "extracted": that is not very courteous—resulted in a commitment from the Government that there would be legislation following upon the lines of that amendment and especially following upon what was held by the European Court to be the breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Has the noble Lord the Minister seen the evidence that has so far been adduced by the CND, which has at least now resulted, as the press reports, in a cheque for £100 being sent by the Post Office as a gesture of apology for irregularities that have apparently occurred in the opening of correspondence? Is he at least agreed that it is not the habit of authorities like the Post Office to waste public money by giving cheques for £100, or any sum, to people who do not definitely deserve them?
Has the noble Lord the Minister as yet seen the evidence which is to be adduced this week to the Select Committee on the Special Branch? Lastly, in view of the reply which he was good enough to repeat given by his right honourable friend in another place to this Private Notice Question, may I ask him whether he has seen the article in the Observer of 5th August of this year, which followed on the finding of the European Court and which contained these words:
"Equally sensitive is the issue of whether the official warrants system is being abused. The most recent official figures record that
22
in 1979 the Home Secretary authorised 411 telephone taps, but members of the intelligence community say the system is easily manipulated. Warrants can be transferred from one target to another. A warrant for an individual can be used to tap the offices of his organisation. A warrant for an organisation's headquarters can be used to tap all of its members".
Will the noble Lord the Minister assure the House that the apprehensions that have been created by this article are not in fact justified, and will he tell the House that there is strict accountability and that the reputation of this country for freedom is not being impaired by those who are indulging in telephone tapping and interference with mail, so that we take on the guise of the very governments we are prone to criticise?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I have three questions. First, does the noble Lord agree with the observations by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in col. 1032 of Hansard of 19th March of this year, when the noble Viscount said:
"I fully appreciate the importance of interception as a weapon to be used—but used sparingly—in the fight against terrorism, drug smuggling and organised crime and for the safeguarding of our national security"?
In particular, do the Government stand by the words of the noble Viscount, "but used sparingly"?
Secondly, has the noble Lord seen the categorical assertion in the Guardian this morning that the Special Branch surveillance of peace activists is recognised as a legitimate activity of the security service? Is that an accurate statement of fact and, if so, is there not some danger that it will drift into being the improper harrying of the Government's political opponents? Thirdly, in view of the clear evidence that has been produced that there has been a substantial amount of tampering with CND mail by the Post Office, can the noble Lord reassure us, in relation to such complaints, that there have been similar complaints by, let us say, the Institute of Directors or the Policy Studies Institute?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can of course readily record that the Government share the importance attached by Members of this House, in all quarters, to the matter of preserving the privacy of private individuals in our society. To answer the other specific questions of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I would say that I have not yet seen the evidence which is to be adduced to the Select Committee of another place, and therefore I cannot comment on that. I am aware that what he referred to as the evidence produced by the CND has so far emerged in the press as amounting to a pattern of allegations. I can also say that I am aware that a cheque for £100 has been given, and I understand that it is normal practice for the Post Office to make a payment as a goodwill gesture where they feel that their clients have not been properly served or may have grounds for complaint. But the basis of payment, as I understand it, was not that the mail had been opened but that it had been damaged.
The noble Lord referred to the legislation promised on an earlier occasion by my noble friend. I can confirm that we shall shortly be publishing a White Paper indicating the scope of the legislation which we shall be introducing in the course of this Session of Parliament. In the meantime, there is indeed strict

23
accountability for the use of this power, and I can reassure the noble Lord that when a warrant is issued it specifies one person or organisation and cannot be transferred, as was implied in the article to which he referred.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that I almost invariably agree with what is said by my noble Leader, particularly when he is sitting next to me; and I can in this case confirm that the power is used sparingly. As to the question of whether a particular organisation might be the subject of this sort of investigation or surveillance, I have to say exactly what members of every Government have always said in these cases, which is that it is their unvarying policy never to confirm or to deny the existence of authorised interception in particular cases, whatever the circumstances. The reasons for that are well established and agreed by all parties.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, I should like to thank him for his courtesy in dealing with the questions that I raised. However, I should also like to express my astonishment at him having been briefed that this may be a case where the Post Office admitted no liability and were merely dealing with a case of possible inconvenience to a customer. May I tell the noble Lord that reported in this morning's issue of the Guardian is the following quotation from Sir Roland Dearing, the Chairman of the Post Office, in a letter to the CND:
"It is evident that something is going badly wrong within our system and I want to assure you that we view this extremely seriously".
Lord Elton: My Lords. I readily accept that, and I did not wish to imply otherwise. What I wished to imply was that the payment did not confirm a deliberate opening of the mail; as I said. what was thought to be going wrong was damage to the mail.

Council of Environment Ministers
3.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, with the leave of the House. I shall now repeat a Statement on the Council of Environment Ministers being made by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the meeting on 6th December of the Council of Environment Ministers, at which I was accompanied by my honourable friend, the honourable Member for Coventry South-West, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry. The Council expressed its sense of shock at the recent disaster in Bhopal, and conveyed its deepest sympathy to the Government of India and the people affected. The Council discussed lead in petrol, other vehicle emissions, the limitation of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere, the establishment of a Community information system on the environment, and draft Directives on emissions from large combustion
24
plants, waste from titanium dioxide plants, the recycling of beverage containers, and environmental assessment.
"On lead in petrol, the Council reached agreement on a Directive which provides for the introduction of unleaded petrol throughout the Community not later than 1989, or earlier if individual member states wish. The minimum octane levels of premium grade unleaded petrol will be 95 RON or 85 MON at the pump, the octane number of any additional unleaded regular grade was left for member states to fix. Formal adoption of this Directive must now await receipt of the opinion of the European Parliament.
"On polluting emissions from cars; the Council agreed that a high-level working group of officials should report by the end of January on the alternative routes available to secure further reductions in these emissions. This work will provide the Council with an assessment of relevant technologies and examine whether there should be different solutions for cars of different sizes. It will take into account energy and production costs and European traffic conditions.
"A directive on air quality standards for nitrogen dioxide was agreed with minor amendments, and subject only to a parliamentary reserve by the United Kingdom. Agreement was reached on the funding and legal basis of the first phase of an information system on environmental data in the Community.
"The four other proposed directives—on emissions from large plants, wastes from the titanium dioxide industry, the recycling of beverage containers and environmental assessment—were not agreed. The United Kingdom had objections to the first three; in none of these cases were we alone in having such objections. Denmark maintained its reservations on the fourth.
"The Council accepted a proposal by the United Kingdom that the Commission should be invited to consider, and report on, ways of ensuring that the environmental concerns are taken into account in the Community's agricultural policies. I also recorded our concern that the Commission's recently proposed Directive on motorcycle noise does not go far enough in dealing with the Smaller engined machines or in setting a sufficiently early date for reductions".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl the Minister for his courtesy in repeating in your Lordships' House the Statement which was made in another place. We on these Benches wish to be associated wholeheartedly with the expressions of sympathy contained in the Statement for the people of India at the horrific disaster in Bhopal. It is a man-made disaster; it must never be allowed to be repeated; and it tragically reinforces our responsibilities here today to work with others to avoid and reduce other atmospheric pollutions over which we can exercise some control.
We welcome the progress towards the introduction of unleaded petrol throughout the Community not

25
later than 1989. We warmly welcome the advice in the final paragraph of the Statement which says that consideration is being given to ensuring that environmental concerns will be taken into account in the Community's agricultural policies, especially as it was in this House that your Lordships' impressive all-party accord in this matter was acknowledged in a recent debate by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who gave us assurances along the lines contained in the Statement. I should like to ask a number of specific questions concerning unleaded petrol.
Do the Government accept that there needs to be a unified European response? Is it the general thrust of Government policy to strive for a united front and concerted action especially on a common starting date?
Will the Minister bear in mind that agreement to legislate for lead-free petrol is one thing; agreement on the introduction of new standards of exhaust emission is another? Do the Government have in mind a definite date for Britain to introduce lead-free fuel? If other member states have already instigated a programme for its introduction—and I have in mind statements made by Germany and France—what inhibits Her Majesty's Government from being at least as swift as those countries to comply? Can the Minister say a little more in respect of the implications for the British motor industry? Have the Government taken fully on board the problems that will arise if the introduction of lead-free petrol occurs at a disparate rate throughout Europe?
I have to say that this Statement, welcome as much of it is, will be viewed as totally and utterly meaningless unless we know when firm regulations will apply to all new cars.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we on these Benches wish to thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. Of course we endorse wholeheartedly the thoughts and sympathy expressed at the horrendous accident that has occurred at Bhopal.
There are just two or three questions that I should like to ask the noble Earl with regard to the lead in petrol. Many motorists want to use unleaded petrol, but they are given little incentive to do so. Will any fiscal incentive be given at the pumps for motorists to use unleaded petrol? Also, what efforts are being made by the Government to have closer discussion with the manufacturers of internal combustion engines in order to encourage them to produce engines that are capable of using unleaded petrol?
The other question that I wish to ask is about the alternative routes available to secure reductions in emissions. I am disappointed that there has been no mention of cycle-ways. This subject has been raised from these Benches before. Is the noble Earl able to say whether any major work is being done in Europe or this country as regards looking into the future to provide special cycle-ways which of course by their very nature produce no emission? In fact, the motorist who takes to the bicycle does not cause any emission to be made because he is no longer using his motor car. That is something that we could perhaps encourage and I want to know what is being done in this regard.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome of this particular Statement. To answer some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and taking first the European aspect, let me say that, with exceptions, the cars that we buy in the United Kingdom come from an industry which is organised on a European basis and we need to do everything we can to enable this industry to prosper. That means proceeding on a European basis if at all possible. But the European Commission proposal in another Directive that all new cars should run on unleaded petrol by 1991 is we believe too late. The Government will continue to press for it to be brought forward, at least to 1989. Early action by the oil companies to make unleaded petrol available in the United Kingdom for those drivers who are keen to use it and whose cars can run on it will be most welcome.
As regards this country being less swift to introduce unleaded petrol compared with our other partners, no, we shall not make it an undertaking, but we shall encourage all companies to introduce it earlier than 1989. The noble Lord. Lord Tanlaw, mentioned in particular measures to encourage the use of unleaded petrol. We are considering what incentives should be provided to encourage the use of unleaded petrol in cars capable of using it, and we are looking at other ways to encourage this, such as pricing policies, and will continue to do so. The noble Lord also asked about cycleways. There is nothing on that subject in my brief, but I shall let the noble Lord have an answer as soon as possible.
I believe that this is a good step forward, and if there are particular points which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised and which I have not covered, I shall of course write to him.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, with the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association both strongly echoing the views of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission about the need for a better balance between farming and the environment—on which subject, we understand, the Government presented a paper in Brussels last week; and, incidentally, it is a subject on which both Houses have had Select Committees reporting to the same effect: that there should be a better balance—is there not an obvious need for a White Paper on this subject?
Secondly, may I ask my noble friend whether a copy of the paper on this subject that was presented by the Government in Brussels will be placed in the Library?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as regards the point about a White Paper, I shall of course bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend. On the point about a paper, I understand that it was a fairly short paper which was put before the European Community. I shall ensure that either a copy of it is placed in the Library, or that my noble friend is sent a copy of it.

Hong Kong: Future
4.2 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we now return to the debate on the future of Hong Kong and the draft agreement that has been placed before this House. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. I had hoped to be able to listen to the noble Earl before making my intervention, but, at rather short notice, I have had to speak somewhat high up the list and so although I was going to make a mere personal statement, I shall now have to make a much wider speech, and I hope that that fact will not be overlooked. Therefore, I was not in a position to receive many of the submissions from UMELCO and various other representations which have been made, but I have received reports of those submissions to my noble friends and colleagues.
The first question which I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, concerns the suggestion put forward by UMELCO and, indeed, by others in another place, that there should be an annual report on, for want of a better phrase, how things are going in Hong Kong during the intervening period between now and 1997. This would allow this House and another place to debate the matter, and would act as a check; it would allow Members to raise anything which may have given rise to any sticky points which had not been anticipated in the draft agreement.
Another factor arises in this connection. Certain business interests that are trading with both China and Hong Kong do not often have the ability or the time to see what is happening on the constitutional side. If there were such an annual report, followed by a debate in both Houses, it could only assist the business future of Hong Kong.
The other aspect on which I wish to concentrate is the part of the draft agreement which prescribes:
"that the Government of Hong Kong will be composed of local inhabitants: that there shall be an elected legislature, and independent judiciary; that the Chief Executive will be appointed by the Central People's Government on the basis of elections or consultations to be held locally, and the Chief Executive can then nominate the principal officials.
"It is therefore essential that a system of electing the Chief Executive is organised before 1997, thus circumventing a consultative alternative system".
What is not clear on the one hand but is made extremely clear on the other is that the legislature envisaged by Her Majesty's Government, by the people of Hong Kong and by the People's Republic of China is both a democratic and a representative one. This was emphasised by the Governor, Sir Edward Youde, in his speech at the drafting of the agreement itself. He said:
"to ensure that we achieve the objective of developing a system of Government on which the views of all sectors of our society are represented; which is responsive to the needs of our community; and which is responsible to the people of Hong Kong".
Those who sit on these Benches and I am sure Members in all parts of the House definitely have great sympathy with those views. The Unofficial Members of the Hong Kong Executive and Legislative Councils, under the heading "Move to Representative
28
Government", made a similar statement, which I also welcome. They said:
"It is therefore necessary to move to a more representative form of government".
and that,
"Hong Kong must therefore devise its own unique style of representative government".
The word "representative" appears in almost every one of these statements, and it goes without saying that those elections must also be democratic. Indeed, the White Paper outlines the development of this form of government, starting with indirect and then direct elections.
However, there is no mention of the voting system which is to be used. There is no mention of how these representatives are to be elected. It should be realised, and realised by now, that Hong Kong is a complex sectarian society on which there are many pressures and there are many inputs to voters—and certainly new voters who are to take part in elections which they have never had before. There is religion, cultural background and language; there are multifarious pressure points on voters before they can take a decision on the kind of person they wish to represent them. They have not had this luxury, if we can call it such, until now; but they have had the luxury of not having to bother about politicians, and they have done very well on it. Now that the responsibility is to revert back to Hong Kong, they will have to make these decisions in a polling booth.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness what kind of voting system the people of Hong Kong are expecting will be used. The implication is that it will be the same system as we operate in this country. I think that this point should be clarified at a very early stage because, as many noble Lords are aware, the voting system that we have in this country may be democratic but in no way is it representative.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that 42·4 per cent. of the votes cast in the last general election elected 61 per cent. of the seats in another place; 27·6 per cent. of the votes cast elected 32 per cent. of the seats in another place; yet 25·4 per cent. of the votes cast elected only 3·5 per cent. of the seats in another place. This raises another question altogether, but the point I wish to make is that the system of first-past-the-post in this country, and wherever it is used, may be democratic but it is certainly not representative, as the figures which I have quoted show and as we on these Benches know to our cost and as our voters who voted for their candidates know to their cost.
Will this system be used in Hong Kong? No advantage would be given to a political party; some people claim that there would be an advantage to those of us who sit on these Benches if the system were to be changed. In Hong Kong there are no political parties; so they are starting from scratch. I want Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, anyone who is concerned with the future of the voters of Hong Kong to consider how they will vote and what they will achieve by voting. If the noble Baronesss can show this House that the voting system of first-past-the-post is representative, I will be prepared to reconsider the matter. But why is it that so many countries in Europe

29
use other systems and have dumped the first-past-the-post system in order to have a more representative government? I have said enough about this, but it is something that needs to be cleared at the beginning before we get into details of the draft agreement.
Another main point is that of the Basic Law and the drafting of the Basic Law. This point has already been made in the debate in another House and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. It is difficult to be sure from the noble Baroness's remarks who will he responsible for the task of drafting. Everybody realises that the responsibility will be left to the team in Beijing, but our concern here is where the people of Hong Kong—and, this time, perhaps the elected representatives of Hong Kong—are going to fit in to have their say in the drafting of the Basic Law.
Are they going to be part of the British team, Her Majesty's Government's team, in Beijing or have a separate place of their own? They have to have a say. With the best will in the world it is no good us taking part in the drafting procedure if the final result is against the wishes of what will then be the elected representatives in Hong Kong.
I shall be as brief as possible, but I now want to come on to a few areas that the Basic Law is going to touch upon, mainly for clarification. They are areas in the judiciary which may need adjustment, and areas where possibly more liberalisation is required in deference to now having a democratically-elected legislature rather than a firm and reasonably fair government which did not have to bother with local voters.
One of the areas would be the Societies Ordinance, which I believe controls the formation of political parties. It has been long and difficult for associations and political parties to get formed in Hong Kong. I hope there will now be a slight easing of this because presumably there has to be some sort of label attached to those who are going to be representatives, and elected representatives, of the people of Hong Kong.
There is also the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance, the ICAC. I wonder whether that may he loosened up a little? It is a quite fearsome ordinance. This could be done in conjunction with having an ombudsman, perhaps with full investigatory powers into alleged personal harassment, abuse of authority, or various other things which can occur with a law as far-ranging as this which has been used in Hong Kong to greater and lesser effect than perhaps its authors would have wished.
There is another factor that was a surprise to me, and it may be to some other noble Lords, and that is that the death penalty is still on the statute book in Hong Kong. I wonder whether or not it will still remain there during these intervening years. This is another factor on which people would like to be reassured.
Finally, there is one other area which was going to be the main subject of my intervention in this debate, and that is the localisation of the judiciary. I am perhaps not in any way normally qualified to talk about the judiciary, but I have served the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for 11 years as a member of his committee on the selection of justices
30
of the peace for Inner London. I was proud to do so and it was a rewarding experience. I feel qualified at least to raise the question of the future of magistrates in Hong Kong.
It would appear from the figures I have received from the Hong Kong office that out of a total of 62 stipendiary magistrates 53 are expatriates and only nine selected from the local community. I wonder whether or not the process of localisation can be accelerated to improve these figures. In the best of all possible worlds, and certainly so far as the future of Hong Kong goes, I cannot see the benefit of having magistrates from as far away as England who do not speak the languages in which the courts will be conducted, and have little or no understanding of Chinese family affairs, Chinese business affairs, or indeed the Chinese community as a whole.
The reason given why there are not more local magistrates has been that the remuneration has not been adequate to satisfy the local legal profession, who are used to much higher fees on the commercial side of the law. I have had this repeated to me on a number of occasions. When I have expressed amazement, it is the answer I have been given. We have all heard of fat-cat lawyers, but this is going a hit far. Anyone involved in the future of Hong Kong should also have a public-spirited approach and I do not see why the legal profession should be left out in this.
The answer that magistrates do not make enough money does not satisfy me. We are looking for a democratic and representative form of government at all levels, and that is what the people want, and this is something about which we should hear a little more. That is the only answer I have had, and I have looked hard for anything better. There has to be a change of attitude about the community. It is a business community, and I do not see why people should not take it in turns occasionally to take part in that community just as we do here. In this country there is a lay magistracy where ordinary people from all sectors of life from stockbrokers to bus conductors play a valuable role in operating the courts, and I do not see why they should not have a similar role in Hong Kong. We have here a helpful guide in our Lord Chancellor's office, the Green Book, as to how these magistrates should be selected. I wonder whether those who are visiting from Hong Kong, those teams from UMELCO and others, might not spend a little time in the Lord Chancellor's office to see how we go about matters here. It may be to their benefit.
The question of nationality has come up. We from these Benches have at another time made our views clear as to fairness and our obligations in this country as to what nationality is all about, including its definition. I do not think that this is the right time to raise it now. We shall continue from these Benches to try to safeguard as best we can those rights that were freely and honestly given to people in Hong Kong.
The reassurance that the noble Baroness has given about statelessness is an area where we have had a lot of representation. I am delighted, if I understood her correctly, that there will be a provisional draft which can look after this particularly awkward question for, I believe, people numbering not more than 20,000. It is a relief that that is what is being done with a sensible arrangement through negotiations with the governor.

31
I want to conclude with something on general attitudes about the future of Hong Kong. From talking to people in both business and government I have come to the conclusion that how you look upon the future depends primarily on your age. This is a purely personal view and I hope I shall not give any offence, but I have listened to enough people to have acquired some opinion. People who are perhaps over 50 have often come away from some form of oppression and found in Hong Kong a wonderfully free society in which they have developed successfully, intelligently, and brilliantly in many ways.
They cannot bear the thought that in 12 years' time, when they are possibly at retirement age, they will have to think about having to start again somewhere else. The over 50s are therefore perhaps understandably looking for passports of another country. What worries me is that they have their sons, and, with the way that Chinese family customs work, they listen to their elders with great care. Quite often young men who long after the year 2000 will have a brilliant future in Hong Kong both in business and in the Civil Service are worried about the conflict of advice.
I suspect that a lot of them want to give it a go and take a chance, if you like. They do not want to go to another country with a different and alien culture where they may be permanently classed as a second-class citizen. They want to take a chance and have a shot at what the future offers, with the goodwill that has been established so far. But it is their fathers and indeed their mothers who are saying, "Be careful. Hedge your bets". and so on, which is often creating a rather difficult climate for decision-making. We have to sympathise very much with people from the ages of 25 to 45 who have some difficult decisions ahead, but it is essential for the future success of Hong Kong, both commercially and constitutionally, that they stay after the year 2000 and take their chance with their families and with their children.
To end on a very personal note—and maybe it is possibly of some encouragement—many people in this country do not have much experience of the People's Republic of China or with Chinese people at all. I have daily experience and I assure your Lordships that it is due to different cultures exciting. It may have its confrontations, but the rewards more than compensate for anything else. That is the way I look at the future and I hope that many others will do so too. We wish all the people of Hong Kong a part in that future.
4.21 p.m.
The Earl of Birkenhead: My Lords, I must ask for your Lordships' indulgence for this, my maiden speech. It is a privilege to be speaking in such distinguished company on this topic, in particular to be taking part in the same debate as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who was for so long such a distinguished governor of Hong Kong. I start by adding my congratulations to those which have already been given to the negotiators on both sides on what I see as an unprecedented treaty. It is really a remarkable document. It is perhaps the first agreement of its kind between capitalist and Communist powers since the October Revolution of 1917.
32
Both sides entered these negotiations with one overriding objective: the Chinese to recover their sovereignty over Hong Kong, and Her Majesty's Government to secure the future welfare and freedom of its 5·5 million inhabitants. The Chinese have most certainly succeeded in their prime objective and so, I hope, I trust, and I believe have we, but nobody—not here in this House, not in Hong Kong, not even in the People's Republic—can be absolutely sure of that. What one can say is that to the Chinese, being determined and, indeed, entitled to exert their claim, some transfer of sovereignty was inevitable. It was greatly preferable that such a transfer should be accompanied by an agreement. and it would be hard to imagine an agreement being more comprehensive or satisfactory than this one.
It would not, however, be fitting to allow our pleasure at the nature of this agreement to lapse into complacency. As other speakers have said, much remains to be done. There are still uncertainties. Above all, we should avoid complacency, because we do not have to live, except in our consciences, with the consequences of this agreement; the people of Hong Kong do. Many of them have risked their lives and abandoned everything to escape from Communism. One cannot possibly expect enthusiasm at the prospect of being handed hack to a Communist power, however many safeguards are built into their return.
Given this, their reaction as gauged by the assessment office is, I think, wary but constructive. Some of the individual submissions I found poignant and heartbreaking. I shall quote one:
"We do not care what happens to Hong Kong for our own sake. However, we worry for our children".
Two of the concerns expressed seem to me to be particularly important and have already been touched upon by everyone who has spoken this afternoon. These are the questions of Hong Kong interests being consulted over the drafting of the basic law, which will, of course, govern the colony after 1997, and of their representation on the Joint Liaison Group. I was very happy that these points should have been so sympathetically received both by my noble friend Lady Young and also when they were raised in another place on Wednesday.
There is a more general, but equally important, point. It is essential for the people of Hong Kong to be involved directly in developments from now on. It follows that some democratic body should be elected in Hong Kong which would he truly representative of Hong Kong interests. By this I do not mean to imply the slightest criticism of the present Legislative Council; very much the reverse. I greatly admired their conduct over the past year which I thought to be both wise and courageous, and I thought that their debate which was reported in the assessment document faithfully reflected the reservations in the colony. Nevertheless, an elected body would have a legitimacy, a function of representation, that the present Legislative Council lacks. Perhaps this maiden speech is not the right time to dwell on this subject. I will return to the agreement.
The guarantees contained in the document are reassuring, but there are other reasons why it should work. One very important one is that the Chinese have never recognised the treaties under which we have held

33
and continue to hold Hong Kong. On the contrary, they denounced them as being uneven and having been negotiated under duress. One must admit that they had some reason in that argument. Nevertheless, Chinese Governments of all persuasions have respected the treaties, when they could have taken over the colony at any time with little fear of retaliation. How much more likely are they to respect a treaty which they have freely negotiated and which is as solemnly binding as can be made possible in any arrangement between two sovereign states?
Now that they have achieved their ambitions for Hong Kong, or are well on the way towards achieving them, the main objective of Chinese foreign policy must be reunification with Taiwan. This can be achieved only by diplomatic means, and probably only in the distant future when new leaders will have forgotten the bitterness of the past. The Hong Kong agreement can be seen as a pilot project for this greater reunification. It must be seen to have worked. If it fails, then there will he no chance of reunion with Taiwan. Thus, China's concern for her own good name, her economic interests and her foreign aspirations all pull her in the same direction towards the strict observance of this agreement.
There have been also most encouraging changes in the People's Republic. When I first went there, shortly after the Cultural Revolution, I was amazed by the degree of conformity, which seemed almost inhuman, the complete submission of the individual to the state, the subjection of the expert to what was called the collective wisdom of the struggling masses. The uniformity was even sartorial. Mao badges adorned Mao jackets, hair was cut uniformly. How long ago it all seems now! The changes in China over little more that a decade have been quite astonishing and the pace of change, if anything, is accelerating.
A month ago, the Chinese Prime Minister Deng Xiaoping told us that egalitarianism has no part in modern Marxist thought while on Saturday the People's Daily carried this a bit further and told us in effect that Karl Marx has no part in modern Marxist thought. These pronouncements give legitimacy to what has already happened. There have been widespread experiments with elements of capitalism in both industry and agriculture. Foreign investment has been sought, as have joint ventures. In addition, three graduated classes of development zone have been started. The effect of all this has been to transform China, rather quietly with the full form of Communism preserved, from a doctrinaire Communist state to something which is well on the way to being a new sort of mixed economy. They have even celebrated their first peasant millionaire with some kind of fanfare. A short time ago, he would have been shot or, if he was lucky, sent off to Mongolia to be re-educated by the struggling masses.
There are perils as well as opportunities in the path that the People's Republic is taking. The scale of the task is absolutely stupendous: the modernisation of a country with 1,000 million inhabitants. There is so much that could go wrong. Expectations have been raised and disappointments could lead to dangerous reaction. What is certain, though, is that the changes which have already taken place will greatly improve Hong Kong's prospects within China. Little over 10
34
years ago, the contrasts between the two systems was absolute. If anyone had suggested that there could be any form of union between the unbridled capitalism of Hong Kong and the ultra-orthodox Communism of the People's Republic, the idea would have seemed quite absurd. Fortunately that is no longer so.
Noble Lords may have read that the highest designation of all development zones, that of "special economic zone", has been given to an area called Shenzhen which is adjacent to the New Territories, the part of China which meets Hong Kong. Within Shenzhen, booming conditions already almost rival those in the colony. Industry thrives, controls have been lifted, foreigners encouraged. The population of Shenzhen has gone up over 10 times since 1980. It has been so successful that it is now fenced in from the rest of China; so that we have the extraordinary spectacle of two parallel fences, one built by us to keep the Chinese out of Hong Kong, the second built by the Chinese to keep their own people out of Shenzhen. On the other side of that second fence lies the province of Guangzhou, itself a priority investment zone and, beyond Guangzhou, the rest of less privileged China. It is possible—no, I think likely—that Hong Kong, once a prime example of everything that the People's Republic opposed, will settle on the very apex of this new economic pyramid and become instead the symbol of her aspirations. Let us hope that this is so and let us do everything we can to help achieve this happy outcome.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Rhodes: My Lords, I am very fortunate to be able to follow the noble Earl and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. The majority of the House may not have realised while he was talking that he put his finger on one of the most important facets—one that is not very often mentioned—and that is the co-development of Shenzhen alongside Hong Kong. I do not suppose that the noble Earl has ever been able to forget that he had a very illustrious progenitor called F. E. Smith, and neither have we in the north of England, because we were always proud of him, not perhaps because of his legal prowess but because he never forgot his origins—which, in my opinion, is a virtue. The noble Earl's speech was first-class, and I hope that the House will have the opportunity of hearing him many times in the future.
I have never ceased to marvel how chance plays a part in our lives, and I can never really get over how it came about that I was so interested in that part of the world. That interest has led me to Hong Kong 15 times now, and to the mainland of China five times in the last six years—and I am due to go again, God willing!, in March of next year. I thank my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos for his remarks. He is very kind, and I appreciate it very much.
We are discussing a very fine document, and I wish to support the Motion that is before the House. What is particularly encouraging is the degree to which Chinese negotiators were willing to specify a detailed set of policies regarding the future of Hong Kong. The document provides that Britain will remain solely responsible for the administration of Hong Kong until 1997. That is common knowledge. It contains relatively specific guarantees that the present

35
Judiciary, administration, finance, education, economic and social systems will be preserved for 50 years after 1997. The Joint Declaration, it appeared, was generally accepted by the Hong Kong people; but it was clearly stated in the White Paper that the alternative to this agreement would be no agreement. Although it is accepted that the agreement stands as it is, nevertheless the people of Hong Kong would like assurance that there will be opportunities for clarification, and they would like to be told that the last word on the subject has not been spoken.
My next point concerns the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. This was originally envisaged as a consultative body, but in my opinion there is absolutely no doubt that it will be considered a forum for consultation and negotiation on matters which need clarifying throughout the next 12 years. The functions of this Joint Liaison Group are defined. One is to discuss matters relating to the smooth transfer of government in 1997; and there are many more. Here, again, the people of Hong Kong would like to know how their views will be represented on this group. The people of Hong Kong say that there should be a de facto arrangement whereby Hong Kong has a representative or representatives on the group.
There is plenty of work for this consultative body to do now, and one matter in particular is the nationality question. There is no doubt that there is disquiet that this was dealt with in an exchange of memoranda which, although associated with the agreement, nevertheless do not have the same force. It is obvious that the Chinese are not committed to incorporating these memoranda or their contents in the Basic Law. Other noble Lords who will follow me know more about the intricacies with which we shall be faced on the question of nationality, but there is one thing that ought to go out from this House this afternoon, and that is a determination to deal compassionately with those who need it in terms of nationality in the years that lie ahead.
I think the Joint Liaison Group should announce as one of its first priorities that it will discuss and clarify for the people of Hong Kong the various questions that have been raised about nationality. Here let me make a plea. Why cannot the people who have been negotiating and have made such a magnificant job of what they have done form an element of the group when it is set up after the agreement comes to pass? We need some continuity from the people who have gone through all the details in compiling this first-class agreement. May I ask that there should be consideration given to this point?
My next point also very much affects the people of Hong Kong. Who will speak for the people of Hong Kong during the next years when their voice needs to be heard? A White Paper on representation and reform has just been published. This sets up indirect elections to fewer than half the places on the Legislative Council—the number is approximately 24. Now there is a promise to review in 1987, before further reforms take place. At that juncture, the Governor of Hong Kong has hinted that some element of direct elections might come after the review; but he specifies the need for a step-by-step approach in which the system will,
36
"evolve naturally to meet the needs of present-day Hong Kong".
I want to draw attention to this point because it is important. The Governor has been criticised and accused of fudging the issue, but I think the Governor was right, and, while the autonomy of Hong Kong depends on its ability to develop effective institutions of self-government, we have to proceed with extreme caution. That is where I come back to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, who spoke for the first time this afternoon, about the relationship between Shenzhen, which is adjacent to Hong Kong, and Hong Kong itself.
The agreement promises an elected Legislature, but neither gives details about the proposed electoral system nor guarantees that the elections will be competitive. This must be taken into account by everybody. There are two sorts of elections: by indirect electoral colleges and elections by competition. But there is no statement in the agreement which says that they are going to be competitive elections. Instead, the structure of the regional government that will rule Hong Kong after reversion to China will be described in a "Basic Law" that Peking will enact some time between now and 1977.
Thus much rests on the contents of this "mini-constitution"—it will be a "mini-constitution"—and the process by which it will be drawn up. Peking has pledged to Britain that the Basic Law will embody all the guarantees and provisions of the joint agreement, and it has promised informally that the people of Hong Kong will be consulted through the drafting process. But the Basic Law will be unveiled well after the Sino-British agreement is concluded. There is no provision for either London or Hong Kong to approve its contents. Nor is there yet any indication as to how, or by whom, the basic law can be amended after 1997. This wants to be remembered.
It is quite possible, therefore, that the Basic Law will contain strict limits on representative government in Hong Kong—and the power to set those limits appears to belong to Peking alone. So, in my opinion, while taking the tenet that we should move step by step, we need also to walk in step with the Chinese Government.
Hong Kong faces one of the biggest challenges confronting the Eastern and Western world. What is going to be done about it? We have to back Hong Kong with all the strength that we can at this very important time. What can we do individually? Sometimes I think that there is precious little we can do individually, but I have been associated with the textile trade, both man and boy: as both employee and employer. I was an administrator in the Board of Trade concerned with the same trade. It should be recognised that China is the largest manufacturer in the whole world. There is no question whatever that over the years that lie ahead there will be confusion and argument about the multi-fibre arrangements, about GATT, and about other quotas. I may say from a personal point of view that I will lay open all the information and influence that I possibly can to help Hong Kong solve some of these problems when they arise.
What can Hong Kong do for itself? It can do a lot. It is a matter of confidence by the people of Hong

37
Kong in the government of the future in Hong Kong which will make it possible to bring peace throughout the years. There is such a thing as unemployment in Hong Kong. There is such a thing as pensions in Hong Kong. There are certain things needed in the factory administration in Hong Kong, where the factories are not up to date in terms of good employment. Sinofication of the legal system is needed. Proceedings in magistrates' courts are still all conducted in English. We shall have to energise this question of what we are doing to the social side in Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong Government need to he definite about the outcome of the Llewelyn Committee, which has now been waiting for a decision for 10 years as to whether the Cantonese language is to be included in primary and secondary schools. Matters of that kind need to be dealt with forthwith. There is no question either that Hong Kong will be facing difficulties in the event of land values decreasing if a recession occurs at the same time. This is where the parent Government here will have to help Hong Kong.
I cannot believe that there will be a major change from what they have set their hand to. There will be hiccups, of course. Central government in a communist state is dependent on the good will of its regions, and central government in a communist state courts the regions by giving them autonomy. In the past, the regions in China have used their autonomy in cut-throat competition between the regions themselves, and so central government has found it necessary to claw back authority and fix prices as a result.
What can Government here do? They can do a lot. They can support the institutions which are making an effort towards friendship towards China (the Britain-China Centre is one example) and back the Sino-British Council. I will pay tribute to the service given by the BBC Overseas Service at Bush House. Is it generally realised that 30,000 letters were received by the BBC at Bush House last year as a result of its Chinese broadcasts?
I was glad to see that there has been an appointment to the consul-generalship in Shanghai, which is something for which we have been pressing for several years now. We have a first class man by the name of Trevor Mount, who is going to take up that appointment.
I come to what is my last point—or nearly. Earlier this year we heard the news concerning an invitation to Her Majesty the Queen to visit China. If that event could take place in, say, two years' time, when they will just have started constructing the basic law, it would be one of the most momentous visits of this century. The Chinese people would rise to it, I know; we have been told so.
When we were debating the third Question on the Order Paper this afternoon, concerning the Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy, I recalled that I myself attended church yesterday. At one point I was nodding off, but then I heard our parson praying. He was praying for the success of this very agreement and praying that it should be a lasting source of friendship between our two peoples. There is not a single person in your Lordships' House who would do other than agree that our parson was right. In the Anglican
38
church it is the season of Advent. It is a time of hope and of looking forward to a coming. We hope that this agreement presages something wonderful coming in the future, because I believe that the Chinese people have the peace of the world in their hearts.
5 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I should like immediately to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, on his maiden speech. I am relieved that he chose a subject which is virtually the only one on which I can compliment him with some authority. I hope he stays with it in the 12½ years that lie ahead.
This is an excellent agreement and it is difficult to start without congratulating many people; naturally, first and foremost, the Chinese Government, but also Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State and the diplomats who carried out this very difficult task. There are also the members of the Executive Legislative Council who have performed their task with great dignity during the past two years. Above all, a tribute is due to my successor. I do not believe any official has ever had to carry out so delicate and complex a task and to reconcile so many diverse points of view—often heated—and done so with such success.
I listened with very great interest to what the noble Baroness the Minister of State said in her opening speech. She answered many questions and I hope that she will bear with me if I ask a few more. As I see it, the joint declaration had three main objectives: first, to restore sovereignty and administration to China in 1997 but at the same time to ensure that the essential elements of Hong Kong's prosperity, stability and lifestyle should continue for a long time thereafter; secondly, to make arrangements for liaison and co-operation in implementing the agreement and achieving an eventual smooth handover; and, thirdly, to announce what would happen after 1997 sufficiently far in advance to halt the erosion of business and personal confidence and, it is to be hoped, to rebuild it.
Although some ambiguities and gaps inevitably remain to be dealt with within the basic law or through the Joint Liaison Group, many of these objectives have been achieved and markets have steadied; and the outside view of Hong Kong has become quite bullish. But while the provisions are all that anyone could hope for at this stage, I think a degree of personal fear and suspicion persists. This was clearly reflected in the assessment and monitors' report. This is no criticism of either the agreement or of the Government of China but is simply a fact of which the Chinese leaders are, I am sure, very well aware.
In spite of this, the wish of the Hong Kong people clearly recorded for us is that we should sign. They said "yes" but with some unspoken "buts". I am told that much of this reserve is due to doubt: not of the sincerity of the Chinese Government, but concern about the way officials, unfamiliar with Hong Kong and its ways, may seek to implement the agreement. We shall have to wait and see. After all, the Joint Liaison Group will be there to deal with implementation problems and no doubt restraint and a sympathetic approach will be as necessary from Hong Kong as from the Chinese Government. In any case, fortunately there are 12½ years in which these

39
doubts can be dispelled. Considering the fantastic changes that have taken place in Hong Kong itself, in Hong Kong's relations with China and in China itself during the past 10 years, who can say how those doubts may appear in retrospect in 10 years' time? Nevertheless, as the noble Earl said, it is the future of the people of Hong Kong that is at stake and I understand their attitude that the proof of this pudding will be in the eating; so, clearly no effort should be spared in its preparation.
I suppose the most important question we have to answer is whether the agreement will stand up. It is so good on paper that many have asked: is it too good to be true? That is one of the causes of the underlying concern. Last Wednesday in another place the Secretary of State, and today the Minister of State here, gave us most reassuring answers to these questions—the solemnity of pledged word; mutual interest; highest national importance of the policies of the Chinese Government such as a modernisation programme and the prospects of peaceful reunification with Taiwan. There is also our own strong national interest. There are other reasons, but I shall mention only one.
For a Communist government to commit itself to maintaining this capitalist enclave may seem to some so bizarre as to be incredible, but the fact is—and I do not know how much this is generally realised—this concept is entirely consistent with Chinese policy towards Hong Kong, at least over the past 20 years. During this time the characteristics of Hong Kong recorded in the joint declaration have been in existence but they, and the British rule that created them, have been permitted to exist not because of British power (China has overwhelming local power) or, I suspect, because of treaties which China held to be invalid and signed under duress. No, they could only have been permitted to continue because for good reasons it was the policy of the Chinese Government that they should. It is worth noting that that policy has remained constant through such upheavals as I hope China will never have to go through again. There was one aberration in 1967, but in my view that was the exception which proved the rule.
In my years as governor I found the Chinese People's Government and its officials in Hong Kong both friendly and supportive; so there is nothing inconsistent, far less suspicious, in the Chinese Government having now volunteered that Hong Kong should continue under their flag more or less as it is since it has been their policy to accept it for so long under ours.
For all those reasons I am sure that we should sign. I do not think there is any dispute about that. However. I think it is the fervent hope of the Hong Kong people that in signing we do not mentally sign off, but rather sign on for the next 12½ years of our responsibility. Our task during these years, in co-operation with Hong Kong and the Chinese Government, will be to help Hong Kong to be in the right shape politically, economically and psychologically to maintain continuity when the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China starts. If we succeed, as I am sure we will, we may well have assured the success of Hong Kong, and thus of Sino-
40
British relations, over much of the 50 years that follow.
These 12½ years will probably be the most demanding and could be the most fruitful that the Chinese People's Government, ourselves and Hong Kong have ever had in their long relationship. Therefore, my first question to the Minister of State is whether she is satisfied that adequate forward planning has been made in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the provision of the staff necessary for this prolonged task. Certainly the resources of that department were deployed with enormous success during the recent negotiation.
I know that the Government are committed under the Joint Declaration to maintain their responsibility up to 30th June 1997. Of course their sincerity in that respect is complete. What the Minister of State said today is, of course, all that one could have wished. Nevertheless, I believe that during this period we may expect Hong Kong people to watch every action of ours to detect any sign of growing uninterest: for instance, in the degree of support that we give to Hong Kong in quota negotiations; what we do for Cathay Pacific in comparison with British Airways and British Caledonian; and even procedures for the new passports must be handled with care. We must avoid giving any impression that we are intending to expedite our disengagement. Those are just examples; but obviously constant care over the handling of this highly sensitive situation will be necessary if we are to avoid misunderstandings and jolts to confidence.
In addition, there is an obvious check list of specific things to watch out for, most of which have already been referred to by other noble Lords. There is the work of the Joint Liaison Group and the drafting of the Basic Law; and the obvious wish of Hong Kong people to participate. I noted what the Minister of State had to say about that. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, had to say, and I shall not repeat what others have said. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, there are fears of conscription into the People's Liberation Army. I realise that that lies within China's sovereign right and is very far in the future; but if I am right in believing that the PLA's recruitment is filled by volunteers, and since I presume that the Chinese Government have no intention whatever of pressurising anyone in Hong Kong to volunteer, it would be most helpful if they said as much.
There is much concern about various matters to do with nationality and travel documents. These will be debated next year, but I add that to the list, in spite of the fact that other noble Lords have covered it, because the concern felt is so bitter and personal. I am glad that the noble Baroness repeated the assurance that no one will be left stateless. But this change in the status of Hong Kong, I am afraid, may well throw up rather unexpected nationality problems which must not be brushed aside. Moreover, there are special cases—I mean some people to whom we have a clear obligation to provide a home if they wish to make one in the United Kingdom, regardless of our expectation that Hong Kong will continue to be a free, happy, prosperous and indeed safe place for them to live in.
Then there is the question of the external commercial relations of the Special Administrative

41
Region. Annex II of the Joint Declaration provides that the Joint Liaison Group will consider action by both Governments to obtain agreement of third countries to the external commercial relations of the future administrative region continuing as at present, and also its membership of international organisations. This is crucial to the future prosperity of Hong Kong, and to investment in that future. I ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to say whether she has any indications at this stage of the attitudes to this of any of the principal governments concerned.
Finally, there is the question of constitutional reform, so that the colonial administration can change into the representational government, with an elected Legislature, to which the executive will be responsible. Under the agreement this is to be provided for the Hong Kong Special Administration Region in 1997. Given the length of electoral cycles, there really is not long, and certainly not long enough, for any mistake, and at some stage, I presume, we have to make sure that what is proposed is acceptable to the Chinese People's Government and at least is not in conflict with the Basic Law. I suggest that this is very much a matter for local judgment, leading to the solution of this local problem in a local way and not necessarily a Westminster way. The recent White Paper of the Hong Kong Government indicates the step-by-step procedure that they will adopt.
Our experience of constitutional reform in developing countries has been mixed. I have two general points to make which your Lordships may find reassuring in the case of Hong Kong. The first is the Hong Kong people and their press are no strangers to politics in the sense of interest in the affairs of their city. Already there can be few communities in which so many individuals actively participate in one way or another. In fact, the basis for wider participation in government, and for familiarity with working electoral procedures based on adult suffrage, has been carefully laid over a number of years. Now that the Chinese Government have agreed to the principle of an elected legislature, that can be built on as the Government think best.
But does the Minister of State agree that it may be difficult to get full support for the idea of more representative government by more and better elections alone? Will public interest not focus much more on who has power; on how many more local people are promoted to the top jobs in the public services, and how quickly; and on whether some more direct responsibility is given to some members of the Legislature? I know that I have just said that that is a matter for local decision, but if the noble Baroness has any thoughts on this they would be of very great interest.
That brings me to the second point. Whatever route to representative government is chosen, certainly we need have no fear whatever about the capacity of the Hong Kong people to govern themselves. Whether in the public services or among the public who already participate in government on committees, boards or councils, talent and dedication are there in profusion. I am very glad that the committed band of expatriates in the public service may continue to serve Hong Kong, like their local colleagues, under the same conditions of service and pension as at present.
42
In parenthesis, I should point out the heavy responsibilities that these arrangements are going to place on the present 30 to 45 years age group, particularly of young professionals. As any noble Lord who has visited Hong Kong knows, they are a particularly bright and competent lot. They will be reaching their peak during the transitional period, and they are very well-qualified to ensure the administrative, economic and cultural success of the Special Administrative Region. I trust that publication of the Joint Declaration and its annexes will reassure them and encourage them to stay on.
In conclusion, I have two rather general points. This is a brilliantly drafted agreement. It provides Hong Kong with an excellent opportunity to continue its prosperity, stability and lifestyle under the Chinese flag; but there is no automaticity. The opportunity will have to be seized, protected and encouraged, not only by the signatories, but, above all, by the people of Hong Kong themselves, and their leaders. As the Monitor's report states, the future is in their hands. For my part, I have great confidence that with their realism and adaptability they will surmount this challenge as they have surmounted so many challenges to their survival in the past.
Secondly, and lastly, we have every reason to be grateful to the Chinese leaders for their vision and courage in offering this imaginative solution to a problem rooted in such emotive history. But I believe, too, that this agreement is of wider significance than the problem it covers. Certainly it has been so regarded by many of the keenest observers in America, Japan and Hong Kong. No Chinese Government could have proposed it, far less agreed to it in such specific terms, unless it totally excluded the extremist policies that have racked China in the past, and unless it was firmly committed to a long period of modernisation and raising living standards, and to reform domestic administration and develop external commerce to achieve it.
Over the last five or six years we have seen this pragmatic, economy-oriented, open-door policy beginning to work and gathering momentum. After these 150 years of foreign intervention, revolution, civil war, war, civil war, revolution, and then the years of continuing revolution that followed, surely we wish this new process well, for the sake of China, for the sake of Hong Kong and for the sake of our relations with both. I support the Motion.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it is my honour to be the first from these Benches to congratulate my noble friend Lord Birkenhead. I join with the noble Lords, Lord Rhodes and Lord MacLehose, in offering real plaudits and a warm welcome to the noble Earl, particularly in a debate as important as this, on which he clearly has very considerable knowledge. My research also shows that the noble Earl and I succeeded to your Lordships' House in the same year. To have here another member of the Class of '75 must be a good thing.
Secondly, I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister of State because I have failed to advise her, as I said I would try to do, of the topic or topics on which I shall touch this evening. I am afraid time not only

43
caught up with me, it positively overtook me. I did, however, listen intently, and, if I may say so, with real reassurance, to what she had to say. I very much look forward to her summing-up at the end of this debate.
I also listened to and have subsequently read the speeches made in another place last week on 5th December. As one keenly interested in Hong Kong and its future. I warmly welcome what was said by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State and by my honourable friend the Minister of State.
I had the privilege of being in Hong Kong both immediately before and immediately after publication of the White Paper. The many Chinese with whom I spoke welcomed it, though I also heard, as has been said by other noble Lords this evening, that many were guarded in respect of faithful implementation by future Chinese officials—and here I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, said, officials rather than leaders. For all that, the White Paper is not just a good agreement, it is an outstandingly good one. I gladly join in with all the noble Lords who have congratulated both the British and the Chinese negotiating teams on a very remarkable job, superbly done.
There are inevitably matters arising and gaps to be filled. Other noble Lords have concentrated, or will concentrate, on the vital aspects of the Basic Law, representation in Hong Kong Government, the Joint Liaison Committee, the preservation of human rights, conscription and all the other issues that are either outstanding and/or of concern to the people of Hong Kong. It will not surprise some of your Lordships if I restrict my remarks to the issue of nationality. It may conceivably be that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, had that in mind during his speech.
As has been said before in your Lordships' House, it is quite remarkable how retentive one's own memory is of what one has personally said on past occasions. On 21st May 1984, I expressed in this House fears that unless there was an ultimate bolt-hole or some escape route built into the agreement, an exodus of vital middle managers from Hong Kong could—and I emphasised "could"—develop. Such an escape route has been built in by way of the Exchange of Memoranda of 26th September 1984 and, certainly to date, no such exodus has taken place, nor indeed do I expect one. However, I still see three problem areas on the nationality issue. I unashamedly bring it up this evening in your Lordships' House, even though I may be accused of anticipating the debate on legislation next year. The three areas of concern, as I see it, are the acceptability of the new British passport, the restriction of transmissability and the statelessness of a minority of Hong Kong residents.
Regarding the passport acceptability, Mr. Howard Young, a Hong Kong urban councillor, has done a most interesting analysis of visa requirements for holders of United Kingdom British passports as compared to the British dependent territories citizens' passports. This analysis encompasses 180 countries worldwide, of which about 100 allow entry without visas to United Kingdom British passport holders, as against 70 to BDTCs. The difference of 30 includes, according to this analysis, most South American
44
countries (Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay), all Scandinavian, three European (West Germany, Austria and Spain) and, perhaps most immediately relevant to Hong Kong, two Asian countries—Japan and Indonesia.
Not for the first or last time, I remind your Lordships, as you have already been reminded today, that Hong Kong's success is its people. Hong Kong has no other natural resource. For Hong Kong's continued prosperity—which is clearly as much in China's interest as anyone's—its people must be able to travel as widely and as freely as anyone else.
My honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place last Wednesday:
"Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to secure for the holders of those passports"—
new passports—
"the same access to other countries as that enjoyed at present by holders of British Dependent Territories citizens' passports".
That was most welcome. Nevertheless, if only to reinforce it. I do urge on the Government to prevail on all countries, and particularly those that I have mentioned, to lift their visa requirements now for Hong Kong BDTC passport holders and, secondly, to ensure that the holders of the new British passports from 1997 will in no way be disadvantaged relative to their previous BDTC status.
This brings me to the question of what that new passport will be called—or, rather, what exact title of citizenship a holder thereof will have—and when it will be issued. On the first point, some of your Lordships may recall the series of amendments to which the Government agreed at the Third Reading in this House of the then Nationality Bill in October 1981. I see the noble and learned Lord opposite. Lord Elwyn-Jones, does indeed recall. More seriously, I stress again the importance of the word "British" coming first in whatever title may be produced by the Government. Such prominence of the word "British" need not—almost certainly will not—in any way grant or imply right of abode in the United Kingdom, but it is of importance, certainly to all Hong Kong Chinese to whom I have spoken, out of all proportion to the weight that I think many of your Lordships attach to it when debating it in this House.
Secondly, there is the date of issue of these new British passports. An argument has, I understand, been put forward regarding the logistical problem of issuing, say, two-and-a-half million such passports on 30th June 1997, and suggesting that they should therefore be phased in earlier. Personally, I can see no disadvantage in issuing such passports earlier, provided that their holders are not thereby deprived of their BDTC passports before 1st July 1997. If some mechanism could be found so that the two could run in parallel it would seem to eliminate that logistical problem. It would avoid any erosion of confidence—this is something, I know again, that has really been concerning the Hong Kong Chinese—and would also give a good practical test to the acceptability of the new passport without the possibility of disadvantaging the holder, in that he or she would still be able, in case of problems, to fall back on the concurrent BDTC passport. It would also give time to iron out any problems, if indeed they were found to exist.

45
My second main problem area is the restriction of transmissibility of the new British citizenship and therefore passport. The United Kingdom memorandum of 26th September this year is, quite clearly, very specific on this point. It says that no person born on or after 1st July 1997 will acquire the status that will entitle him to continue to use passports issued by the United Kingdom Government—that is, the new British passport. I have been advised that the remarks attributed to Mr. Chi Peng-Fei, remarks that I passed on to your Lordships in our debate on 21st May—namely, that China would allow ex-BDTC passport holders to have two passports for two generations—are not acknowledged by the authorities in Peking. On the other hand, I, with many others, at a meeting last Monday with members of Hong Kong's UMELCO heard repetition of exactly those remarks alleged to have been made by Mr. Chi. Since this is—I do stress it—such an important and such a sensitive subject, I urge my noble friend the Minister again to discuss it with the authorities in Peking. As the right honourable member for Down South said, albeit on a distinctly opposite course to mine, in another place last week, the associated exchange of memoranda are not technically part of the agreement.
Since the question of transmissibility is addressed only in the exchange of memoranda and not in the agreement, could this not obviate the stricture of which my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State uttered on 5th December when he said that,
"any attempt to change the draft agreement would risk disturbing the whole delicate balance that had been established".— [Official Report, Commons, 5/12/84; col. 395.]
My third main area is that of statelessness. In this context I was very relieved to hear what my noble friend the Minister of State told us earlier this afternoon and to note the remarks in another place last week by my honourable friend the Minister of State at column 469. They both addressed the potential statelessness of non-Chinese national BDTCs and of children born after 30th June 1997 to ex-BDTCs.
But there is also the category of non-Chinese nationals who may be resident in Hong Kong on 30th June 1997 but who will not have been resident for long enough to have become BDTCs. I ask my noble friend: "What will happen to them?". More generally, there does appear to be inconsistency between the British and Chinese memoranda of 26th September. To paraphrase, the British memorandum states that all BDTCs on 30th June 1997 will be eligible for the new British citizenship and therefore the passport. The Chinese memorandum, on the other hand, restricts the use of United Kingdom travel documents—dare we say passports?—to,
"Chinese nationals in Hong Kong who were previously BDTCs".
Does this mean that Peking will not permit non-Chinese, ex-Hong Kong BDTCs to hold the new British travel document and reside in the Hong Kong SAR? My noble friend the Minister of State said—I wrote down the words very quickly lest I forgot them—in this context, "whatever their origin". I think that this is an important point and I hope that my noble friend will be able to reply to it.
Here we come to yet another dilemma. If the Government comply fully with their obligations under
46
the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, as indeed they have said they will, and as my noble friend repeated this afternoon, and in particular with that part of Article 15 which reads:
"This Convention shall apply to all non self governing, trust, colonial and other non-metropolitan territories for the international relations of which any Contracting State is responsible"
the result will, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, be that such persons who would otherwise have been made stateless, will get some form of British citizenship. I ask this question—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, made the same point—"Is that not going to be a bitter pill for others to swallow—that is, those who will not become stateless but who would nevertheless welcome such British citizenship of whatever nature that may be?" Is there not, at the very least, a strong moral argument to offer the same form of British citizenship to the non-stateless ex-BDTCs and their children?
I may have appeared negative with regard to the agreement. I am not, I can assure your Lordships. It is, I think, a superb agreement. I consider it the result of truly masterly negotiating by the Governments both of the United Kingdom and of China. Much has to be done. Even more can, and I am sure will, be achieved. But safeguards, including those that I have instanced, need to be obtained. I warmly endorse the suggestion made in another place last week, and repeated several times in your Lordships' House this afternoon, that this Parliament not only should but must watch with great care events in and of Hong Kong over the next 12, if not 62 years. Yes, my Lords, let us have an annual report and, I hope, an annual debate, although not, I trust, just to and in the House of Commons, as the Minister of State is reported at column 467 as saying in another place last week.
We say to Hong Kong this afternoon and, if we can have this debate annually, we shall be able thereafter each year to say to Hong Kong: "We have not washed our hands of you. While to an increasing extent your future Hong Kong is now in your own hands, we are here to help you all we can."
5.38 p.m.
Lord Lindsay of Birker: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the Foreign Office on the very great skill with which they have conducted these negotiations over the future of Hong Hong. Likewise, we should be very grateful for the goodwill and reasonableness shown by the representatives of the People's Republic of China. When my wife and I were in Hong Kong in August last year, we found that local opinion made an unfavourable comparison between the legalistic approach of the Prime Minister and the action of the Portuguese authorities who were all ready to move out of Macao when the Chinese asked them to stay on.
In the West, a tradition of respect for law goes back to classical Greece and Rome. There is no such tradition in Chinese history. Law was simply an instrument through which the government controlled its subjects. It was therefore stupid to appeal to principles of western international law, especially when the Chinese maintain different principles, that treaties imposed by military force were not valid. We

47
should be pleased that neither side allowed this initial bad start to hinder the progress of negotiations.
The only point over which I felt some doubt about the British handling of the negotiations was in accepting the demand for secrecy. This certainly increased anxiety in Hong Kong, where people felt that their fate was being decided behind their backs. I appreciate that there were advantages in secrecy, but the British would have had a strong case for saying that they had an obligation to the people of Hong Kong, who therefore had a right to know what was being decided. A continuing anxiety shows in the statement circulated by the UMELCO representatives in which they say, "There are also very strong requests that the people of Hong Kong should not only be consulted on, but should actively participate in the drafting of the Basic Law and that Hong Kong people should also sit on the Sino-British Liaison Group." I think it is a very hopeful sign that the People's Republic of China agreed to the retention of the legal system with the protection of human rights, because the protection of human rights by law is a break not only with Chinese tradition but also with Communist tradition. The traditional Chinese system was a paternalistic and authoritarian one in which the rulers controlled the people by giving an example of virtue. There was no idea of a legal system giving ordinary citizens enforceable rights against officials. For long periods this system provided government which was admired by Europeans, including such men as Voltaire, but it always tended to degenerate until oppression produced peasant rebellions and a period of civil wars or barbarian invasions until finally a new dynasty came into power and restored the system.
On the Communist side, Lenin was inclined to regard law as an instrument to maintain the ruling class so a dictatorship of the proletariat had no need of law to protect the common people against the government. When Chinese critics in 1957 compared the Communist Party to the ruling bureaucracy of the Empire, the official reply was that it was impossible for a Communist party to have interests different from those of the masses. If some Communist officials had behaved badly, this could only be because they had been corrupted by influences from the old society or the capitalist West. People will put up with a great deal when they do not realise that anything better is possible. Once they do realise that it is possible for law to protect the common people from arbitrary action by officials, the idea of the rule of law has an obvious attraction even for reasonable Communists, and the rule of law now figures in the programme of the present Peking regime.
As a parenthesis, I might remark that I say "Peking" because I think "Beijing" is an affectation when talking to an English-speaking audience. Peking has been English usage for something over 200 years and I think the people who insist on saying "Beijing" should also start to say "Wien" for Vienna, "Firenze" for Florence, "Muenchen" for Munich, and so on.
Few people on Hong Kong would feel anxious about the future if they could feel certain that the party line of the Chinese Communist Party would continue to follow its present trend. What worries them is that Deng Xiaoping obviously faces opposition from some
48
elements in the party and the bureaucracy who might gain power in the future and return to past policies. I think to understand the depth of this worry one has to know something about the very wide fluctuations there have been in the Chinese Communist line between reasonable moderation and doctrinaire extremism.
During the war against Japan, the Communists followed a reasonable programme that was extremely successful. There was limitation of rent and an efficient progressive tax system. Peasants who had raised themselves from poor peasant to rich peasant by efficient farming were praised as "labour heroes". A distinction was made between good landlords and bad landlords. At the village level there were genuine elections with many more candidates than positions to be filled, and there was some respect for due process. A friend in the Public Safety Bureau told us that there were a number of people whom they suspected of being Japanese agents but they had not arrested them because they had not been able to obtain definite proof. My wife and I lived for two and a half years in the Commuist-held countryside and it is clear that the Communists had very strong popular support. People felt that. for the first time, they had a government which actually tried to help them. I think if these policies had been followed for a few more decades China would have realised Sun Yat-sen's slogan of "The cultivator owns his land". because the limitation of rent and a tax system that discriminated against unearned income made land holding a rather unprofitable investment, so that landlords tended to sell out to their tenants and put their money into trade or industry, which the Government actually encouraged.
Then you had the big swing. After attempts to avoid the civil war had failed there was a long period of nearly 30 years when the Communists followed some very doctrinaire policies that caused widespread suffering and injustice. In the countryside they returned to the policies of the Chinese Soviet Republic in the early 1930s, conducting class warfare against all landlords and all rich peasants, with very large numbers of executions. Agriculture was collectivised in the mid-1950s, although official statements admitted that individual middle peasants had been producing 20 or 30 per cent. more per acre than the very great majority of collectives.
In other things the years from about 1954 to 1957 represented a swing back to moderation. Then came the communes and the Great Leap Forward of 1958. These were supposed to produce "good clothes and enough to eat". The actual result was a fall of about 25 per cent. in agricultural production and near famine conditions over large parts of China. There was a slight swing back to moderation in the early 1960s. Then came the great Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Mao followed the critics whom he had suppressed in 1957 by denouncing the party bureaucracy and advancing the slogan that it was right to rebel. The first result was fighting between factions with weapons escalating from sticks and stones to machine guns and, in a few cases, to artillery. The army restored order in 1968 but a great deal of power remained in the hands of left-wing extremists, who followed Mao's slogan, "Never forget the class struggle", and abused their

49
powers, creating a very unpleasant atmosphere of hysteria and fear.
I would like to give one example of the kind of thing that happened. When I was teaching at Yenching university I knew a workman in the power station. We were both involved in the anti-Japanese underground. He was arrested and tortured by the Japanese but did not give away any of his associates. When I met him again in 1983 he said that during the Cultural Revolution he had been attacked as a Japanese agent. That is the kind of thing that has happened. Then the universities were closed for several years, and when they were re-opened students and faculty were chosen on the basis of class origin and political orthodoxy. Students spent about half their time working in factories or on farms, and a good deal of the rest in political indoctrination classes.
The Deng Xiaoping regime proceeded to conduct some examination of recent university graduates who were doing scientific work in Shanghai, and found that about two-thirds failed at elementary mathematics, nearly three-quarters at elementary physics and rather more at elementary chemistry. This has given the present Chinese regime an appalling headache with lack of trained people. During this period, a long series of promises were dishonoured. Perhaps the most important to the people of Hong Kong is the promise made to Tibet in 1951 that Tibet could be a special region with a very large measure of autonomy. This promise was repudiated in 1958, leading to the Tibetan revolt of 1959.
Given all this, it is quite understandable that the people of Hong Kong should be afraid that the Chinese Communist Party might return to its past policies. I think actually the risk of this has become very small. For one thing, a shift back to previous policies would get no popular support. In 1983 many older people said to us that they had been enthusiastic supporters of the regime in the early 1950s. They excused several things they did not like because they believed they were building a wonderful new society. They had been partly disillusioned by the Great Leap Forward and completely disillusioned by the Cultural Revolution. Many people said that the only extenuating feature of the Cultural Revolution was that it had completely discredited the ultra-Left line in the party.
For another thing, the policies followed since 1978 have been so obviously successful. In the economic field, the move away from collectivised agriculture has produced a very large increase in production and raised the standard of living in the countryside. At one time, real incomes in the cities were two and a half to three times higher than those in the countryside. Now, many farmers have higher real incomes than most people in the cities. It is proving harder to introduce initiative in industry and to get away from the inefficiency of a highly centralised planned economy, but progress is being made. It is quite possible that productivity and living standards could rise to the level that has been attained in Hong Kong, Taiwan, or even Japan.
On the non-economic side, there has been a huge improvement. In 1973 my wife felt that the social atmosphere was worse than under Japanese occupation. Some people told us that since the
50
Cultural Revolution, people felt it safest to avoid any social contacts outside the immediate family. In 1983 there were still restrictions on public political criticism, but people would talk very freely in private conversation, even in the presence of party members. One could have free discussions in trains or on buses. A permit is still needed for residence in major cities, but travel seems to be free. We met by chance one fairly old woman who had just retired from her job and was spending two years travelling round China before going back to live with her son. Famous temples that had been almost deserted in 1973 were full of Chinese tourists in 1983. The price of greater freedom has been some increase in ordinary crime, but people said in 1983 that this was being reduced.
All this means that an attempt to return to past policies would get no co-operation from the public but would probably produce general non-co-operation. We had long talks with some old friends from the war-time period who had been in trouble during the Cultural Revolution but had ended their careers as Ministers and were now on the new Advisory Council. They said that reasonable people had a majority on the Central Committee and what they hoped to do while they were still active was to ensure that reasonable people succeeded them.
Finally, as the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, so rightly said, there is a very strong inducement for winning genuine support in Hong Kong, because if you had a really successful Special Administrative Region in Hong Kong this would pave the way to a similar arrangement with Taiwan. I have not yet had the opportunity to read the recent pronouncement on the need to rethink parts of Marxism, but this may be of decisive importance. Large parts of Marxism are not false but only grossly over-simplified. What struck me in discussions with Chinese communists was their reluctance to think beyond the number two. A choice would always be between two roads, though even an ordinary crossroads offers you a choice between three—left, straight ahead or right. An effect always followed from a single cause, not from an interaction of several variables. I was interested to find that a member of the UMELCO delegation had had the same impression.
I might sketch one possible development from a rethinking of Marxism. Marx did not fully develop his ideas on the Asiatic mode of production but he did recognise that there were societies in which the rulers based their power on control of the apparatus of the state and not on ownership of the means of production. Suppose the Chinese leaders recognised that ownership of the means of production was not the only possible basis for exploitation, that a ruling Communist Party in a socialist system might degenerate into a new privileged and oppressive exploiting group, and this degeneration had clearly happened in the Soviet Union. They would then conclude that a Communist Party could avoid degeneration only by allowing free criticism and giving ordinary citizens power to control the party. The result would not be Western-style parliament democracy, but it could be a society with a great deal of freedom in which the government had a genuine claim to represent the people.

51
Revised Marxism would be a much better philosophy than that of many Western intellectuals, which has destroyed their ability to follow a process of rational inference. It is rather shocking how far this has gone. My prize example was a dean of the unit in which I used to teach who refused to admit that there was any connection between continuing an academic programme leading to an MA degree and continuing to provide the teaching that would make it possible for students to get the degree.
Finally, I might comment on two other points. Representative government in Hong Kong is starting with 12 members elected by local councils and 12 by functional constituencies. Members of the UMELCO delegation expressed the hope that the British authorities would not press for rapid development to direct elections by universal suffrage. Some years ago I heard the same opinion from other people in Hong Kong. After all, there are many countries which started off with parliamentary institutions and universal suffrage but rapidly degenerated into dictatorships, usually pretty unpleasant dictatorships. One of Sun Yat-sen's sensible ideas was political tutelage. He recognised that constitutional government could work only if there was a process of gradual development, starting with elected bodies at the local level. I think another point is that there is a very strong traditional feeling in China which prefers government by consensus rather than a system which works by competition between parties.
The other issue which other people have mentioned is British dependent territory passports. Last year in Hong Kong we found a widespread feeling that the United Kingdom Government had behaved rather badly. It had been known for a long time that these passports were not valid for residence in the United Kingdom hut, so long as this was not put on the passport, other countries accepted them as British passports. When some official decided to put this non-validy on BDT passports Hong Kong residents then had to get visas. There was also, I think, a general feeling of grievance over British immigration policy. Holders of BDT passports have taken an oath of loyalty to the Queen. Many of them have been educated in England and could fit easily into British society, to which they might make a useful contribution. I think that a few thousand businessmen from Hong Kong might do quite a lot to reduce unemployment.
These people see that the United Kingdom has accepted many immigrants who are almost unassimilable and can contribute nothing except completely unskilled labour, while they are kept out. In Hong Kong last year we met one young man whose father had worked for the BBC and whose mother was German. He had been educated in England. He had been a member of the Hong Kong Volunteers. When in England, he said he wanted to join the British army. The British officials told him that they would take him into the army for four years, after which he would have to leave the United Kingdom. He also complained that the British officials were very rude and actually misrepresented what he had said in some of the documents they produced. I do not suggest that the United Kingdom should accept Hong Kong
52
immigrants by the tens of thousands, but I think it would be fair to give the holders of British dependent territory passports some special consideration in individual applications.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Fanshawe of Richmond: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Birkenhead on his remarkable maiden speech, which all of us listened to with close attention earlier on this afternoon. The knowledge that he obviously had about Hong Kong and China, about the economic position and the political position, and the way that he stressed and spelt out the problems which confront all of us, particularly those in Hong Kong, regarding the developments in the next 10 or 11 years, impressed us all. I look forward to hearing many more speeches by my noble friend.
Personally I feel—and this seems to have come over this afternoon—that the agreement which has been negotiated is much better than anything that I, and I think most noble Lords, expected even six months ago. It has been a great achievement for the negotiators, the officials, the Ministers and everybody involved in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here at home and the Chinese officials in Peking.
But I am slightly disturbed by the euphoria which seems to be around in certain areas. Certainly from reading Hansard it seems that there was a feeling of euphoria during the debate in the other place last week. That is unfortunate because it has become increasingly clear this afternoon that here in your Lordships' House there is no euphoria. In my view the speeches—and I have heard them all this afternoon—have been realistic, praising the agreement and the negotiations, as I have done. But there has been a real understanding by the many people who have spoken (most of whom know China and Hong Kong very well) of the dangers and realities which face not only the people of Hong Kong, but also the people of the People's Republic of China.
All of us must have been impressed, as we expected to be. by the words of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch, with his knowledge and experience of Hong Kong—I think that he is the longest serving governor ever in Hong Kong—and he has great and detailed knowledge of China as well.
Some years ago, in 1972, as Minister responsible for Hong Kong under my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, I went to Peking to negotiate the exchange of ambassadors. We succeeded in doing that at a time when the cultural revolution had just finished and at a time when there was clearly a change of attitude, although not yet the dramatic change of stance which became apparent a year or two later. The fact that, as a result of those negotiations, we put a remarkably able British ambassador—Sir John Addis—into position in Peking. and Mr. Sung was appointed here in London, helped to accelerate the change in attitude between the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom. In the last few years we have seen this accelerate at a quite dramatic rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, who has just spoken, and who fascinated many of us with his deep knowledge of China, having lived there for many

53
years, underlined the extraordinary changes which are taking place, and which were commented on by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead in his maiden speech. We are now seeing this nation of 1,000 million people turning from a Marxist to a capitalist society. This enables all of us who have at heart Hong Kong's interests and relationships between the United Kingdom and China to view more comfortably and optimistically the approach to 1997.
However, as my noble friend the Minister of State will be the first to admit, there is scepticism around—indeed, quite a lot of scepticism—about what might happen. In her opening remarks this afternoon my noble friend the Minister of State—like, in the other place last week the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his Minister of State—answered some of our fears, certainly many of my own fears and concerns, and that seems to be true so far as other noble Lords are concerned, judging from their reaction this afternoon. But needless to say, like other noble Lords I have questions which I should like to put to my noble friend.
First, there is the matter of the elections. I hope that we shall proceed with great caution. While we have read the details of the first moves which Her Majesty's Government are making to bring about a change in the system of representation within Hong Kong, the very real dangers of political parties building up within Hong Kong and of the fighting that might take place—and by that I mean electoral fighting—between Nationalist party candidates and Communist party candidates could have a very grave effect on the stability of Hong Kong during the next 10 or 12 years. I wonder; and I ask this question: can a free democratic system really flourish if at each election candidates and voters risk being called to account in 1997? That is also an aspect which we perhaps should not forget.
Obviously the advantage of having a democratic system in being and in place in 1997 would be overwhelmingly helpful to the successful transfer of power at that time. But if it is possible, I should like my noble friend the Minister of State to try to tell us a little more about how she sees this developing, how she sees particularly the problem of political parties.
Secondly—and this is a point which I do not think has been raised this afternoon by any Member of your Lordships' House—will it be possible for China to prevent the envious living in Kwantung Province crossing into Hong Kong after 1997? I mention that because as a Minister—and my noble friend Lord Home will remember this himself—I knew that one of the big worries that lay on the plate of the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, was the constant infiltration of people who lived in Kwantung Province or in Canton over the border into Hong Kong. Indeed, although the subject has not been mentioned today (and I suspect that it was not mentioned in the debate in the other place last week) even now there are a number of refugees, a number of people who live in Kwantung, who cross the border and come into Hong Kong. We therefore keep large security forces in order to control the border.
I know that at present the People's Republic of China keep their own army 20 or 30 miles back from
54
the border on the Chinese side and they have managed to control the flood and the flow of refugees. But obviously when the system which at present exists in Hong Kong comes to an end in 1997, the Chinese Government will be faced with a major problem. I should be interested to hear whether my noble friend the Minister of State has any comments to make on this major problem.
The third point that I want to raise—and it was raised in great detail by my noble friend Lord Geddes in his speech earlier this afternoon—is that Britain should stand firm on the passport issue. I hope that my noble friend will continue to make clear that those who choose to take up British nationality have the inalienable right to retain it in the years ahead and that those now eligible to receive British passports should be allowed to receive them up to 1997.
The preservation of existing passport status and rights is widely seen in Hong Kong as a key test of credibility and of the guarantees. The statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place last week and the statement made by the Minister of State in even greater detail this afternoon, which I and other noble Lords have already welcomed, that assurances are given so far as the stateless people in Hong Kong are concerned, is comforting. Certainly those of us who hope to play a part when the legislation comes before this House will look at the Bill in great detail so far as it covers nationality, passports and stateless people in Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, raised a most important point about pensioners with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, after he had made his interesting and valuable speech at the beginning of the debate. I sat for many years in the other place with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and on many occasions we saw British colonies come to independence and there then followed a great deal of misery and poverty for British pensioners because we had not safeguarded this very important point.
I think that the last two points which I want to make have already been covered; but I should like to touch on them again. The first concerns the Joint Liaison Group. I do not see why we cannot have "unofficials" as well as "officials" on this group. This was mentioned in practically every speech in the other place and it has been mentioned continuously this afternoon. In the other place the Secretary of State did not answer the question, but I hope that this afternoon my noble friend the Minister of State will be able to tell us that we shall try to arrange for "unofficials" to join the Joint Liaison Group, because this will help to maintain confidence. Of course, this also includes "unofficials'" involvement in Basic Law drafting, which could take place with the Joint Liaison Group itself.
It is most important that our role in the United Kingdom continues. This point has been made by two noble Lords this afternoon, and I should like to make it myself. I remember that when I first became interested in Hong Kong in 1964 there was total uninterest in both Houses of Parliament in the colony of Hong Kong. At that time many other issues were important, including the problems of Africa and the problems of other parts of Asia. So no interest at all was expressed in Hong Kong.

55
At that time several of us got together and formed the Anglo-Hong Kong Parliamentary Group, which flourishes today. This group, which at the Hong Kong end was helped by a most enlightened and well-known figure in the Hong Kong Government, Claude Burgess, played an important role in enabling people in Hong Kong to realise that the British Parliament—and, after all, at the moment the only method of democratic representation that they have in Hong Kong is through our Parliament here—was really interested in what went on in Hong Kong, and that there was a group of people who would fight their corner here at Westminster.
The idea of having an annual report and an annual debate might continue the feeling of togetherness between Hong Kong and Westminster during the next 12 years. I know that this idea would have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who made the point in his opening speech, and I hope that this idea will receive a sympathetic response from Her Majesty's Government, which seemed to be indicated both in the other place and by the Minister of State today.
I should like to comment on the Hong Kong press and media, who have played an important role in maintaining the democratic debate in Hong Kong over many years. I do not think that any of us would wish to underestimate the crucial role that they have played. But I deplore the attacks about which we have been reading, not only on this occasion but also on the occasion of our debate earlier in the year, on the unofficial members of the Executive and Legislative Councils who have come to Britain to try to brief Parliament on the feelings of the people of Hong Kong. They have carried out that task with a selfless duty which is worthy of the admiration of all of us in both Houses of Parliament, and I should like to put that on the record this afternoon. They have educated political opinion at Westminster in a way which would not have been possible by anyone else.
From conversations on the telephone that I have had over the weekend with people in Hong Kong, I fear that, following the debate in the other place last week, there has also been a feeling that in some way these debates in both Houses are a sort of rubber-stamp operation. I should like to assure those people of Hong Kong 'who read the report of this debate today that that is just not so; that the speeches here today—which have been realistic, helpful and knowledgeable—underline our concern, which is the same as that of Hong Kong residents. It is that China will honour the agreement in spite of the possible changes within China's political system during the years ahead. I believe the likelihood is that China will honour these changes, and subject to no major upheavals in the next 50 years will work to ensure that the agreement functions. It is in Chinese interests, in British interests and in Hong Kong's interests that it should do so. As was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, and by my noble friend Lord Birkenhead, they have a need to follow the example of a success in Hong Kong in order to obtain the reunification of Taiwan with the Chinese People's Republic. But it is also important for economic reasons which have been mentioned by many other noble Lords today.
56
With some diffidence—and realising that it is very unfashionable in China, I thought that I might quote from a first edition of the Thoughts of Chairman Mao, which I possess. On page 310 of the first edition he says:
"We must learn to do economic work from all who know how, no matter who they are. We must esteem them as teachers, learning from them respectfully and conscientiously. We must not pretend to know when we do not know".
With those few words, perhaps I may say that much has already been achieved by the negotiators in producing this excellent agreement; but more battles are worth fighting, both for China's sake and for Hong Kong's sake.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. He has to maintain a very high family reputation for speech-making, and I think we would all agree that he did much this afternoon to uphold it.
I wish to intervene only very briefly on one particular aspect of the matter under consideration. But before I do so, I have no hesitation in saying that I support the signature of this agreement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, I was surprised at how detailed and specific it was, and encouragingly so; but it contains imperfections, and these imperfections have been adequately aired in the House this afternoon. I have concluded that, given the circumstances, it is as good as we can get.
Our thanks are due of course to the British negotiators. There were several of them, from the Secretary of State downwards, and Sir Edward Youde has particularly been mentioned. It is ironic and perhaps a good omen that his career in China started 30 or more years ago in that he played a very courageous and personal role in the hostile incident of HMS "Amethyst"; and it is encouraging to see that his career has climaxed in an agreement which makes our future relations with China quite different and more assured.
However, it is not only to the negotiators on the last phase that we must pay tribute. I should particularly like to mention the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who has been very modest about the part that he has played in all this. For many years he worked very hard towards this satisfactory conclusion when he was working among many sceptical people. But such agreement looking to the future must inevitably have uncertainties, and who can forecast developments confidently in the years ahead? It is by no means clear that the Chinese Government have yet found the secret of ruling and administering a country of a billion people. Hong Kong will continue to be—and there is no discredit in this—a volatile community; so there are risks ahead. But we must accept the agreement and be sincere in our attempts to fulfil its spoken and unspoken terms. This is the only realistic thing to do.
But the particular point that I want to make does not concern the terms of the agreement; it concerns whether Her Majesty's Government are going to take legitimate advantage of what has been achieved. Over the last few decades Her Majesty's Government have been preoccupied by the problems of administration,

57
defence of the colony, and the related differences with the People's Government of China. The commercial and industrial aspects of our relationship with Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China have perforce been prejudiced and have taken second place.
Using the confidence to which the United Kingdom had contributed so much, the United States, Japan, and European countries have in the past and much more so now increased their trade and investment in Hong Kong and China. The United Kingdom lags far behind. We have drawn only small advantage from our historical links with Hong Kong, and indeed studies show that we have in recent years derived no economic advantage whatsoever from this connection.
This has to change, and in the interests of our own economy at home we have now to try to get a bigger share of the opportunities likely to open up in Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China in the new circumstances. Others are already doing so. I hope that British business will think hard about these chances and act upon them, and that Her Majesty's Government will give all possible encouragement and help.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I first congratulate my noble friend sitting behind me on his very interesting speech. I should also like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on the splendid work he has done in regard to these proposals. I have always admired him, whatever office or appointment he has undertaken. This is one time when we can all of us congratulate him most thoroughly. I should also like to point out that Sir Richard Luce, the Minister of State, has done a splendid job, too. He has worked extremely hard. He understands the people concerned, and I am delighted that he has been able to keep his post now as the Minister.
I went to Hong Kong in November 1946. I had been working for the Red Cross in Indonesia and I managed to get on a troopship and got to Hong Kong. I spent just over a fortnight there. The conditions were appalling in comparison to what they are now. It is amazing what they have done in a comparatively short time. The occupation by the Japanese was extremely brutal not only to the British, but also to the Chinese themselves. The splendid manner in which all races had behaved—I emphasise all races because there were quite a number of difference races—and the great loyalty shown by the Chinese to this country, and the faith they had that we would bring them back again, that we would conquer the Japanese and give them a free life, was most moving.
In 1961 I was able to visit the Chinese People's Republic. I went alone. It was interesting. Nineteen sixty-one was not one of the best years, but it was a good year for seeing things. I went by train. It took two-and-a-half days and two nights to get from Hong Kong to Beijing. It gave one an insight into the great country that we were going to have contact with in the future. There were masses of people working at different jobs. You never saw one or two people working; it was 30 or 40, or perhaps more, especially in the fields. If you go by train, you really get to learn quite a lot about a country.
58
In 1970 I led a parliamentary delegation to China and was surprised by the remarkable changes. I was asked continually by reporters what I felt about the country. I gave them very genuine remarks, and one they were astonished at was the fact that the children had grown so much taller. They were getting better fed, getting more food, their education was improved, they were getting some games, and they were considerably taller than their parents. I went to quite a lot of factories and hospitals, I saw operations under acupuncture, and I saw all the goods in the shops, and the difference between that time and 1961 was quite fascinating.
I am now president of an organisation called the Europe-China Association, and I have led another delegation on friendship. This is a friendship which is lasting, I am glad to say, between the Chinese people of that great republic and Britain and the EEC. We have now lectures in all the different countries in the EEC and we also run summer schools at Oxford to which the Chinese Republic send lecturers. We really are getting together and getting an understanding not only between Britain and China, but also between Europe and China.
Only a fortnight ago we had a Europe-China dinner, which I am glad to say the Chinese ambassador attended and at which he made a speech. Also attending was Sir Percy Cradock, to whom we owe such a lot in these negotiations, first of all for when he was ambassador at Beijing—where he entertained our delegation—and, secondly, for all he has done since in advising the Government in regard to the various things which have taken place in formulating the future.
There is a saying among the Chinese, "The iron rice bowl". I understand that this means that the Chinese do not really want to have a static salary. They want to get rid of this static rice bowl. This is what they told me. There are millions of Chinese who want to go off and get a licence to earn an outside living. It was fascinating to find in my recent visit the number of stalls, particularly vegetable stalls and so on, in the streets. A great deal of selling was going on. I asked the prices and I found that the fresh vegetables were slightly more expensive than the ones in the shops, but people preferred to buy them because they knew they were fresh. This encouraged more people to come along and have their own businesses.
On my way home I stayed in Hong Kong. Perhaps I should declare an interest here because my brother has a small stockbroking firm in Hong Kong, which I am glad to say is still doing quite well, despite fluctuations in the money situation. I have also visited factories, hospitals, homes for children, and so on. One of the interesting things is that so many of the large enterprises, the large factories, are run by people who were living in Shanghai and came from there to Hong Kong to found businesses when they found they could not get on very well in their country of origin. I hope that anyhow they will not want to move again when we join up in the way anticipated with China itself, because in many ways they are the backbone of the big enterprises—I believe there is the largest toy factory in the world there—and they have certain feelings about what is going to happen in the future.

59
May I just congratulate Sir Ronald Black, with whom I stayed in the early days, and also of course the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who gave us great hospitality and good advice, and Sir Edward Youde, who I met when I first went to Beijing, and of course lastly, in a different category, Sir Percy Cradock, who has done such a lot of excellent work as ambassador. They have all taken an enormous interest in the Chinese people; and I think I am right in saying that all these ambassadors or governors spoke excellent Chinese, which does not always happen in the various countries to which ambassadors are sent.
I was also interested in Command Paper 9407. I read it all the way through to find out the different views of the different people. There are some sensible views and some quite difficult ones, but No. 20 by Dr. Henrietta Ip says:
"Understands that some anxieties remain, but points out that life is full of uncertainties anyway."
I thought that was a good reason to be included among her other points. Another was that
"The Hong Kong SAR should adopt a more democratic approach in formulating its education policies and should improve the existing consultative system in the field of education."
This is rather an appropriate moment, if we are to go in with China, to try to agree a formula in regard to education.
The last quotation that I have is from Mr. Peter Poon:
"In order to ensure genuine freedom of travel, the Basic Law should amplify that the meaning of 'unless restrained by law' means the law as currently practised in Hong Kong."
Whether this can be undertaken I do not know; but I think Mr. Poon has a good point. He continues:
"The future political structure must be suitable for the unique position of Hong Kong, and radical changes introduced prematurely and hastily must be avoided."
This goes on to another quotation, but the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is not here. I gather from the White Paper, on page 13, paragraph 44, that he is not likely to get the type of voting he requires. I think that it will be along the lines we have in this country.
As I mentioned. I am the president of the Europe-China Association. Perhaps I could request Her Majesty's Government to take the initiative in launching an international effort with the EEC, the Commonwealth and perhaps members of the NATO Alliance to provide co-ordination and resettlement quotas if needed for the people in Hong Kong, to permit travel by those holders of British Dependent Territories' passports from Hong Kong as well as minority nationalities who at present travel on passports from that country. I understand that the numbers will probably be small. The purpose is to establish the principle that, in the last resort, no British citizen or his offspring, as has been said by my noble friend, will ever be handed over to another country against his will and also will not be made stateless.
The other point that I should like to mention relates to the Vietnamese. I visited a number of Vietnamese refugee camps on Hong Kong and I wondered what will happen to them in the future. Are arrangements being made for other countries to take them? I gather from the newspapers that even more Vietnamese are
60
getting into Hong Kong at present and I hope that something may be said tonight about their future.
Whatever system is chosen in the future for Hong Kong, I hope that the twin pillars of democracy and free press and the rule of law will be kept and will be administered independently. There is a place on Hong Kong called the Happy Valley. I know that it is a place mostly for amusement and fun but I hope that in future Hong Kong will become a happy place and that the Happy Valley will remain.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Shawcross: My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships with a good deal of hesitation, but about one matter I have no hesitation at all: that is in congratulating the noble Earl on his thoughtful and important speech. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, mentioned that he was carrying on a notable tradition and many of us in this House will remember his distinguished father. I recall many happy occasions with him of which one involved me in a little parliamentary difficulty. I was in receipt of a three-line whip for one particular evening when the noble Lord's father and I and our respective wives found ourselves whirling around in some peculiar contraption in the Battersea Fun Fair, which kept us. I think by centrifugal force, stuck on the sides while the floor disappeared. I am afraid I missed that Division. I put it all down to the machinations of the Opposition at the time!
I remember, too (not so many in this House will remember), with affection, the noble Earl's distinguished grandfather who, on more than one occasion, first when I was a Bar student and again as a young barrister, gave me great help. I congratulate the noble Earl. I am sure the House will hope that we shall hear his voice from time to time, and I certainly hope that he will speak more frequently to your Lordships than I have felt able to do in recent years.
That leads me to my personal hesitation. I apologise to your Lordships for breaking into your counsels after many years of silence the reasons for which, partly personal, partly political, I explained long ago. But this subject which your Lordships are debating is a matter of intense interest to me. Having used that word "interest". I must refer first to a limited and special sense in that I must declare an interest because I am a director of two highly successful companies in Hong Kong. I am connected with a small advisory committee of a newspaper group which publishes newspapers in the Chinese as well as in the English language. I have visited Hong Kong for about 30 years with a good deal of frequency.
As for China, I have no material interest there but I like to think that I am a friend of China, largely for the reason that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes. I think China has been contributing, and will contribute, as much as any power can to the maintenance of world peace; and also I think that in recent years China has shown an extraordinary pragmatism, an extraordinary freedom from doctrine, in the evolution of its government and system, a freedom from doctrine which I think might often have been tried with advantage by other governments in the Western world.

61
I have travelled very extensively and many times in China, including Tibet. When I was there last in April as a guest of the Foreign Policy Association I had very long talks with the Ministers concerned. I was struck by their goodwill, by their obvious desire to find a modus vivendi, by their willingness to listen and discuss, and their pragmatic approach. But I felt then that it would be difficult in the time available to secure an agreement on more than the basic principles. I was therefore the more pleased and surprised when I read in the White Paper the very detailed and very comprehensive draft agreement which we see there.
Certainly the Chinese Government is much to be congratulated on its pragmatism in reaching a conclusion which coincided with ours on the draft agreement. Certainly we must congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, but we must also not forget—and one or two noble Lords have referred to this—the very important contribution made by the members of the negotiating team, the officials and particularly the present Governor and his noble predecessor. I shall spare the noble Lord's blushes, except to say that I think he was much too modest in the remarks that he himself made. As for Sir Edward Youde, if it is not an impertinence to say so, there were a few people—and I confess that I was among them—who had a little doubt at the time of his appointment. Events have shown how very wrong we were. He had had the advantage of course of being Her Majesty's Ambassador in Peking, he is fluent in Mandarin and reads the language. Ever since his arrival in Hong Kong, quietly and undemonstratively, as is his wont, but indefatigably, he has been working towards a solution of the problem, reaching agreement and working out its details. The highest praise must, I think, in this important matter go to the present Governor.
This is an excellent agreement and I am going to say only a little about three matters which have already been referred to in this House and which are certainly the concern of many people in Hong Kong. I got back only five days ago after three weeks in the colony during which I had many opportunities of talking to people, not only in business but in education and journalism, and to my many friends in the Lego and Exco—and here I would join with other noble Lords in expressing the gratitude that we all ought to feel for the work which has been done by the Lego and Exco and especially by Llmelco, whose members many of us have met, both some months ago and again in the last few weeks.
There is no doubt that in Hong Kong there is a complete consensus of opinion in favour of the agreement. I have heard it said that the number of Hong Kong people who replied to the questionnaire is comparatively few. Well, silence perhaps gives consent, and it may be that like those whose position is recorded in a famous minute of a Quaker meeting: "So-and-so and so-and-so spoke. The other Friends, having nothing to say, refrained from making the fact obvious". Then of course the fact is that a very large proportion of the population is somewhat illiterate. Many of them may have thought as indeed did one who was reported as saying: "I am only a potato. All I am concerned with is earning my living and maintaining my home. I have no opinions". And that
62
no doubt truly reflects the view of a great many people. But among the knowledgeable people, the informed people, the literate people with opinions, there is no doubt a general consensus in favour of this agreement.
There are, however, a few areas of doubt. The first one is no doubt in regard to the Basic Law. There are those (both in this country and in Hong Kong) who think that Hong Kong ought to participate in or at least be consulted about the Basic Law. Formal participation is one thing; consultation is quite another. As an old constitutional lawyer myself—or, at any rate, "old"—I have great doubt whether participation, from a technical point of view, would be appropriate at all. After all, the Basic Law is an amendment of Article 31 of the constitution of the Chinese People's Republic. There are, I know, some residents in China who are members of the People's Congress by which this amendment of the law has to be approved. But Hong Kong is not yet a province of China, nor is it internationally recognised so to be.
What has to happen first is that the Chinese People's Congress has to approve the amendment of their own existing constitution which will admit the new province of Hong Kong, a special administrative region, to become part of China and to have this Basic Law as its constitution. It seems to me that it is quite inappropriate to talk about participation in any formal sense. Consultation is a very different matter and most of the specific matters that will have to be embodied in the Basic Law are already the subject of expressed agreement in the drafts or the accompanying statements. I have no doubt that will be loyally done.
On some matters, no doubt the Chinese Government may wish to consult us. There may be legal niceties about the way the specific matters are introduced into the Basic Law. All these are no doubt an appropriate subject for consultation, but the machinery for consultation already exists. There is the Liaison Committee; and I certainly repeat the hope that has been expressed here that that will not be composed on our side—and I mean the Hong Kong side, because that is also our side—solely of officials. There ought to be some representatives of the Chinese community on the Liaison Committee. That is the first method of consultation. If there is not agreement on the Liaison Committee then of course it is open to both governments to make representations to each other through the normal diplomatic channels.
I would add only this about the Basic Law. The formulation of these things in China no doubt takes some considerable time, but I hope that the Basic Law will be enunciated and passed by the Congress without too much delay, because so long as argument and doubts remain about it it will be a source of uncertainty and instability in Hong Kong, while what one wants to promote there of course is the continuance of stability.
The next thing that I wanted to refer to was the question of representative, popular government. Everybody I spoke to in Hong Kong about this matter expressed a good deal of caution. In this country we are very proud of our unwritten constitution, and in recent years we have attempted to transplant written versions of it into countries which have had no previous experience of democracy and have expected

63
that it would take root in a few years, forgetting that it had taken centuries to evolve in this country. Sometimes, the results have been most unfortunate. I read that in another place last week someone had said that representative government in the full sense should be created immediately on the basis of full, universal suffrage; and, going further than we go in this country, that the legislature so elected should itself elect the executive council, which is, in effect, the Ministry of Cabinet, and that the executive council so elected should in turn elect the governor. That really would be a recipe for disaster in Hong Kong. Indeed, so far as the electoral system is concerned, I agree with the noble Lord who said that even in this country the present electoral system is becoming a disaster. There can be no possible question of transplanting, exactly as it is, the British democratic system.
There are no political parties as such in Hong Kong; there are no political leaders. One can see that if an election were to take place on the basis of direct suffrage, there would be some splinter parties and then, as the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, has said, one would get a national party—there are already indications that Taiwan would do its best to encourage such a party—which would want to abrogate the whole agreement, would want to maintain the complete separation from China and would want to reject the present views, as I think they are, of the majority of the people of Hong Kong. Then there might be a Communist party. There are a good many Communists in Hong Kong; of that there is no doubt. Presumably their desire would also be to abrogate the agreement, for very different reasons. They would want to merge quickly with China as it is. I am sure that this is a matter which must be considered very carefully and with caution; festina lente—we must hurry slowly.
It may well be that the system of electoral colleges and functional constituencies, which are not familiar to us in this country but have been tried elsewhere, will be the right method of approaching what is perhaps one of the most difficult problems.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, emphasised particularly, there is the question of nationality. It is most important that we should do nothing in this House or here to encourage emigration from Hong Kong. We should try as best we can to make Hong Kong such a successful and happy place in the next 12 years that people do not want to leave it, but there no doubt will remain a minority—perhaps not an insignificant number—who will be, as they are today, anxious about their future status.
There are, for instance, Eurasians who would not, they feel, become subjects of China. Of what country would they be subjects? This is a matter in which the rich can look after themselves without difficulty. They can put their money, part of their money, outside the country, and a good many of them have done that already. Then, when the time comes, if they want to leave, they can buy their nationality elsewhere. The people who are confronted wih real worry about this is a section of the middle and perhaps the lower orders of society. They are really not very interested in having travel documents which will entitle them to consular protection. What they want is citizenship, the right of
64
abode—residence, as the lawyers used to call it in my day.
We will have an opportunity next year, no doubt, to discuss this problem very fully, but I hope that in the meantime the Government will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to it. We do not want these people, small in number though they may be, to feel they have been sold down the river. We have a responsibility for them, and it is a responsibility which rests firmly on the British, rather than on the Chinese, Government in these particular respects.
The only other point about which I need say a few words concerns the question of the future. There are of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Fanshawe, said, a good many people who are a little sceptical about this. They say it is a fine agreement, that the present Government in China will no doubt do their best to carry it out; but their concern is about a future government. Will they be prepared to fulfil it? We live in a very uncertain world and it is difficult to prophesy. I can prophesy more safely than others because I shall certainly not be among those present when the time comes. But I have seen the changes that have taken place in China in recent years. I have noticed, for instance, the developments in the great rural areas of China where the mass of the population is—developments that would have been quite unthinkable 10 years ago, such as the great modification of the commune system, the ability of the peasants to engage in a good deal of private enterprise, free markets and so on—and I have noticed, too, the indications of private enterprise in the towns. I have seen the departure in recent years from the strict doctrines of Marxism, and most recently, last Saturday, as one noble Lord mentioned, there was the statement in the Chinese People's Daily, which is the official organ of the Chinese Government, that the teachings of Marx, of Lenin, and of Engels were no longer directly applicable to the circumstances of the modern world—a view I wish were recognised more readily by the disciples of Marx and Lenin in this country. Having seen all those things, I venture to suggest that in 12, 20 or 25 years' time one may see a China which has moved significantly to the Right and which, while not abandoning Socialist principles, not abandoning some industries which are organised on a public basis, may be much like that which we have here, with a mixed economy and a much more liberal society. I said it is difficult to prophesy because we live in an uncertain world, but I wish I could feel the same about Europe.
I am confident that, for the reasons that have been indicated by noble Lords in the course of this debate, this agreement will be fulfilled and that we can look forward to a very long period of stability, prosperity and co-operation in Hong Kong. The Chinese are people who keep their word. They are pragmatic people. They know on which side their bread is buttered. They have other reasons, such as Taiwan, for wishing this agreement to be a success. I think all the prospects are that with full co-operation and good will on both sides this agreement can be not only carried to a successful conclusion in 1997, but can continue for a very lengthy period indeed. I commend it most warmly to the House.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, my first pleasant duty this evening is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Birkenhead. It was a great pleasure to hear him speak in your Lordships' House from the expertise which he has gained in life, and I am sure that his contributions to your Lordships' debates will be listened to with very great interest in the future.
In the speeches that I have heard up to the present there seems to have been a certain amount of euphoria about the agreement which we are considering. That was in the early speeches. But in the later speeches a certain amount of consideration was given to what would happen after the agreement came into force and what responsibilities we in Britain had for it. I believe that the future happiness of the people of Hong Kong will depend on what happens after the agreement is signed. What preparations will be made in the interim period in government out there up until 1997, so that it will be possible to ensure a smooth handover to the People's Republic of China in 1997? I assume that there will be promotions of Chinese in the colony to positions at present held by expatriate civil servants, and so on. Later in my speech I propose confining my observations to that particular aspect.
Whatever happens, the British Government will have the responsibility of ensuring that they hand over a settled and well-organised administration to the new government in 1997. That is a duty from which they cannot reasonably escape. Also, it is laid down in colonial regulations and in papers in the Colonial Office—certainly from the year of 1945—that one primary reason for handing over to an administration which could govern satisfactorily and with confidence was that Britain had a duty to the people of the country concerned. We certainly have that duty to the people of Hong Kong.
In recent years, as we have divested ourselves of certain parts of our empire and other nations have gained independence, I am afraid it has become only too obvious that, in certain circumstances, the population under people who have accepted responsibility have suffered. Even some of their own pensioners have suffered. I do not say that in criticism of the situation but to underline the position as I see it in respect of the proposals for Hong Kong at the present time.
I want to confine my speech and proposals very largely to the position of the Hong Kong civil servant and the Colonial Service in that particular. Before I begin the main theme of my speech, I should like to remind your Lordships that, in the highest traditions of the Colonial Service, it was the colonial officers in Hong Kong, who, when that colony fell in the last war, took the decision to stay behind with those whom we were then unable to govern. The position was that we should stay behind to share their sufferings with them—as was the case with colonial servants in Malaya. It is not my purpose to describe what happened during that period in Hong Kong, but that decision was in the highest traditions of the Colonial Service—and those traditions have probably been passed on to the colonial civil servants of today.
In addition, when victory came after the privations which were suffered, the first to liberate the peoples in
66
that part of the world were Mountbatten's forces in Singapore. For a very long time where the Americans had their sphere of influence for some reason or another they did not appear. During that time a brave colonial civil servant from the Hong Kong Administration set off alone to discuss matters with the Chinese in the colony in order to try and establish some form of law and order. There were great distractions at the time, with people being shot and no semblance of order in the colony.
That civil servant held that position for three or four days, until the Americans arrived. It is worth while recording such stories and facts as they occurred at the time when we consider this evening what we are going to do with Hong Kong, so that these recollections will be recorded in Hansard for future generations to read.
On the question of the Hong Kong agreement, I want to say this in particular. Quite obviously, I support my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary in the difficult task that he must have faced in attaining it. However, I have reservations about the lack of clarity concerning the pensionable emoluments of Hong Kong civil servants. Where pensions are mentioned in general terms, they are not spelled out in detail in the agreement—and I understand that the agreement is about to be signed.
When I refer to Hong Kong civil servants, or to civil officers, I refer to men who have been recruited by Her Majesty's Secretary of State in the United Kingdom. They are Crown officers in every sense of the word, subject to the policies of Parliament through His Excellency the Governor and the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. When they accepted their appointment in the United Kingdom for service in the British colony of Hong Kong, they had reason to believe that their employee status would remain the same, with conditions of service applicable to service in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service—which would be protected by a public officers' agreement.
At present, there is no assurance about this. Moreover, it is only too clear to these officers from what is in the agreement that their employee status will change. Before I spell out the situation in some detail, I should state my interest, as I did at the outset of my speech. I am a former overseas colonial officer of 30 years' service in Malaya, and also it has been my privilege to serve regularly during the past 15 years on the council and executive committee of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association.
That association was established in 1960 and has for 24 years been in operation. Our headquarters is at Hove in East Sussex. We now have at least 12,000 members of the association who are pensioners. We have a devoted staff dealing with the many problems which arrive from overseas. In addition, we have a capable and hard working secretary in Douglas Stenton, who is in almost daily contact with me by phone in regard to the problems which come before the association.
There have been difficulties and real hardships for some of our 12,000 pensioners. Allow me to give a brief example. For instance, we have never been able to resolve the dilemma of our central Africa pensioners of the defunct Central Africa Federation. This is due to faults of years ago and despite the fact

67
that with a former Foreign Secretary, my noble friend Lord Carrington allowed me and the late Lord Boyd of Merton and others to sit in deliberation with members of the Home Civil Service to seek solutions which failed. I have given these illustrations to show the difficulties which can arise after independence is granted.
Secondly, Zimbabweans—formerly Rhodesians—are in a different category since they are government servants not recruited by the Secretary of State. They have funds which cannot be remitted abroad, and this is causing great privation to many and real hardship and suffering to some. Serious problems can and do arise after independence and Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of them from the submissions we make.
I submit that it is better to identify problems before independence takes place because afterwards the answer of Her Majesty's Government invariably is, "Sorry, but there is nothing we can do about these issues. This overseas government is now independent". That is why I seek assurances regarding the pensions of the overseas colonial officers in Hong Kong, and that their futures will be made safe and protected by a public officers' agreement.
I have already stressed in my speech that Hong Kong civil servants are servants of the Crown, and the fact that Hong Kong will cease to be a colony on 30th June 1997. Assurances are necessary, and every effort should be made to ensure that civil servants up to that date who leave the service will be entitled, as in the case of other members of Her Majesty's overseas Civil Service, to an accrued pension plus lump sum compensation for loss of office.
I do not consider it inevitable that a loss of office might happen in the case of Hong Kong, either before or after 1997. Much of what I state has already appeared in a speech on the Hong Kong agreement in the debate in another place on 5th December. This was made by, my honourable friend the Member for Orpington. Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, and I commend it for attention by the Government. It appears in Hansard, cols. 443–5.
I shall endeavour to be brief. In every other case where a colony has received independence—and Hong Kong is a colony—a public officers' agreement has been made with the successor government. Briefly, the provisions of the public officers' agreement are as follows: one, serving officers who remain and continue to serve remain eligible for transfer or promotion elsewhere; two, the government in which they serve agrees not unreasonably to withhold consent from any officer wishing to accept transfer or promotion and agrees to preserve his pension rights on transfer; three, pensions derived from service after independence—that is, in the case of Hong Kong, after 1997—should attract supplementary pensions payable by the United Kingdom Government; and, four, in the event of premature retirement caused by constitutional change a lump sum compensation is to be paid by the Government.
These pledges were designed to give confidence to officers on the future of their pensions. It was also an assurance given to encourage them to stay and serve a
68
successor government in furtherance of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It was also to assist a successor government by making available to that government experienced staff which would assist them in ensuring stability and. therefore, the happiness of the people in the new set-up for whom Her Majesty's Government had previously been responsible. Those are the provisions of the public officers' agreement. Much of this is in Colonial No. 306 of 1954, and also in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service Special Regulation by the Secretary of State of that date, and in Miscellaneous No. 520. Third Edition. I have spelled them out because I think it is important.
There is at present a widespread anxiety among the expatriate staff in Hong Kong about the future of their pensions. I consider it is unreasonable for Her Majesty's Government to say that everything will be all right and to imply that it is too early to discuss these issues, which will not take place for years. A public officers' agreement to expatriate staff recruited by the Secretary of State should be guaranteed by Her Majesty's Government to those officers of the Crown in Hong Kong as soon as possible. With respect, I submit that to do otherwise is to break a condition of their original appointments. An early statement is respectfully requested that a public officers' agreement will apply to all expatriate staff serving in Hong Kong and that they will be treated no less favourably than expatriate staff in other colonies.
What I have suggested does not, as far as I can see, affect the proposed agreement. What I have asked for are details for the inclusion of provisions in respect of a public officers' agreement. I do not know whether the Government have already considered the implications of a public officers' agreement. but I ask, even now, that they consider the position I have outlined and that Her Majesty's Government take up as a matter of urgency with the colonial government in Hong Kong a consideration of the implications of bringing in a public officers' agreement as soon as possible.
There is one other important factor which I have not mentioned in connection with a public officers' agreement. I refer to the provision for paying pensions which are payable in Britain in sterling. These should be at a fixed rate of exchange from the date of the agreement with China. As I have said, it is clear that I am anxious about the future of the Hong Kong civil servants as the agreement now stands. If possible, I should like a clear indication in the reply of my noble friend Lady Young that careful notice will be taken of the points I have made, and that an assurance about pensions will soon be given in some detail to the expatriate public officers and Crown officers serving in Hong Kong.
I hope that I can have those assurances this evening. Above all, I hope that their future, which is bound up with the future of Hong Kong and the happiness of its people—which I also wish to achieve—will be secured by the proposals I have made.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Todd: My Lords, I decided to take part in this debate not merely because as a citizen of this country I am naturally interested in the future of what has been regarded for 150 years or so as a British colony but because I have a strong personal interest to declare in

69
the prosperity and future of Hong Kong. I have the honour to be chairman of a large charitable foundation, the Croucher Foundation, based in Hong Kong. It is devoted to the promotion of education, learning and research. I am also—and have been for some considerable time—a member of the council of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, which is situated, as many noble Lords will know, in the New Territories.
In consequence, I have been for a good many years a frequent visitor—indeed, almost a commuter—to Hong Kong and I have many contacts with its inhabitants, both Chinese and expatriate. I have also had a considerable measure of contact—relatively speaking—with the People's Republic of China in at least one aspect in that I was involved between 1975 and 1980 in the forging of agreements between the Royal Society in this country, of which I was president, and the Academia Sinica—the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Since then, and much more recently, I have been concerned in the development of similar agreements between the academy and the Croucher Foundation of Hong Kong; a foundation which, incidentally, at present supports a number of joint research projects between institutions of higher education in Hong Kong, on the one hand, and Chinese universities and, for reasons of current interest, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. on the other. I most definitely have an interest in the development and long-term future of Hong Kong and its relationship with the People's Republic of China.
During the early stages of the negotiations with the People's Republic I frequently heard discussions about what might happen when the lease of the New Territories ran out in 1997. Many rumours were current and there was a good deal of unease, especially among those Chinese who had fled from the Communist regime. It was an unease which was of course heightened by the recent excesses of the Cultural Revolution. Let us be clear, of course. It is an unease which is bound to remain in some measure, whatever kind of agreement we sign now, on the ground that some people will say that if the Cultural Revolution could happen once, it could happen again.
There were also a few (mainly expatriates) who held what seemed to me the totally unrealistic view that the Chinese Government, for some obscure reason, might either renew the lease of the New Territories or at any rate allow Hong Kong to continue under British administration. As we all know, in the event, following long and arduous negotiations, carried out, I must say, with great skill and success by our representatives and those of China (a matter which has been mentioned by several speakers today), we arrived at the agreement which is now before us.
I am entirely in favour of this agreement. If there was any vote involved, I should vote for it without hesitation. I should also like to record my thanks, as others have done, to all those who were involved in the negotiations which led up to the agreement. I must say that I find it very difficult to imagine what better result could possibly have been obtained in present circumstances. No doubt there are some points that need further clarification, and some, like the nationality clauses, will be, to put it at its lowest, a disappointment to some people at least in Hong Kong.
70
But, by and large, I believe that the agreement guarantees a secure future for Hong Kong, at least in so far as it is possible to guarantee anything in this very uncertain world in which we live.
As it happens, I was in Hong Kong on 26th September this year when the White Paper was published, and I spent the following month partly there and partly in the People's Republic. I was thus able to get an impression of at least the first reactions to the published memoranda in both places. I have to report that the reaction of those I met—and I should add that I took care to check with ordinary people in China, and not just through officials—was favourable to the report in both places. Perhaps they were overall more enthusiastic in China, but that was to be expected.
The change-over date, as set out in the memoranda, is 1st July 1997. As has been pointed out by many speakers, that is less than 13 years hence. That really is a very short interval, and much will have to be done in Hong Kong in the interim—not least the development of an effective system of representative government and a high level of political and administrative skill on the part of its leading members.
Perhaps I had better explain that. Most discussions of Hong Kong and its future which I have heard in this country (and to some extent also in Hong Kong) seem to be based on the idea that at the end of this century Hong Kong will be the same kind of place as it is now and that it will continue to be so thereafter. But nothing in this world can stand still; change is always the watchword. One thing is certain—the Hong Kong of 1997 will not be the Hong Kong of today, but in my opinion it will have before it very great opportunities if it is prepared, as I believe its people will be prepared, to take advantage of these opportunities.
In its efforts to modernise and catch up with the technology of today and tomorrow, China desperately needs trained people at all levels. In the production of such people Hong Kong is well ahead now, and if it maintains its lead, it will be of vital importance to China's development. That is why, in addition to thinking about Hong Kong as a port and a business and financial centre, we ought to be thinking about the educational needs of its people. Especially, to my mind, is this so in the matter of advanced training and research in its universities and the universities and polytechnics of Hong Kong. Here I must record with sorrow that the Hong Kong Government, with their niggardly approach to research funding, appear to me to be very short-sighted in this respect.
I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, said earlier today in his maiden speech, which I enjoyed enormously, perhaps the more so because I agreed entirely with everything that he said, and I remind your Lordships that just across the border from the New Territories lies Shenzhen. Shenzhen is an area designated by China for special economic development. It is developing very rapidly and much Hong Kong capital and expertise is involved in that development. The pace of development is extraordinary. I have no doubt that it will continue, and that by the end of the century Shenzhen, and probably the whole stretch of southern Guangdong as far as Canton (in which development involving Hong Kong

71
capital and Hong Kong entrepreneurs is already under way), will be well-nigh indistinguishable from the neighbouring Hong Kong. So much so that I find it difficult to imagine that the present frontier and separation from Hong Kong will be easily maintained.
That situation, I believe, has tremendous potential as far as Hong Kong is concerned. There is a tremendous opportunity here for Hong Kong, provided that Hong Kong at that time has an effective administration and has in charge good people who can take advantage of the situation that is waiting for them in the province of Guangdong. In my view, there lies the future of Hong Kong.
From 1997 onwards, under the agreement, Hong Kong will be governed by its own people—essentially Chinese. Between now and then it is imperative that proper representative government—I shall not enter into details as to how that government should be chosen—must be installed in Hong Kong; and through it we have to develop, or see develop, a first-class administration; an administration that will be needed not just to look after the complex organism which is Hong Kong, but which will also be able to cope with what I believe (which follows from what I have already said) will be an extremely important, indeed an essential, modus vivendi with the neighbouring industrialised region of southern Guangdong.
My main criticism of the Government of Hong Kong is that for years they have, ostrich-like, ignored this possibility and the obvious necessity of developing representative government. Instead of that, they have continued to run Hong Kong on traditional colonial lines, totally ignoring the fact that the New Territories' lease was going to expire in 1997, with the kind of consequences which we now see.
I know of course that the Government of Hong Kong have recently issued a White Paper setting out proposals to proceed step-wise towards representative government. I welcome that White Paper, although I think it is a bit belated. What worries me, however, is whether, especially at this pace, 13 years is an adequate period in which to make the necessary transition. I hope it is. But if it is not, and we fail to do so, then I believe the blame should, and will, be laid at the door of this country for so long turning a blind eye to the crying need for change.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young, at the start of this debate, anticipated that we should have an interesting discussion. She will not have been disappointed, because we have had the benefit of the mature judgment of such noble Lords as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and many others who know China or Hong Kong. We have benefited, too, from the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Birkenhead. I remember sitting on the steps of the Throne—my father introduced me once—when his grandfather was speaking in this House on the subject of allowing Peeresses in their own right onto these Benches. He was emphatically negative and immensely amusing. I hope that the noble Earl himself will widen his interests and talk to us about all kinds of things in the future years.
72
Change and, in particular, the unfamiliar are always daunting. Given the contrasting circumstances—economic, political and social—in Hong Kong and China, it is very understandable that there should be some apprehensions, and even, as my noble friend Lord Fanshawe said, some scepticism, because as one looks into the future there is no denying that there are risks. But what has been so reassuring has been the massive demonstration of calm, calculating common sense with which the majority in Hong Kong have received this agreement. I hope that in neither House in our country is there any rubber-stamp mentality. But I think at this moment we can properly recognise that the Chinese, the British and the Hong Kong negotiators have shown statecraft of a very high order. So far then, so good.
Following the speeches of so many of your Lordships who have close knowledge of the situation, I wish to lay emphasis on only two points, which I consider to be of absolute importance at the present time. The first was selected by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and has been emphasised by others. That is the meticulous, painstaking care that ought to be taken as to the matters to be included in the Basic Law. That is a question on which I think the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, (who we are all so glad to see coming back and speaking to us once again in this House) gave us very good advice as to the constitutional legal position. It is a Chinese obligation to get this Basic Law right. But as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, suggested, there is no reason why the Chinese should not take infinite trouble to keep, step by step, by consultation, with opinion in Hong Kong and in Britain. If the contents of the Basic Law can be agreed and the contents of it given the status of an international treaty—which, as I understand it, is the intention—there is the foundation of law on which we can build in the next 50 years; and a foundation of law is necessary for any lasting association.
The second of my points concerns the liaison machinery for consultation on which the representatives of China, Hong Kong and Britain will serve. I think it is of the first importance that those who have already won each other's respect, friendship and confidence should be included in the membership. That will give continuity, leading on from the events of the last couple of years. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I think was very wise to ask that in that body there should not be Unofficial Members brought in. But there is a question of age involved, and there should be introduced into this body some younger people who have to look forward to living in the situation as it will develop after 1997.
Continuing consultation is the spirit of the matter. In the law there is the letter and in consultation and co-operation there is the spirit. The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, said that he detected that China might be moving to the Right. I detected this some 10 years ago, when I went to China as Foreign Secretary and I was received into the Great Hall of the People's Republic with the massed bands playing the Eton Boating Song.
So I give my blessing to this agreement. There is a long way to go. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, suggested that at some appropriate point Her Majesty the Queen might go to set the seal on the progress. That would be wonderful, if it proved to be possible.

73
Perhaps that is looking too far ahead. But while, with many of your Lordships, I do not minimise the task ahead, I cannot overstate the prize that will be won if this agreement comes to fruition.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I must apologise for not having been present at this debate until just now: I had a long and inescapable engagement elsewhere. We are debating today more than we always realise. It is not only the merits of a particular treaty, not only—though this must always be our first thought—the future of 5·5 million people, not only a unique style of decolonisation at the very end of the British Empire. It is more than that. It is, with one or two irritating but insignificant exceptions, the end of democratic Europe's long journey home. It is also the end—since Macau goes with Hong Kong—of the redemption of China from foreign rule.
This clever treaty about the future of this clever people writes finis under the chapter of human history which began 500 years ago when Spain and Portugal, having redeemed their land from the Arabs, simply did not stop but turned half right and carried on across the Atlantic.
I said "democratic Europe". All the "European" empires are now ended, save one: the Russian. And I have not the least doubt that at some time in the next hundred years someone will stand up in this House or the other and remark that some event—and let us hope it is a clever little treaty and not a stupid great war—has finally ended that and given everyone in the world back to themselves, even the Uzbeks, the Kazakhs, the Inuit and the Afghans.
Hong Kong and Macau will complete mainland China. On the way they are governed after 1993 will depend China's hope of redeeming Taiwan. That is the biggest single reason the people of Hong Kong have to expect the observance of the treaty.
The China which is thus coming once again into its own has been in continuous convulsive change for more than a hundred years. The duration of these convulsions is not surprising given the size of the population and the age of the culture. The 11 European imperial powers were always Lilliputians over a recumbent China. More than a century ago, Japan opened to the West. And now it is China's turn. That opening had, in a sense, to await the end of foreign territorial rule and it was able to do so because China, unlike Japan, had all the natural resources needed to live on in the modern age.
The last dynasty of Chinese imperial rule, the Manchurian Chin, never absorbed the Chinese civilisation, let alone the Western. The revolution of China against the Chin dynasty, a revolution which lasted from 1856 until 1911, was a sort of inner liberation which formed the backdrop to the encroachment of the outer powers—Britain, the United States, France, Germany and so on.
The opium wars which gave us Victoria Island and Kowloon were a fairly standard part of the scramble for the world. It was the United States which insisted on most-favoured-nation treatment for all in the carve-up. Thirteen nations divided Shanghai. Berlin, in our age, is a good deal simpler. This was the time,
74
1858, when we got Kowloon. We got the lease on the New Territories, the end of which we are now debating, not in the blithe expansion of early 19th century imperialism, but in the decadent, autophagous, phase. We demanded and got it because we needed more land in defence. But—we often forget this—who did we need land against in the defence of Hong Kong? Not against the Chinese, but against the French who were creeping up the coast from Vietnam and even against the Germans who were creeping down it from the north-east.
The foreign Chin dynasty fell in 1911, the Kuomindang, inspired by the Russian revolution of 1905, took power, and lost it in 1949 to the Chinese Communist Party, which had been founded in 1921 inspired by the Russian revolution of 1917. A dynasty of foreigners was succeeded by two successive Chinese regimes with foreign ideas in their heads.
These Chinese with foreign ideas in their heads secured the return of city after city by arrangement after arrangement, from Hankow in 1927 to the British and American agreement to abolish extraterritoriality in 1943. Along the way they faced another foreign invasion and domination, that of Japan. That, too, they got rid of with considerable American, but no Russian, help at the back door. The only nuclear weapons ever dropped in anger have played their role in Chinese history, too.
Now we go, and Portugal with us. And we go peacefully and with goodwill. It is an immense epoch in human affairs. (I use the word precisely, meaning not the stretch between turning points but the turning point or divide itself.) We expect great epochs to produce new ideas, and this one is no exception. It seems an indelible characteristic, thank God, of our race that we cut our ideas to suit our circumstances. The ailing giant, China, is now fully convalescent, almost whole. We, the standard bearer of Europe's second imperialism, depart in peace according to our word. To suit the occasion, China invents two new ideas. The first is post-Marxist Communism and the second is "one country, two systems".
A Chinese Communism which rejects Marx and Lenin has been visible by over-the-horizon radar for some time now. Last Friday, it appeared clothed in due form and order. The Chinese Communist Party has always called itself Marxist-Leninist, and for a time it called itself Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist. Stalin was still up on the wall of every school and office when I was there in 1972. Now we have the admirable sight—who but China could do it?—of the established government of a Communist state, erected by civil war on the ruins of an attempted Western-style liberalism, for a generation the terror of the United States and the bogey man of "How do you get to the moon?" stories, pointing out that, since Marx died 100 years ago and worked out his theories long before that, and Lenin died 60 years ago, they may not always be the best guide to what is happening now.
Let us listen to the actual words. I quote:
"Not only were some of Marx's ideas tentative; he wrote more than 100 years ago and the world has greatly changed since his death. Marx, Engels and Lenin did not have the opportunity to experience the process of putting their ideas into practice, therefore, we cannot expect the writings of Marx and Lenin of that time to provide solutions to our current problems".

75
Under the banner of that discovery, and with the turgid but pregnant verbiage of the resolution of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party on 20th October as a guide to what everyone should now do at all levels, China opens the doors to the West another 10 degrees. Doors so wide open will be hard to close. That is one good thing. The other invention, "One country, two systems" will in the long run perhaps be even more fertile for the world. There is much natural worry in Hong Kong about this. How can the economic and political freedoms promised be reconciled with the Chinese constitution, which, on a superficial reading, looks a bit rigid? The answer to that question is set out with extraordinary care. objectivity and ingenuity in a long article published in the People's Daily on 28th September—that is, two days after our treaty was initialled in Peking.
The fact that it was so set out is quite a lesson for those who will be dealing with China in the future. When Her Majesty's Government first faced the fact that if nothing was done, commercial and financial confidence in Hong Kong would collapse some time in the 1980s—I am talking now about a realisation which took place some time in the late 1970s—they decided to try it on à la Macao. They approached the Chinese and asked them ever so innocently how it would be if they were to start issuing land leases in Hong Kong to run beyond 1997. The Chinese countered immediately with the statement that that was a point of detail, and that there were points of principle to settle first. Her Majesty's Government kept it up for quite a while, trying to find a back door, or perhaps one might even say an underground tunnel, into the question of sovereignty; but finally gave up and agreed to discuss the 12 principles that the Chinese had put forward first.
"One country, two systems" is the product of a typical Chinese insistence on first things first. No doubt it did us no harm to scout around a bit, tapping for hollow places, and the result is pretty much as we should have wished. Others will perhaps benefit from our experience. Sir Geoffrey Howe has himself said that "one country, two systems" could come in handy elsewhere. All thoughts turn to Argentina and the Falklands at this point. All thoughts that is except those of Mr. Denis Healey in the House of Commons, who promptly applied the dictum to Scotland and England; one Socialist system in Scotland and one capitalist system in England, which he hopes to see swiftly converted to the Scottish system. I believe that this perception will prove to be a diversion from the mainstream of history. But the idea may come in handy not only for Argentina, not only for Spain, but principally and perhaps most fruitfully, a long way ahead, for Germany.
We are growing towards each other all over the world. The old shotgun marriages of territorial annexation and territorial federation and the old shotgun divorces of secession should yield, and are beginning to yield, to the peaceful establishment day by day, so you hardly notice, of quiet grey liaisons and associations which can probably do the world's work better.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I cannot begin to match the erudition of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. My only rather thin excuse for contributing to the debate is that I have spent some little time mainly in the People's Republic of China, so much so that I know Peking more than I know Hong Kong, and I know Amoy or Xiamen, as it is now known, more than I know Kowloon. I am convinced that this astonishing achievement of Her Majesty's Government in reaching agreement with regard to the future of Hong Kong together with the the Government of the People's Republic of China will not be regarded by the historians of the future as a mere footnote to history. I believe that the implications of this agreement are immense, for it is, most importantly from my point of view, a resounding demonstration of goodwill between the two governments and the two peoples.
In my view it is very much in the interests of the West that there be an ever-increasingly strong China. It is by no means fanciful to envisage what might well happen if the strength of China in any way influences Russia to feel that its interest lies with far closer ties with Europe, which after all is its cultural and linguistic relative. The tripartite balance of a strong United States, a stronger Europe with Russia, and a strong China, would, I believe, provide a greater chance and a greater hope for the peace of the world than any other single factor in the next hundred years. In so far as this Sino-British Hong Kong Agreement contributes to this end I, like other noble Lords who have spoken, do nothing other than rejoice in it.
I, and I believe all other noble Lords must agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who, in his fascinating speech, suggested that the signing of this agreement is by no means a signing-off of responsibilities but more a signing-on of exciting opportunity. As such, great care must be brought to bear, not just for the next twelve and a half years, but forever and a day, for Anglo-Sino co-operation is, in my humble view, so important to this country that it is almost impossible to overstate that importance. Things can, for many and varied reasons, go very wrong even with the best will in the world. Even this afternoon, my Lords, of all times, I was informed in the dining room of your Lordships' House that they had run out of China tea! The answer, I believe, to all misunderstandings, mistakes. careless talk is for those involved through diplomacy, trade and cultural links, to get to know and respect one another and then shortcomings will soon be forgotten and forgiven.
This point leads me to remind your Lordships most respectfully that the Chinese ideograph for England literally means "Land of Heroes" or "Land of the Brave". The single most important message that I have learned from China is that, despite our long historical associations and mutual respect and admiration for one another, I am asked the question, "Where have the merchant venturers of England gone? Why are they not here to help us in our future?" I am afraid my answer is that they have covered their hearts in black coats, they have covered their courage in striped trousers, they have become not merchant venturers but more merchant bankers, prudent men of business, and their imagination is cloaked in fear. I find this very very sad and if this agreement leads to a

77
strengthening above all of trade ties and trade co-operation between the two countries then it will have done a superb job.
I will not allow myself to be tempted to broaden this debate on the subject of bilateral trade and, as all things with regard to this historic agreement have been said by those who have gone before me, I will end purely upon that note.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, as others have said, the importance of this debate is reflected and emphasised by the experience and variety of the speakers who have taken part in it, including perhaps most notably, in the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, a former Governor of Hong Kong, and—if he will allow me to say so—in the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, one who told us in a recent debate that he fought with the Chinese Communists against the Japanese. Indeed in this House we manage to gather together a variety of experience for debates such as this. But our debate was certainly enhanced by the excellent maiden speech that we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead. I listened to it with really warm appreciation and I echo those who have said that we look forward to hearing him on other occasions.
We have also had the benefit of hearing views almost entirely from speakers who have direct experience in a business sense, a legal sense, or in other ways of Hong Kong and of China and, in the case of my noble friend Lord Rhodes, we have one who has become almost an unofficial ambassador, I would say, both to the People's Republic of China and to Hong Kong as well. He is a frequent visitor to both. When I went to China with a parliamentary delegation some three years ago we were constantly aware as we travelled of the goodwill that my noble friend has engendered by his frequent visits. I was glad to hear from him today that he still plans to go and that he is going again in March.
The Motion we are considering today has already, as we know, been approved in another place and when, as I have no doubt it will be, it has been approved in this House, authority will then have been given to the Prime Minister to go shortly to Peking to sign the agreement which has been reached after two years of very skilful and very patient negotiation.
The circumstances of the Prime Minister's visit this time will be in fortunate contrast with those of two years ago, as indeed one hopes will be her frame of mind and her sense of diplomacy. We can all take satisfaction that her signature to the agreement will register the fact that a problem of really remarkable complexity has been solved with a remarkable degree of unanimity, which has been reflected in the debate to which we have just listened.
I recall that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has himself paid tribute to the negotiators and has said that they have set an example to others of how international questions should be settled; and certainly this debate has confirmed that view. Indeed the Foreign Secretary and his advisers are to be congratulated on transforming a situation which, only two years ago, looked difficult indeed into one of optimism and hope. The Foreign Secretary in turn has been
78
generous in praising what he has called the "vision and realism" of his Chinese opposite numbers.
As the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, pointed out, and the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, developed this theme most interestingly, it is not only in relation to Hong Kong that Chinese vision and realism are in evidence today. They are in evidence in their approach to major policy devopments in mainland China itself, because under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping a really massive transformation is taking place in China. They are now building a socialist society in which individual and small collective enterprises are being liberated from the excessive bureaucratic centralism of the earlier regime. I personally had the opportunity last year to make an intensive study of the success of these new methods in rural China, and I welcome the recent decision that has been announced to adopt similar methods in the urban communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, suggested that China is moving to the Right. These definitions are sometimes puzzling, but I think I know what he meant, and I agree with him. But I would say that any suggestion that these developments in China represent a reversion to capitalism is, in my view, quite wide of the mark. These internal changes that I have described briefly are being paralleled with an open-door policy towards the rest of the world, and therefore it has been a fortunate historical coincidence that the negotiations about Hong Kong which we have been debating have proceeded against a background of internal and external policies on the part of China which have been most favourable to the conclusion of this agreement that we are now considering.
I think I can best recall the main issues raised in this debate if I ask just three questions. They are questions which have really run through most of the speeches in today's discussion. My first question is the simple-sounding one: is the agreement a good and acceptable agreement? Secondly, I would ask: after it is signed, what problems remain to be tackled? My third question is: will the agreement stand the test of time? There is no doubt in my mind—nor, does it seem, in the minds of any of your Lordships—that the answer to the first question is, "Yes, it is a good and acceptable agreement". And why? I believe it is because it rests upon, and successfully implements, the proposition of one country, two systems; because it is in the interest of Beijing that Hong Kong should become part of the one country of China. It is in the interests of the United Kingdom, and of the people of Hong Kong, whom we represent, that there should be two economic and social systems within that one country so that the way of life familar to the people of Hong Kong can he preserved into the foreseeable future.
This double objective is being achieved, on the one hand, by China having the right, which has been referred to many times, to pass through its National People's Congress the basic constitutional law, and to have also a consultative voice, throughout the Joint Liaison Group, about the implementation of the joint declaration; and also, of course, China is being given (if that is the word after 1997 the responsibility for external relations and defence. So that, in summary, is what China gets from this agreement.
On the other hand, there is a very considerable catalogue of guarantees to the people of Hong Kong.

79
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spelt them out in some detail. In summary, I suggest they are these. They will have their own elected Legislature, their own legal system and courts, their own freely convertible currency and their own financial and commercial institutions open to the world; and, moreover, these will persist throughout the first half of the 21st century. That is the other side of the balance sheeet of this agreement. Such an agreement, it seems to me, is a balanced implementation. as I have suggested, of one country, two systems. It is that which, in my judgment, makes this agreement good and acceptable.
But then my second question arises. What will be the problems to be wrestled with after the signing of the agreement? Running through the debate, many speakers have raised points which they see may be of some difficulty in the future. I shall refer briefly to four that occurred to me. First, there will be the need for consultation between the Chinese Government and the people of Hong Kong about the exact terms of the basic constitutional law which the People's Congress will enact. Apparently it is not yet clear what that process of consultation will be, and I have no doubt that some difficulties in this connection will need to be resolved. But I was glad to see that the spokesmen for UMELCO have expressed confidence that there is sufficient detail in the agreement to ensure that the Basic Law will be satisfactorily drafted. I feel sure that, if they think that, we in this House can share that confidence.
Secondly, I should like to mention a problem which has not I think been mentioned in the debate and which in a sense does not arise directly from the agreement. But it is a matter which the Hong Kong Government must seek to solve and which may therefore be of concern to the Joint Liaison Group. I have in mind the problem of the 12,000 Vietnamese refugees, many of whom are living in prison-like conditions. My attention has been called particularly to this problem by my noble friend Lord Ennals in his capacity as a leading member of the British Refugee Council. It seems to me that the recommendations of that council deserve sympathetic consideration both by the Government here in London and by the authorities in Hong Kong.
I will not say much about the nationality question. We have had learned and interesting contributions on this subject, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross. We are to have the opportunity of debating that kind of issue in the new year, when the legislation is before us.
I have left perhaps the most difficult problem to the last of my list; that is, how should we seek to develop a system of representative government for Hong Kong between now and 1997? It is understandable that a good deal of the discussion, led particularly by the noble Lord. Lord Tanlaw, and followed up by others, was about the machinery of democracy and the pace at which that machinery can be installed. I have not got it in mind to make any specific points about that machinery, but I should like to repeat something which I have said in your Lordships' House on an earlier occasion when we were discussing Hong Kong.
80
Whenever I think of democracy, I have in mind very much more than the machinery of government. I believe that democracy is fragile unless it is underpinned by a range of social and economic organisations such as trades unions, student organisations, co-operatives, voluntary social service groups, women's organisations and neighbourhood committees. Organisations such as those, of which we have a very great wealth in this country, are necessary in order to underpin the more formal electoral system for the machinery of government. Therefore I hope that between now and 1997 efforts will be directed not only at getting the right system of representative government in an electoral sense, but that equal efforts will be made to provide what I would call a healthy and robust infrastructure of democracy. I believe that to be equally important.
The third question which I asked some minutes ago was: Will the agreement stand the test of time? I believe that it will do so because not only in itself is it an agreement that has been carefully and fairly constructed but, as the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, has said, it is one which will be formally incorporated as a treaty in international law. As several members of your Lordships' House have said, China, under very different regimes of government, has maintained an honourable record in its compliance with international obligations. I am confident that that record will continue.
We are thinking of a period of 50 years; in fact it is longer than that, it is 62 years. No one can possibly forecast with any certainty the course of events in Hong Kong, China or anywhere else in the world over such a period. If it is true, as has been said, that a week is a long time in politics, then certainly if my arithmetic is right 2,600 weeks are a long time indeed. Nevertheless, although the future is hazy, the 50-year provision in the agreement is an important element because it shows the intention of the present Chinese Government. It is an expression of goodwill and of good faith. However, it is much more than that: I believe that it is the clue to the restoration of confidence in Hong Kong because it is the foundation upon which the people of Hong Kong can plan and work for the future.
Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn made clear, we on these Benches not only approve this Motion, but we also congratulate most warmly all those who trod with such success the very difficult path of negotiation. We, like others, look forward to a harmonious and prosperous relationship in the future between the people of Hong Kong and the massive population of the People's Republic of China.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have had a well-informed, realistic and I believe valuable debate. In 1898 Lord Salisbury was able to say, apparently without contradiction, when introducing to your Lordships' House the 1898 Convention of Peking:
"As soon as we possess the actual text it will be immediately communicated to Parliament. I do not know that the details of this matter are of any general interest, although they are of strategic importance".
Times have certainly changed. The interest that your Lordships have demonstrated in the future of Hong

81
Kong well illustrates the sense of commitment and responsibility that all of us feel towards the people of that territory. I believe that this debate has not in any way been a rubber stamp.
I should first like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Birkenhead on his maiden speech which we all greatly enjoyed. We hope that we shall hear from him often. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, has sent his apologies for his absence because he is ill in hospital and unable to take part in the debate. I am sure that we all wish him well. Your Lordships clearly agree that the Hong Kong agreement is a good one, that it provides a satisfactory basis for the future of Hong Kong and that the territory has every prospect of stability, prosperity and still more remarkable development into the 21st century. Those points were made by your Lordships who have spoken from all parts of the House; but I am particularly glad of the support that has been given by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, Lord Oram, Lord Tanlaw and Lord Kennet.
There have been certain worries and concerns expressed by the people of Hong Kong. I regard those as quite natural and understandable given the significance and the uniqueness of the change that lies ahead of the population. Some of those concens have been raised by your Lordships today, and I shall try and answer as many of them as I can.
A great many noble Lords have raised the question of how we can be confident that the agreement will he implemented by both sides, and have asked how can we be confident in the future. There can of course be no such thing as certainty about the future in this world. But as I indicated in my opening speech, there are the strongest reasons to believe that the agreement will he observed. National prestige is involved in upholding an agreement recognised by both sides as legally binding. National self-interest is served by the preservation of Hong Kong's flourishing economy. China's national objective of eventual reunification is intimately associated with the success of this agreement. The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, made a great many helpful and constructive points in this regard. To answer one specific question that he asked about resources for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the years ahead, let me say that we are looking at our resources in relation to the next 12 years. I can assure him that we are aware of the vital importance of having the right people in the right place at the right time and that we shall give this high priority.
I am sure that all of us in your Lordships' House were also very struck by what my noble friend Lord Birkenhead said both about the need to avoid complacency and about the Chinese honouring their agreements. I think that my noble friend was most helpful. My noble friend Lord Gridley, and the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, both raised points about the future of Her Majesty's overseas civil servants. My noble friend Lord Gridley raised the position of HMOCS officers serving the Hong Kong Government. I have taken note of his remarks and I can assure him that the Government are very well aware of the important points that he has raised. They are under active discussion at present. I cannot add by way of
82
assurances to what my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said on this point in another place. The draft agreement provides satisfactorily for continuity of service by serving officers in the public service in Hong Kong on terms and conditions, including pay and pensions, no less favourable than before 1st July 1997. These provisions apply to members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service serving in Hong Kong as well as to other civil servants.
The resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China raises similar issues in respect of HMOCS as independence has in other dependent territories. The fact remains however that it is not possible to define now—12½ years in advance of constitutional change—all the arrangements which will apply to members of HMOCS serving in Hong Kong and to the payment of their pensions by the Hong Kong SAR Government after 1st July 1997. It would not have been possible to do that so early in other colonial territories where constitutional change has taken place. As the noble Lord knows, public officers' agreements have been negotiated just before independence. I can assure him however that Her Majesty's Government have very much in mind the concerns of HMOCS officers which he has mentioned, as well as those of other Hong Kong civil servants.
In this connection I should like to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, said about providing a home and security for some of those who have served us well in Hong Kong and who might feel at risk. I can assure the House that the Government have this point very much in mind. In certain limited cases certain rights of admission will exist at the discretion of the Home Secretary in the United Kingdom. That will be on a very limited basis for people who were exposed to special considerations and special factors.
I now turn to the questions that were raised on nationality. My noble friend Lord Geddes asked a number of questions on this matter, in particular about the acceptability of new passports. According to Section 14 of Annex I to the Joint Declaration, residents of the Special Administrative Region will be able to use travel documents issued by the SAR Government. They will record the holder's right to return to the SAR. The Chinese Government will assist or authorise the SAR Government to conclude visa abolition agreements with states or regions. Those who, on 30th June 1997, are British dependent territory citizens by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong will be eligible to retain a status which will enable them to use British passports after that date. These passports will make it clear that the holders have a right of abode in the SAR. Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to secure for the holders of those passports the same access to other countries as that enjoyed at present by holders of BDTC passports. There is no reason to believe that third countries will not recognise these passports.
My noble friend Lord Geddes also asked whether the new passports would be issued in 1997. Detailed procedures for the issue of new-style passports have not been worked out. No decision has yet been taken on the date of issue of the new-style passports, but I am not certain that having a sudden and dramatic change of style in 1997 is the best way of ensuring that the new

83
style is generally recognised and accepted in third countries. It is, however, a point which deserves serious consideration.
However, I should not wish to hold out any hope that the question of transmissibility could be raised again with the Chinese Government. They were quite adamant against it, and our final agreement not to press it further was an integral and essential part of the settlement which produced the agreement. But I am happy to reassure my noble friend about the content of the Chinese memorandum. This refers to Chinese nationals holding British travel documents, because the memorandum is concerned only with Chinese nationals. There is no suggestion that those who are not Chinese nationals should not carry British passports. Section 14 of Annex I makes this quite clear.
My noble friend Lady Vickers asked about international help with resettlement and referred to the possibility of an operation that might be mounted with the aim of resettling large numbers of the people of Hong Kong. In this agreement our aim all along has been to provide security for the future for the people of Hong Kong in such a way that they wish to stay and make their lives there. We have a very good agreement which we believe does that.
I do not think that this is the moment to be taking steps to ask other countries to assist with resettlement of Hong Kong people; we should be tearing down with one hand what we had built up with the other. Other countries would find incomprehensible such a display of lack of faith in the agreement that we have just reached. I fear that they would see resultant pressure for emigration from Hong Kong as something precipitated by us. I do not think that they would be inclined to help. Moreover, any such action, because it would display a lack of faith, would inevitably be very unsettling for the very people in Hong Kong for whose security we seek to provide.
My noble friend Lady Vickers and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, both mentioned the question of the Vietnamese refugees. This is a question which is rather outside the scope of this debate, but I should like to say that we are very aware of the strains that this problem places on the Hong Kong Government. We are making every effort, in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and with other countries, to seek permanent solutions for those Vietnamese refugees who are at present in Hong Kong. Naturally I hope that this problem will be resolved well before 1997.
My noble friend Lord Fanshawe raised a question on controls on Chinese immigration to Hong Kong. The agreement clearly provides that entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of persons from other parts of China will continue to be regulated in accordance with the present practice; that is, under Section 14, Annex I.
I now turn to a number of questions that have been raised about the Joint Liaison Group, because a number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Shawcross and Lord Rhodes, and my noble friend Lord Fanshawe suggested that there should be unofficial Hong Kong representation in the British
84
delegation to the Joint Liaison Group. We attach great importance to the group as a forum for consultation with the Chinese Government over the implementation of the agreement. The detailed procedures of its work will be worked out at a later stage, although the framework for its activities is already set out in Annex II to the Joint Declaration.
I would expect the United Kingdom side of the Joint Liaison Group to include appropriate Hong Kong Government officials. I appreciate the need to involve the people of Hong Kong in discussions that will determine their own future, but the group will be an organ of diplomatic discussion between the two Governments. Therefore, it is not likely that there could be participation by non-officials in the group. However, I am certain that we shall be able to find ways, as we have done in the past, of ensuring appropriate consultation in Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, and my noble friend Lord Home asked about continuity on the Joint Liaison Group. I should like to confirm that this is very desirable, and I think that it is very probable that there will be that continuity. The noble Lord. Lord Cledwyn. the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, and my noble friend Lord Home raised a number of points about the Basic Law. This is an important question of the need to involve the people of Hong Kong in the drafting of the Basic Law. The drafting of the Basic Law will be a matter for the Chinese Government to undertake. However, it is stated in the agreement itself that the policies described in the Joint Declaration and Annex I will be stipulated in the Basic Law. This means that we already have a good idea of what will go into it. The Chinese Government have stated that the people of Hong Kong will be consulted on its drafting, although they have not yet made clear what form this consultation will take. In the period between now and 1997 there will be a need for close co-operation between the British and Chinese Governments. The Joint Liaison Group exists for that purpose, and we look forward to constructive and amicable dialogue.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose and the noble Lord. Lord Cledwyn, raised a point about possible conscription in Hong Kong. I can confirm that the draft agreement does not deal with the question of conscription. There is certainly no suggestion in it that there will be conscription in the SAR; nor has the Chinese Government made any suggestion that there will be. Given the People's Republic of China's overall responsibility for defence, this is obviously a question for them, but they are aware of the strong views which have been expressed in Hong Kong on this subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also asked whether Chinese troops would be subject to law in Hong Kong, and I can confirm that I would expect the Basic Law to deal with this matter. The Joint Liaison Group has been set up to facilitate liaison and consultation between the two Governments in the period up to 1997, and this question could well be a matter for discussion there. The noble Lord also asked what will happen to Hong Kong Chinese serving in the British forces after 1997. Nineteen ninety seven is still 13 years away. It is, we think, too soon to tell exactly what arrangements will be appropriate for locally-engaged Hong Kong Chinese serving with the British forces, but I can assure the noble Lord. Lord Cledwyn, that

85
we shall certainly continue to fulfil our obligations towards them as responsible employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, asked about human rights. I appreciate his concern on this point. I believe that the agreement makes full provision, and indeed remarkably full provision, for the preservation of human rights, including freedom of the press and of belief, after 1997.
Almost all of your Lordships referred to the important question of constitutional development in Hong Kong up to 1997. I fully accept the legitimate concerns which have been expressed that we should develop a solidly based democratic administration in Hong Kong in the period up to 1997. The Hong Kong Government recently produced a White Paper on the subject, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. This envisages a step-by-step approach to more representative government. This approach takes into account the special position and customs of Hong Kong. A review of further possible developments will be held in 1987, before the 1988 elections.
In the extensive consultations which preceded the White Paper it is worth noting that while many people favoured the idea of direct elections in principle few wanted them in the immediate future—a point made on a number of occasions in the course of the debate. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the form of representative government evolved for Hong Kong must match the special conditions of the territory. Public comment on the Green Paper was generally in favour of its aims. There was understanding of the gradual nature of its proposals.
The public recognise the need to ensure that the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong are not put at risk by introducing too many constitutional changes too quickly, but the Hong Kong Government has responded to public feeling by doubling the number of Legislative Council members to be elected in 1985. There was little evidence of support for any moves towards direct elections in 1985. While many people favoured the idea of direct elections, few wanted them in the immediate future.
In preparing the White Paper the Hong Kong Government has recognised the need to keep in mind the provisions of the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong and the proposals have been framed accordingly. The White Paper proposals are entirely consistent with the provisions in the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong, which specified that the Legislature of the Hong Kong SAR shall be constituted by elections. The nature of the electoral system after 1997, however, is not specified in the draft agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked me a question about proportional representation. I take the noble Lord's point, but he will be aware that we in the Government do not see the matter in quite the same light as he does. However, I can say to him that Hong Kong is in many ways sui generis, and I think that we should be careful not to project images from political experience elsewhere haphazardly into that territory.
He also asked a question about the high proportion of expatriate magistrates. I have a good deal of sympathy with what he has said about the need for more localisation with the transfer of sovereignty in
86
1997 in mind. The Hong Kong Government has pursued a policy of localisation for many years, and with considerable success. They would be the first to agree that it needs to be continued; and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that the magistracy is an important area in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, asked a specific question about the prospects for developing trade with China—a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, that the prospects for trade with China are bright, but successful trade in China will continue to need hard work from the companies involved. They should now take the initiative, and I can assure him that Her Majesty's Government will give every support.
A number of your Lordships referred to the suggestion that the Government should make an annual report to Parliament and that there should be an annual debate on Hong Kong. I am always a little suspicious of the idea of set timetables, but I take note of what has been said and I agree that regular accountability to Parliament is important. I have no doubt that Parliament will maintain the interest in, and commitment to, Hong Kong that has been amply illustrated by this debate.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Baroness passes on to another subject, I wonder whether she would deal with this matter? First, may I, on behalf of noble Lords, thank her for the thorough way in which she is responding to the debate. On the point of further debates on Hong Kong, either on a White Paper or in another way, she will know that there are a number of questions. However thorough and zealous she has been in answering, there are a number of points which remain unanswered and as the years proceed a number of matters will arise on which Parliament and this House will need answers. Will she give an undertaking that even if set debates are not possible there will be, in Government time, opportunities for the Government to report on the way matters are developing in Hong Kong?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I certainly take note of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has raised. In the course of the next 13 years up to 1997 I have no doubt that there will be a number of matters that Parliament will wish to debate. He would not expect me at this stage to give guarantees about any specific matters, but I am sure that the point that he has made is an important one. It was made by his right honourable friends in another place. It is certainly one to which I shall draw the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that Parliament will continue to maintain its interest in Hong Kong.
The Government, for their part, will continue to discharge effectively the obligation to assure the administration of Hong Kong up to 1st July 1997. I wish to emphasise that point again. It will be our prime aim to maintain Hong Kong's stability and prosperity. There can be no doubt of our commitment to the territory.
I have been encouraged by the favourable reception this agreement has received from your Lordships. If

87
the Motion is approved my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will visit Peking on 19th December accompanied by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to sign the agreement. They will then visit Hong Kong.
My Lords, an era of Hong Kong's life will come to an end in 1997 but another, no less full of promise, will begin. The British and Chinese Governments are committed to making the agreement work, but success of the agreement will depend not just on China and the United Kingdom but also on the people of Hong Kong. We have given the people of Hong Kong a firm basis on which to build a prosperous future. They are, as we all know, a resourceful and resilient people, and I believe that they will make Hong Kong in the 21st century an even more striking financial, economic and social success than it is today. The agreement gives them the foundation on which to build. It is a good agreement, and it constitutes a firm foundation. That is why I commend it to the House today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pound Note: Withdrawal
8.38 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the substantial public opposition to the planned withdrawal of the £1 note in December 1985, they will reconsider their decision.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, after listening to the fascinating and illuminating debate on the future of Hong Kong I would ask the House now to consider a subject that is a little closer to home; it is the contentious decision of the Treasury to withdraw the £1 note from our currency next year. This is the second occasion that this debate has been on the Order Paper. We were thwarted on the first occasion by 38 enthusiastic speeches on the subject of televising debates. I am glad that the Hong Kong debate has not attracted quite such numbers and has given us a little time tonight to discuss this subject. I am particularly grateful to all noble Lords who have indicated that they wish to intervene in this debate and have stayed behind, and who indeed will make the debate much more valuable.
I feel I should say at the start that the Treasury's record in this whole affair to kill off the £1 note looks, in my view, at best quite appalling and at worst highly arrogant. To consider that the Treasury had no public duty to hold any proper consultations prior to announcing the removal of the £1 note from our currency is truly amazing. Our currency is part of the root of our national life. It is a major currency of the world, even it if is not always valued in the currency markets with the respect it deserves.
Our notes go back to the mid-1700s. The £1 note goes back to 1797; the £5 note to 1793; the £10 note to 1757; and the £20 note to 1725. Our currency paper makers of those early days—Portals—are still suppliers to the Bank of England, as well as being the world's largest suppliers to over 60 countries. Our security printers—de la Rue and Bradbury Wilkinson—have effectively been in busines for over 200 years and also combine to supply over 160 countries with their currencies.
The origins of the Royal Mint go back much further and it, too, provides coins for many countries. But above all there sits the Bank of England, whose renowned world-wide reputation can perhaps be best illustrated when one recalls the skilful way it handled the compensation of the United States hostages in Tehran, when it was trusted by both sides at a very delicate time.
That is the rich heritage of experience that surrounds our currency. From all this it seems hardly conceivable that a major change can be decided without the normal process of consultation; a change that throws us up a stark imbalance between our coins and our notes—what we have known for all our lives; a change that in future will mean a minimum of nine coins' change for a £5 note for a small purchase in a shop; a change that will surely increase the chance of confusion as to which coins are which in the purses of the old and the blind.
The only mitigating circumstances I can find in favour of the Treasury in these unhappy circumstances is that it has consistently stated that the £1 coin would eventually replace the £1 note. But this threat was seen by most people, until the sudden announcement last month, as a long-term threat, similar to the decision on the third London airport which has now been running for 15 years. Fears of any immediate action were further dispelled, I would suggest, by the Prime Minster's own comments last December, when she not only indicated her preference for the £1 note, but also added that she had reason to believe that the £1 note would be retained. It has never been disclosed how the Treasury won the day against such a formidable ally of the £1 note.
At the time of the announcement last month the Treasury gave three reasons to support its decision. First, it was said that the coin was now widely accepted. This, I suggest, is an amazing claim. If any noble Lords or noble Baronesses ask their banks how they judge the coin, they will find that the banks almost invariably say that they have stacks of unused coins in their vaults and that customers simply do not want to know them. In shops also your Lordships will find the same answer, that there is a strong current of anti-coin feeling among customers. The consumer polls show even more positive reactions. For example, the BBC's breakfast television programme spent a week inviting viewers to write in about their attitudes. Over 10,000 letters were received in support of saving the £1 note, from breakfast time viewing alone. I doubt the claim that the coin has been accepted. In fact on the evidence there is a good case to abolish the coin.
The Treasury's second reason given in support of its decision is that the public now so abuse the pound £1 note that the life of the note in circulation has been reduced to only nine or 10 months. The Treasury might have added that our currency paper is of some of the worst quality in the world, despite the fact that we have home suppliers. I understand that there is available a better quality paper which would give at least twice the life at little extra cost. Why we do not improve the quality of our paper even to Hong Kong standards is something that I hope my noble friend can touch upon later.
The third reason the Treasury gave was that by abolishing the £1 note it would save £3 million in the first year. Whether this figure includes the extra cost to the clearing banks for handling millions of £1 coins or the loss of overnight interest on their balances I doubt very much. Whether the £3 million saving takes into account the loss, or possible loss, of 100 jobs at the printing works at Loughton caused by the death of the £1 note is again perhaps something my noble friend can touch on later.
The decision by the Treasury to kill off the £1 note is supported, I believe, by the weakest of arguments. There is no logic why the £1 note cannot survive alongside the £1 coin for many years to come. This forced decision is, I believe, wholly bad. It demeans our currency, and it is clearly against majority public opinion. I know that the Government are sensitive to public opinion, as indeed are all good Governments. They should accept now that there is an overwhelming voice to retain the £1 note, and it would be a mistake not to consider this.
I believe my noble friend should take away tonight for further consideration what will be said by others far better qualified than myself. It is an overwhelming case to save our £1 note.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, by no means for the first time the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has shown that in matters of public concern his judgment is often sounder than that of this Government. I believe the Government to be wrong in their decision to withdraw the £1 note, and I am sure they are wrong, too, in the way they have reached their decision and in the reasons or excuses which they have given for that decision. In the first place, there should have been consultation. In a matter of this kind, when the day-to-day interests of the general public are involved, surely a serious effort should have been made to have established public wishes in the matter.
I can only say that when the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, answered a Question on this point it looked as though he had been searching the scriptures for some guidance on how to reply. His reading appeared to have been selective, because he came up with advice from the good book that a soft answer might turn away wrath. His answer to a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, about whether there had been any consultation regarding public reaction to the proposed withdrawal of the £1 note may have turned away immediate wrath, but it must have made very sad reading to the noble Lord when he came to look at Hansard the next day.
The Government have no mandate for this action. They did no consult the people concerned about withdrawal of the note, whatever questions they might have asked about the shape or size of the coin which is to replace the note. The arguments about cost are no more convincing. Some day we might have a really fundamental discussion about profit or loss in the issue of currency and credit. But if the Government thought that an economy was called for in the administration of the issue of £1 notes, as the noble Earl asked, what tests were made of better quality paper? What estimates were made about the cost of better paper
90
with a longer life? Can we have an answer to that? Can we be told what was done? Were the clearing banks consulted about the extra costs of transporting coins and modifying all their dispensing machines?
But the most serious point that the noble Lord made in his answer on 22nd November was when he said that those who did not like £1 coins could always use a £5 note. I am bound to recall the noted saying that if they cannot afford bread, they can always eat cake. If the lowest denomination in paper currency is to be a £5 note, then that note will be devalued. The noble Lord will find himself in many situations (as shall we all) when he will be offering a £5 note where once a £1 note or two £1 notes would have been acceptable.
This proposed change will add certainly to inflationary pressure. I remember the days when I spoke for the Treasury from the Box opposite and I had to justify the 100-pence pound against the ten shilling system. I am quite sure now with the benefit of hindsight that the Treasury arguments which I then used were wrong and that the Opposition of the day were right when they said that the proposed change would be inflationary. The Labour Government of the day were asked to think again. They should have done so.
I understand that the present Prime Minister has said that, after giving way on the students' grants, there will be no more concessions. That would be an unfortunate posture to adopt, especially for a Government elected by a minority of the electorate. In this case, the right honourable Lady would he much better advised to think again. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who, when we debated the case of the 100-pence pound, said that to think again might mean that minutes must be torn up and decisions reversed; that there might even be faces to be saved, but that it would be worth it.
There is no party point here, my Lords. Any taunts about U-turns would be uncalled for; but stubbornness, I am sure, would be regretted. This is a case where public opinion, if properly assessed, ought to prevail or certainly should be taken much more seriously into account. Certainly, an adult electorate should be given all the relevant facts. And, even if there are some small apparent savings to be made in the mechanical processes of currency manufacturing, the basic, longer-term economics of the nation could show a different result. I hope that the noble Lord when he comes to reply, speaking for the Government, will be able to tell us that he at any rate will endeavour to ensure that this decision will be looked at again.
8.54 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for bringing up this subject. I may be exaggerating, but I think I was the first person to bring this subject to the attention of the House several months ago in my Question. My interest in this subject has been aroused by the fact that at my place in the country, where I have the grounds and gardens open to the public, we have many tens of thousands of people who come in. Your Lordships would be surprised at the great difficulty that we have in getting the public to accept these £1 coins. I would say that certainly less

91
than 10 per cent. will accept them and even then only after argument.
Of course there are many disadvantages to this coin and we have already heard some of them this afternoon, so I shall not repeat them. One of the serious disadvantages, which I think my noble friend mentioned, was the great difficulty that old people and people with bad eyesight have in handling them, especially in the evening. Of course, it is not everybody who uses taxis, I know, but in using many other forms of transport, they have great difficulty in seeing these coins. I think they are a very badly designed coin and I cannot imagine why, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, there has not been more consultation with the public. I could easily be wrong here, but there appears to have been no consultation and the only excuse that I have heard from the Government is, "You must remember that when the golden sovereign was done away with, when the paper currency was brought in, there was a great fuss but it soon died down".
My Lords, that is quite a different matter. After all, the golden sovereign had an intrinsic value. I think that I am right in saying that, certainly for 100 years, it has more than maintained its value. Today, we are asked to choose this extremely small and very inconvenient coin—inconvenient especially if one has a hole in one's pocket, not that I have, but with a lot of coins in one's pocket it becomes a possibility. We are asked to accept these very small, inconvenient coins made of a base metal and which have no intrinsic value.
I think that we really do have too many small coins. Perhaps it is impudent of me to advise the Treasury; but, if they are insistent upon having a £1 metal coin, then I would suggest that they do away with the 50p piece and make that the £1 coin. If they do that—and I do not suppose they will though I hope they will—they must colour it with a far more golden colour than the present coin because it is very difficult to tell the difference between the present coin and the 20p piece. I do hope that the Treasury will withdraw these coins and, if they are insistent upon a coin with a £1 value, that, as I say, they will make it larger and far more easily seen.
I will not speak for too long, but I have to apologise to my noble friend who introduced this debate and to the House. When I rang up the Whips' office—and I do not blame them—I was told that the Hong Kong debate would probably end between 7.30 and 8.00. I have a train to catch and, if I do not catch it, I shall not get home tonight. I hope therefore that your Lordships, and especially my noble friend the Minister, will forgive me if I leave before the debate ends. Of course, that depends upon how quickly the debate goes. but I do not imagine that it will be over in an hour.
My Lords, I should like to plead with the Government to think again on this coin. I have had practical experience of its use—although perhaps I should say, "We have had practical experience" (not using the Royal plural but referring to people on my estate)—of the great difficulty in getting the public, and especially foreigners, to accept this coin. I would again
92
ask the Treasury (who are a very tough nut to crack; and of that I can give many instances, but this is not the time to do so) to think again.
9 p.m.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, it was not my intention originally to come to the House today, but in view of my past close connection with the subject of this debate I felt I ought not to miss the opportuity to take part in it.
Some of your Lordships may be aware that for seven years between 1955 and 1962 all Bank of England notes bore my signature. During those years my interest in the note circulation was constant and acute, being responsible, as all Chief Cashiers of the Bank of England are, for satisfying in the first instance the Governors and Court of Directors of the Bank of England. and finally the Government of the day, that the banknotes in issue serve the needs of the public. I am, in fact, now the senior living former holder of that office and the last to put his name on the old white Bank of England "fiver"—for my money, the most beautiful banknote ever produced, although unhappily not the most secure against forgery and impractical for use in these post-inflationary days.
My memories of those far-off days are now fading, and I have had no opportunity to refresh them by contact with the Bank of England. Nevertheless, I hope that I may be able to be of some help in this debate, even though I know nothing about consultations or financial savings.
May I start with some even more distant reminiscences? When I first joined the Bank of England in 1927 this country was on the gold standard and the gold sovereign was the principal coin of the realm although not, if I remember rightly, any longer in general circulation. The currency consisted of high sum Bank of England notes down to the smallest denomination of £5, supplemented by Treasury notes for £1 and 10 shillings signed by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, first Bradbury and then Fisher.
In 1928 the Treasury notes, which had been issued in a hurry at the beginning of the first world war, no doubt to replace the sovereign, which was withdrawn, were withdrawn and replaced by Bank of England notes of the same denominations. I would remind your Lordships that in those distant days an ounce of fine gold cost 85 shillings.
My princely salary, much envied by my friends, when I entered the Bank was £150 a year; within a few years I was married on rather less than twice that amount; and I lived comfortably enough, with coal, which we all burnt in those days, at half-a-crown a hundredweight. This only illustrates what we all know only too well: the pound in your pocket is now far from being what it was. Is it therefore reasonable to resist the change from note to coin which the Government have now decided to force upon us?
Many other countries use coins for similar or larger amounts in conjunction with banknotes, the smallest denomination of which is at least five times the value of the coin. For example, the French 10-franc piece is nearly equivalent to a pound, and the Swiss have a 5-franc piece worth nearly £2. This is much the same

93
size as our 50p piece. On the other hand, the US one dollar bill, worth (at least for the time being) nearly £1, is still in active circulation and, as far as I know, is likely to remain so. Incidentally, I have always felt that the US dollar bills looked more like real money than most currencies, and at one time, when I was Chief Cashier, I had hoped to imitate them by making all our banknotes the same size; but the opposition of the blind put paid to that idea.
I got much further some 25 years ago with a plan to issue a £2 note. That proposal got as far as the Cabinet, who turned it down because, they decided, it would look inflationary. If we had such a note today the prospective loss of the £1 note might not be causing so much unhappiness, although I must admit that the United States two-dollar bill has never been a great success.
Certainly an essential characteristic of any currency is that it should serve the needs and wishes of the people who use it. I think there can be little doubt that the large majority of users want the £1 note to stay. It is, however, a very uneconomic note to retain in use. Its much reduced value has resulted in its vastly accelerated circulation, so that after only a few months its condition is so poor that it has to be replaced by a new note. The consequent pressure on the Bank of England printing works is unremitting and obviously pointless as against a £1 coin, which will remain in circulation for some 40 years and involve much less expense over such a period.
I would remind your Lordships that for many years past the Bank of England has reluctantly had to reissue used notes, a thing it never did in earlier days, because the printing works is just not capable of coping with the vast demand for notes in the country at present. But, it is said by other noble Lords and will be said by many other people, coins are heavier than notes and in quantity are a nuisance to carry around, whether in a trouser pocket or in a handbag: so why, it is asked, is not user preference being respected, despite the additional cost of doing so?
From time to time suggestions are made that the life of banknotes could be substantially lengthened by coating them with plastic or by some other special treatment. Ideas of this sort have been around for a long time. I remember that 30 years ago the Bank examined a Dutch process called, if I remember rightly, the van Houten process for coating banknotes. We did not find it acceptable. I do not remember the detailed technical reasons for rejecting it, but no doubt the effect of increased thickness on handling notes in bulk was a consideration. I am sure that research has continued since my time, but not much seems to have come of it yet. Certainly the idea that an improved quality of paper might be used is also worthy of examination.
Like most people I shall be sorry to see the £1 note go, but I am sure that the Government's decision to force the issue by withdrawing the note is an acknowledgment of their inability to effect the change by persuasion. I have tried to illustrate both sides of the question, but I feel forced reluctantly to accept that the Government are right. But what they are doing focuses attention on our coinage. As your Lordships all know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is also Master of the
94
Royal Mint. I do not think he can be proud of the motley collection of coins he issues for our use. They have no rational graduation in size, and are not designed as a set. As individual coins they give little pleasure to the eye, unlike so many beautiful coins of the past.
I would recommend that the money to be saved by replacing the £1 note with the £1 coin be used to help to finance the design and issue of an entirely new coinage. I know that widespread use of coin machines makes this a daunting task, but it should, nevertheless, be undertaken. If it were to be tackled, I strongly recommend that the Swiss coinage—which I have used frequently on my visits to Basle over many years—be taken as a model. The Swiss coins are not unduly large. They are graduated in size strictly according to their value, and with milled edges in the case of higher values. They are extremely well produced, and are the better for all being round and designed in a traditional manner. In short, they look good coins—which, in my opinion, ours do not. With such a coinage, the present discontent which we are debating tonight would, I believe, fade away.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I must declare an interest in as much as I am a director of one of the companies in the Portals Group which, as I am sure your Lordships all know, manufacture the paper for the Bank of England and, incidentally for the Scottish £1 note and for some 100 other currencies throughout the world. I should also like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for providing us with the opportunity to discuss this subject this evening.
I, too, believe that it is regrettable that Her Majesty's Government have taken such precipitous action to discontinue the Bank of England £1 note. The warning was in weeks rather than months. It is also to be regretted that this decision was taken without any prior consultation with consumer or other interested bodies. One can argue the pros and cons of the £1 coin itself; but, as we have heard from a number of other speakers this evening, this question remains: what do the public want?
We have been given a totally unsupported figure of a saving of £3 million achievable by replacing the note with the coin. I suspect that any accountant worth his salt could shoot holes in that calculation. There again, there have been criticisms about the durability of the present £1 note. It is probably not generally known that since 1966 the Bank of England has progressively and increasingly recirculated the £1 note. Prior to that—as the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, has already said—the Bank of England only issued new notes. Evidently, this practice has placed an increasing demand on the quality of the paper used. This challenge was met by Portals Limited, with the development of a much stronger paper; one which can be folded 3,500 times as against 1,500 foldings previously. May I say to the uninitiated that a machine is used to fold the paper for the purposes of such testing. The new paper will stand up to 3,500 foldings. This more than doubles the life-span of a note, with only a marginal increase in the cost of the paper.

95
Regrettably, the Bank of England has not adopted this higher quality of paper for any of our banknotes, with the exception of the £50 note. Surprisingly enough, our friends north of the border have chosen the paper for their Scottish £1 note. A similar quality of paper is used by the Americans for their one dollar bill. One is tempted to ask whether the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street is not being a little too parsimonious.
I should like to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they continue the £1 note and the coin in tandem; that the Bank of England adopts the higher quality of paper that I have mentioned; and that consultations take place to obtain the views of the general public as to whether or not they want the £1 note to continue. However, it may be that the Government are determined to have their way and that no amount of argument can persuade them to change their minds. If that is so, I would ask them to give serious consideration to at least introducing a £2 note. This would be quite within the criteria followed by other developed countries (although I believe I stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien), none of which has such a large step between its highest denomination coin and the lowest denomination note. We are contemplating a 5:1 step from a £1 coin to a £5 note. We have already heard about the number of coins which one can end up with after proffering a £5 note; one can get back anything between 9 and 11 coins. Your Lordships will agree that there is a strong argument for a £2 note if the £1 note is withdrawn.
There is another consideration to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, and which I believe is relevant when discussing English bank notes. Our friends overseas see our bank notes not only as the currency of this country but also as an example of our ability to produce quality paper and print. I suggest that when consideration is being given to the design and quality of our bank notes, decisions should not be taken solely on economic grounds, but the image they create abroad should also be given weight. Before the introduction of the present smaller notes in 1978, the £1 note was held in high regard as an example of British quality. Sadly, since then it has commanded less and less respect with no improvement in the paper quality and with a cheaper printing process.
Britain has the largest producer of banknote paper in the world and two large commercial banknote printing companies whose total exports of paper and print add up to considerably more than £50 million a year. In fact, we have probably the largest banknote producing industry in the world. I ask: do we not have responsibility to help promote that industry though the excellence of our own notes?
9.14 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I join this debate rather lightheartedly simply because I want to make the point that some people, like me, ask for pound coins and not notes but it is sometimes quite difficult to get them. Why do I say this? It is because I have a purse which has a pocket which will take only tightly-folded £1 notes and it is always a little on my conscience when folding those notes. It is rather anti-social.
96
To be rather more serious, I accept that the majority of people are opposed to the change. I agree with the view that probably the Government hope that people will get used to the £1 coin, but, as they are not doing so, they feel they ought to take action now rather than wait. Anyway, what is the point in saying that people were not consulted when we know jolly well that if they were consulted, they would vote against it? Many long-term measures are unpopular. Do we want in future that we all press a button in referendums on every subject of debate, without first having tried to get across the facts? Even then, this Athenian approach does not appeal to most people, except on some selected issues; for example, what about capital punishment?
I acknowledge that the £1 coin can be difficult to distinguish from a 5p coin in some lighting, but it has greater thickness which can be felt. The £1 and the £5 notes have a similar problem in some lighting and only a small size difference is then apparent. I am sure that the Government will say that the £1 coin is, and will in future, be needed more and more for coin boxes. One has only to file down a disused 5p slot and make some alterations for a £1 coin to be acceptable. I am inclined to think that is the reason why the Government made the new coin that size, but I may be wrong. If I am right, no doubt the coin box industry had a strong voice in the decision to produce a coin of this size.
A different size coin, somewhat larger than the 5p, would have helped. Never mind; it is a waste of time to protest as there are now too many protestors on so many issues. I think we must accept this coin. Let me suggest that the personal handbag makers could now reap the benefit and perhaps even bring again into circulation the old gold coin holder, so conveniently put into the waistcoat pocket as an appendage of a watch chain.
In all this we must realise that the coin is worth less than the old 10 shilling note, when we had very large and heavy halfcrowns which, I suppose, if one wishes to go back, roughly equated to the £1 coin of today. So the weight of the new coin is minimal. If gentlemen insist on keeping coins in their trouser pockets, it will mean that their wives will have to mend them more frequently, and there will be an inevitable loss of money for those who are athletically inclined. I strongly suggest to them that they use a purse, which is much more sensible.
On the whole I support the introduction of the £1 coin. Although I know that it is unpopular, I believe that people will become accustomed to it and, with a little more inflation, its benefit for use in slot machines will be apparent.
9.18 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Rodney, I, too have to declare an interest as a director of Portals Holdings. Lest your Lordships should think that Portals is badly in need of succour from this decision. perhaps I should add that that is very far from being the case. The loss of the note will scarcely be noticed, except in slightly different delivery dates. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to accept that I am capable of taking a totally objective view.

97
I think that all the arguments that it is possible to adduce for keeping the pound note have been adduced, but there is one thing which I must say which has been said once or twice before. It is that the Government have surely behaved in an abrupt and arrogant way in the speed with which they have inflicted this news upon us. It may well be that it was impossible to consult the public, but surely they should have gone to the clearers and discussed it with them. Surely they should not give the Bank of England printery only 10 days' notice and the National Westminster Bank, or whoever else it may be, only a fortnight's notice. That is a very curious style of government. It is something to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is smiling.
Let us agree that it was a good idea to mint the pound coin; it was time that we had it, and there are a number of uses for it, such as in vending machines. I am told that London Transport on the buses and more particularly on the Underground has welcomed it. But why, oh, why, that ridiculous little object which just from time to time one finds nestling among a number of 10p coins in one's pocket? It is terribly easy even for the likes of us to get confused about how much money we are carrying, but we should think of the old people who find it immensely difficult. I know of two ladies who have to take the pound coins off their old mothers every week and given them nice, even if occasionally tatty, pound notes instead.
We were immensely interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, with all his experience, had to say. but I was left in some doubt as to where he really stood on this matter. What we heard him say in—dare I say it?—a rather wistful way perhaps, was that it would he nice to redesign the whole coinage and start from scratch. Maybe it would, but given that that is not likely to happen, I wonder whether really he was saying to us that, with the coinage being as it is, it is right to lose the pound note and substitute the pound coin.
Lord O'Brien of Lothbury: My Lords, may I clear the noble Earl's mind on that subject? I really believe that this has to be done and that the coin must replace the note. It is sad, but I think that that is so.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. I hope that he did not mind my taking him up on the matter.
We have been given a number of reasons as to why the change should be made, but I have to say that none of them is immensely credible. I shall not enlarge on that, because other noble Lords have already done so. Now we come to the real question, which is: Why was it really done, and done so suddenly? We have yet to be given reasons that we can really believe.
I shall be a little bold and hazard a guess. I ask your Lordships to remember that the Royal Mint is owned by the Treasury and has nothing to do with the Bank of England. It is located in Llantrisant, an area of very high unemployment. We all know, I think, that for years the Royal Mint has been exporting coins to other countries, and with the mints that are growing around the world that business is likely to be declining. Indeed. if we take a look at what has happened to the
98
private mint in Birmingham and see what a pickle that is in, credibility is lent to that theory.
I suggest that the fact of the matter is that these manufacturers have done a bad bit of marketing, and they are overstocked with what has turned out, to their horror, to be a slow-selling line. It is just as simple as that. They have found that this line cannot compete with the paper product of the Bank of England. So they have persuaded the Chancellor that to give them a monopoly is the only answer.
What a strange concept, coming from a Tory Government who believe—and I think they are right, too—in the market place as being the most important tool in the running of the economy. You see, my Lords, if you believe in the primacy of the market place, you believe in this right that the public has to make its own choice. The public has made it choice abundantly clear and does not wish to he deprived in this arrogant and callous way.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for giving us the opportunity to debate the threat to our £1 note. This is not the relatively trivial matter that the Government evidently suppose. On the contrary, the decision, if implemented, will cause millions of people continuing irritation and inconvenience and will involve them in continuing unnecessary expenditure, albeit to a minor degree. This is leaving aside the wholly valid historical and sentimental considerations to which the noble Earl alluded. For this reason, opposition to the change, if it happens, will not be a nine-days' wonder which will fade away long before the next election—far from it. I think the Government should take note of this.
Let me start by enlarging on an excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, when we touched upon this matter during Starred Questions several days ago. This concerned the question of weight. The subject of weight was treated then in a somewhat flippant fashion, but it is a serious point. Suppose that a man goes into a shop and makes purchases to a value of £ 1.38, for which he tenders, as one might expect, a £5 note. At the moment his change, amounting to £3.62, is likely to consist of three £1 notes, a 50p piece, a 10p and a two pence piece, weighing in total 35 grams. However, one year from now, if the Government cannot be persuaded to change their minds, the weight of that change will rise from 35 to 60 grams, an increase of no less than 71 per cent.
The Chancellor will doubtless argue that this is a necessary burden so as to enable taxpayers to save a collective £3 million per annum. But I would submit that the Chancellor's calculations are mistaken, for this reason. Nearly all heterosexual males, plus a substantial proportion of those who are otherwise inclined, do not carry their coins in purses dangling from their wrists, as the Government seem to imagine. No; they carry them in the pockets of their suits or of their sports coats—pockets which are already sagging dangerously under the weight of what must be the heaviest coinage in world, even without the added £1 coin.

99
There are 17 million adult males in Britain. If each one of these adult males has to spend an extra £1 a year on having the pockets of his suits and jackets repaired or replaced in consequence of £1 notes being replaced by coins—and this is a conservative estimate—then, far from the taxpayers saving £3 million a year, taxpayers collectively will be a net £14 million per annum out of pocket, possibly in more senses than one.
Moreover, one reads in The Times today that the clearing banks are also opposed to this move in that it will cost them several million pounds a year in added handling charges, although no doubt the clearing banks are more readily able to afford this money than members of the public. This is really the answer to those who tentatively support the Government on the grounds that dirty and crumpled £1 notes are aesthetically displeasing. Yes, indeed, that is so: but, conversely, there are few things more aesthetically pleasing than a crisp new £1 note. There is no reason why we should not have one, whether plastic coated or in its existing form particularly when, as I hope I have demonstrated, they will actually cost the public less.
Other countries have certainly arrived at a similar conclusion. The United States, Canada and Australia have all kept the paper dollar. The average value of the dollars of those three countries, as of last Saturday, was 75⅔p. So the average value of the dollar notes is approximately 15 per cent. (that is to say, less than one-sixth) of the value of the smallest note that the Government now propose to retain; that is, the £5 note. Even if one treats dollars as a special case (although I do not see why on earth one should) the position is not so very different in Europe. The average value of the smallest note in circulation in the six original EEC countries—France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg; I have not had time to investigate those that have joined since—as at last Friday's closing prices, is £1·66; that is to say, less than one-third of the value of the smallest note proposed for England and Wales.
There is another group of people extremely anxious and upset about the Government's proposals. It is the group of people who organise charities and who collect for charity. At the moment, many individuals of modest means, very few of whom have bank accounts, have the habit of putting a £1 note in an envelope and sending it off to the charity of their choice, either on a regular basis or when there is an appeal for some emergencey such as the Ethiopian famine disaster. Clearly, no one will put a £1 coin in an envelope. The sort of people about whom I am talking cannot afford to put in a £5 note; and few of them are prepared to stand in a long Post Office queue in order to pay over the odds for a £1 postal order. So the charities are extremely worried that their takings will slump.
Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, who, unfortunately, is not able to take part in the debate today, told me less than an hour ago that a charity in which she is interested had received £575 this morning alone in separately-posted £1 notes. Naturally, the noble Baroness and her colleagues are very worried that this sort of figure may never be repeated and that their takings will decline quite dramatically if the Government's proposals go through.
100
At the very least, if the Government are absolutely adamant about abolishing the £1 note, I urge them to introduce a £2 note without delay, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodney. also urged. Not only would this help the charities at least to some degree; it would also help the clearing banks and, above all, make the day-to-day life of millions of our fellow citizens just a little less difficult.
9.34 p.m.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, I shall be brief, as a number of the points that I had intended to make have already been made—surprisingly, many of them by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, whose career has been so very different from, and so much more distinguished than, my own. May I be forgiven if it appears sentimental, but I feel that a matter of national pride is involved here. The £1 note is more than just a piece of paper. As the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, pointed out, on the note is written,
"I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of one pound".
and it is signed by the Chief Cashier on behalf of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The £1 note may recently have become less popular because it is so often in such a filthy state. I suggest that the only reason for this is that they are not withdrawn and replaced as often as they should be. Until a few years ago if one cashed a cheque at a bank, one was always given new £1 notes. I urge the Government to retain a reasonable supply of respectable £1 notes, even if they do go in for the £1 coin.
As to the coins, these appear to have been designed by different groups of students and distributed by the Mint on an ad hoc basis, and without much thought. Surely their size, their weight. their colour and their shape should relate to their value in some way which the public can understand. The £1 coin does not meet these criteria. It is just another medium-sized coin.
Trouser pockets are often over-weighted by coins which turn out to be 10p or 2p. Occasionally an honest cashier points out to me my mistake as I am offering 20p instead of the 1p or 5p which I had intended. Many of your Lordships' eyes, like mine, are not as good as they used to be. Just think of the number of elderly people there are in this country who pay out money in poor light and cannot rely on an honest cashier. I believe that we deserve something better than this from the Govenment and the Mint. Let us retain a decent £1 note and try to rationalise the coinage.
9.37 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this matter this evening. But surely this is a very great fuss about a very small matter? A sort of storm in a pocket book. Had it not been for the fact that the 1914 Currency Bill was introduced in both Houses on the third day of the 1914 war, I have no doubt that the issue of £1 notes which it introduced would have given rise to quite as loud lamentations as their prospective demise does today.
One pound coins in various forms have been with us since 1489–505 years—and the £1 note for only 70.

101
When the £1 note was issued in 1914 it was worth approximately I think 16 times as much as it is today so it was worth putting away carefully in a notecase. Today it is not; it has become change. It is only worth—as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said—the equivalent of about half-a-crown in my childhood. People complain of the weight of the £1 coin. Yet it is lighter than a half-crown, and I do not remember anybody complaining about the weight of half-crowns then. We were only too delighted to have any!
One of the troubles is the £1 coin itself. It is too similar in size and colour to the 5p piece and in a bad light they can easily be confused. The noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, touched on this aspect. But before decimalisation in the then two categories of coin the size reflected the value. The so-called silver ranged from the half-crown down to the threepenny bit; and the coppers from the penny to the farthing. Incidentally, I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that when we had the £1 coin we would then have nine coins; in fact, I think that after the demise of the half-pence piece we will end up with seven coins instead of eight, which we had in the days of pre-decimal coinage.
However, we seem to have lost this relationship between size and value which made it easy to distinguish coins one from another, even by feel in the dark, as the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, has just said. Although I think that we have had enough changes to be going on with for the time being, it is perhaps something to keep in mind for the future, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, would care to comment on this in his winding-up speech.
I shall not leave your Lordships in any doubt where I stand on this matter. I welcome the £1 coin; I should welcome even a £2 one or a £5 one because I much prefer them to dirty, crumpled notes. I think a lot of women do: perhaps we are more pernickety than men over this. Incidentally, during the Second World War when clean new £1 notes were rare my mother, who could not bear dirty notes, used to launder them, scrubbing them vigorously with a nail brush in the basin and then hanging them out over the hot towel-rail to dry. Most of them survived, such was the quality of the paper, But I wonder whether the plastic-coated note which has been suggested would survive. I am told that it tends to melt under heat.
Various noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in particular—are concerned lest their pockets go into holes under the extra weight of the coins, because modern pockets are very flimsy. I hope the manufacturers of trouser pockets will take note of the fears expressed by your Lordships this evening. I do not advocate handbags for men, although of course Scotsmen wear them as sporrans slung round their waists. But I do not see why men should turn up their noses at purses. In 1815 my predecessor was hit in the thigh by grapeshot at the Siege of Peronne. He had in
102
his trouser pocket a purse full of ducats, which took the force of the shot, and instead of being mortally wounded he was only badly bruised. I therefore recommend to your Lordships the use of purses, filled with £1 coins; they could be life-savers. Meanwhile, I commend the £1 coin and I suggest that the Poet Laureate should write a requiem for the £1 note.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I rise to say only a very few words, as is appropriate to this hour of the night. They result from a supplementary question I was trying to ask a couple of weeks ago on an occasion when many of us were on our feet at once. Our noble Leader, in his wisdom, suggested we should save up our curiousity for this forthcoming discussion. I was glad that he did so, since I had found myself trying to shout down the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, whose attitude I was endeavouring to support.
My question was to have been, and now is, whether, in view of the announcement that £1 notes are still to be available in Scotland, Her Majesty's Government will not introduce the necessary legislation to give Scottish £1 notes the status of legal tender both in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is evidently possible since it was done for Scotland possibly in the first world war; and I am reliably informed by my Scottish bank manager that it certainly was in the second world war, though rescinded in 1946.
If it could be done then, why not now, and, if for Scotland, why not for England? From the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place I understand that she would have liked to maintain the £1 note but feels it has to go for reasons of economy. My suggestion is a way of maintaining the £1 note without undue expense. The additional notes required for the South would, I imagine, have to be underwritten by the Bank of England, which might indeed reasonably expect to pay something towards the production of the extra notes, though less than if producing them itself.
Scottish notes are, I know, widely accepted in England, hut they are sometimes refused. I heard only recently of a Member of this House whose secretary arrived late for work and in great distress at having been turned off a bus when she only had a Scottish pound note with her. Since the status of legal tender has been given in the past to Scotland, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will try to meet the widespread liking for pound notes which the Prime Minister herself has endorsed, by enabling Scottish pound notes to fill the gap everywhere in Britain. No U-turn would be involved. Where there is a will there is a way.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, this has been quite a remarkable debate, and I should like to begin, as others have done, by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, on introducing it to your Lordships' House. A number of your Lordships and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, have supported the coin, although I must say that I thought the strongest case was made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who said that you could save a life by maintaining the coin. As I have said, it has been a fascinating debate. About the only case that I can think of for justifying maintaining the £1 coin as opposed to the £1 note, is if I thought that a lot of people were going to be shot in their pockets! This has also been a well-informed debate because among those who have contributed has been the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, who actually signed the notes for so many years.
I do not for a moment pretend that this is the most important issue that the nation has had to face in recent years or will have to face in the years ahead. But precisely because it is not the most vital issue of the day, because the cost is comparatively small, it is not unreasonable that a Government who care for the consumer should take account of what the consumer thinks on this issue. Let us assume that your Lordships in this debate truly represent the nation, which I am not suggesting for a moment is necessarily true, and that there was a substantial majority in favour of retaining the £1 note. I should have thought that one could go much further, as a number of noble Lords have said as regards what the consumer really wants. However going on that assumption, it seems to me—and the point has been made by a number of noble Lords—that the only real case that the Government have put to the country, to your Lordships' House and to the other place is the saving of £3 million a year. The Government have made no substantial case.
Having spent some time as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, cutting many billions of pounds of public expenditure, I do not sneeze at £3 million; it is not an unimportant sum. On the other hand, I am bound to say to your Lordships that that amount of money could almost be lost in what is called the "roundings". At one time I wondered what that meant. On the very first occasion I entered the Treasury my accountancy eye went up a column of figures which did not add up. I asked my private secretary to take the figures away and find out why they did not add up. He did not know at the time, but he came back a little later and said, "Chief Secretary, it is all because of the roundings. Each line is taken to the nearest million and it would be an enormous coincidence if they added up to the right figure". And of course they did not. Therefore, I suggest that it would not require a great deal of creative accounting—which the Chancellor has pursued in recent years to an even greater extent than I did. If one wanted to persist with the £1 note, as I hope the Government will, and as many of your Lordships have suggested, the cost would be lost in the roundings.
I would not lightly suggest to your Lordships that we should spend even £3 million of public money without giving careful thought to it. I should like to ask the
104
noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who is to reply to the debate, whether the true cost to the nation is going to be £3 million of saving or rather substantially more. It has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson—and I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether he has done a similar calculation—that it might cost £1 a year per male to strengthen trouser pockets at a cost of some £14 million.
I shall put it another way. As has also been referred to in this debate and as was suggested in an article published in The Times today, is it likely that the actual cost to the banks would be rather more than the £3 million saving that the Government give as their major reason—indeed, largely, their only reason—for doing away with the £1 note? I make it clear to your Lordships' House that I do not consider this particular £3 million as being in the same category as, say, saving £3 million of expenditure on the British Council or student grants, or anything of that kind. But I am bound to say that when the vast majority of the public—and I shall return to this point—clearly want to maintain and retain the £1 note, to seek to save £3 million out of a total public expenditure of £132 billion is perhaps a little miserly.
I have indicated, and a number of noble Lords have also made the point, that the public would like to see the £1 note retained. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Beswick made the point that, to put it mildly, there has been inadequate consultation. In another place, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 20th December at col. 406 of Hansard said:
"In terms of consumer choice, therefore, in a sense the public are being consulted through their daily use of the £1 note. If it is under threat, the threat comes from the way in which it is misused. The result has been a serious deterioration of £1 notes in currency. Tatty and dirty notes remain in circulation far longer than they did previously".
Of course, they would do, would they not? If you do not issue new ones, then the old ones will become tattier and tattier. That is one way of ensuring that you can use the argument that, because they are tatty, you should do away with them. I used similar arguments in other ways when I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but that is about the weakest argument I have ever heard. I hope that the Government do not believe that what they have done is to consult the public.
In another place at column 408, when talking about consultations, the Minister said:
"representatives of the bodies that we had consulted confirmed that the £1 coin, because of its relative thickness, was sufficiently identifiable for their purposes".
But who did he consult? He consulted representatives of bodies. If he had consulted the bodies, he might have obtained a rather different result because, as all of us know, the plain fact is that the vast majority of ordinary people would like to see the £1 note retained. Indeed, if the Government disagree, let them consult properly, let them consult the public.
For the sake of £3 million per annum it is not unreasonable for a Government that care so much about the consumer and the public to take the view of that public. We are told at column 403 of Hansard of

105
20th December that on 18th November 1983 the Minister said:
"It has always been the Government's intention to withdraw the £1 note from circulation in due course once the public have had time to become accustomed to the £1 coin".
Is the Minister really going to tell us this evening that the public have become so accustomed to the £1 coin that they prefer it to the note? The Minister is shaking his head; I see that that is not what he will argue. I am glad to hear that that is not what he will argue, because it would be a very difficult case to sustain. There is a case for sustaining both the £1 note and the £1 coin. The noble Lord, Lord Rodney, in a most interesting and well-informed speech made a very strong case for retaining both the note and the coin, though if it so happens that inflation continues at a faster pace than at present, it may be necessary to do away with the £1 note at some time in the future. Certainly no case has been made by the Government, nor, I would submit, by any noble Lord in the debate this evening, for doing away with it now. The case must surely be strongest to retain both the note and the coin.
Those who have argued most strongly for having the coin instead of the note—they are in the minority in this debate tonight—have made the strong point, having done so, that the coin is not a very good one and that we should have a different coin. I do not mind having a different coin—I certainly do not like the present £1 coin—but, whichever we do, I should have thought that if the Government were to consult on a wider basis they would find that there is a powerful case for accepting what the consumer would like; namely, to maintain the £1 note. It would be at a trivial cost. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we should press the Government most strongly to ensure that the public have what they want at such a comparatively small cost.
9.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have had a number of Starred Questions in your Lordships' House in the past about the £1 coin. As I have had to answer most of them, I suppose that I have become more aware than most of the mix of feelings in the House about the coin versus the note, let alone people's trouser pockets and indeed their sporrans as described by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. It is for that reason that I too welcome the opportunity that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has given us to debate the subject more fully, and the chance this Question provides for me to expand the Government's case for ending the production of the £1 note and relying eventually on the coin.
Perhaps I ought to correct the feeling that I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, imparted when he spoke earlier that when I had answered a Question earlier I indicated that it was all very well for people who had lots of coins to change them for a note. Essentially, yes, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred in that particular Question in a fairly lighthearted way to the difficulties people might face if they had a lot of coins; but the fact is that a lot of coins can be changed. Indeed, more than four coins can be changed for a note. I did not try to indicate when answering that
106
point that there was any particular lack of merit in the coin or indeed in the £1 note as such, but merely that if people carried excessive weight that could be changed up.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Rodney, chided us with lack of consultation in the whole process of the introduction of the £1 coin. There are two differences here. One is the question of introduction and the other is the question of the withdrawal of the £1 note itself. The Royal Mint was the focal point for the consultations about the introduction of the coin, although the Treasury and the Bank of England were closely associated. The Royal Mint circulated a pamphlet on the United Kingdom coinage to those principally concerned, inviting their comments on the proposals. Discussions were held with them as necessary, and I can let my noble friends have a copy of the document which I have here.
There was wide consultation. It was not as ad hoc as my noble friend Lord Fortescue suggested. The consultative document was also made available to Parliament. Bulk cash handlers heavily involved in the use of coins such as security companies, transport concerns, retailers, the service and vending industries, were consulted; and in recognition of the special problems of disadvantaged members of the population, organisations for the elderly, handicapped, and blind were also consulted. I can only assume—and I am sure that this will be the case—that those bodies consulted their individual members, which I think answers Lord Barnett's point.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer the question whether they were consulted about the coin, or consulted about withdrawing the £1 note?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall come to that in a moment. My noble friends also asked about who chose the design for the £1 coin. The Royal Mint Advisory Committee recommended designs to the Master of the Mint, who is my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who recommended the change to Her Majesty the Queen. The members of the committee were notable, and they were headed by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
The changes were announced in 1981, and it was made clear then that the coin would eventually replace the note but that the note would continue to circulate for some time after the coin was introduced. This was repeated when the coin was launched in 1983. The Autumn Statement in another place on 12th November confirmed all that had been said before, but for the first time put a provisional timetable on the life of the £1 note. But no one need fear that the £1 note will disappear overnight. It will continue to be available for at least another 12 months, perhaps longer, and in that period will continue to circulate alongside the coin, exactly as it does now.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I noted particularly what the noble Lord said—"perhaps longer than 12 months"—so presumably this matter has been

107
discussed in the Government. Would he care to elaborate on what he meant by that?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, no, I cannot elaborate on it any more than I have. I said that the period will be indeterminate, but will possibly be for longer than a year, and the coin will circulate in parallel with the note. I cannot be any more forthcoming than that.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about consultation before withdrawal, I have to tell the noble Lord, as I did in answer to an earlier question, that it was implicit in the introduction of the coin in the first place that it would in due course replace the note. I can tell him that there was no consultation about withdrawing it. There need not be because the consultation about the coin was the important thing, and that had already taken place.
From their initial consideration of the case for a £1 coin, the Government have of course been aware that any change in currency can be difficult for people to come to terms with. All new coins are unfamiliar, and time is needed to get used to them. There was consternation in 1914, for example, when the first of the modern series of notes was introduced and the Government of the day replaced the sovereign—representing the unit of sterling currency—with mere paper. People did not refer to that coin, gold though it may have been, as "a ridiculous little object" as my noble friend Lord De La Warr refers to the pound coin now.
Similarly, there was an outcry 15 years ago, when the 50p coin was introduced and the 10 shilling note withdrawn. Not so long ago the 20p coin was introduced and again there was some resentment. But over time people have come to recognise the utility of these new coins, and indeed both the 50p and the 20p pieces now enjoy considerable popularity.
To understand why the Government decided to replace the £1 note with a coin, one must essentially look at its real value, as did the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury. It was based on his magical signature at the bottom of the notes when my parents used to impress upon me the then value of £1 notes. The purchasing power, as he described, of the £1 unfortunately fell subtantially in the 1970s. For example, by March 1976 it was already less than the 10 shilling note at the time it was withdrawn in 1970. In short, because of its reduced purchasing power, people started to treat the £1 note as if it were a coin. As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury put it a couple of weeks ago, the purchasing power of the £1 note today is about the same as a half crown 30 years ago. Nobody then was arguing that we should have a paper half crown.
Any Government has a duty to keep the currency up to date in relation to purchasing power. I have seen letters in the press recently which make this very point. How much easier it is to pop £1 coin into a ticket machine at a Tube station and avoid queuing for a ticket.
As a result of this changed attitude towards £1 notes, because of the drop in their value, they get treated
108
differently from higher value notes. While in circulation they have become increasingly tatty: £1 notes circulate between customers and traders alongside coins. They are not returned to the bank for replacement as often as they used to be. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, the notes get pushed carelessly into pockets and the purse of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lady's ancestor's sporran, just like a coin and tend to stay in traders' tills rather than being banked. If notes do not get passed back to the banks, it is obviously much more difficult and expensive for the Bank of England to take them out of circulation and replace them. Unlike when its value was respected and it was thought to be perhaps a more precious article, the note now deteriorates quickly and lasts only 10 months in active circulation.
These facts about the way currency is used and the potential utility of a coin are not limited to experience in the United Kingdom. The same effects have been felt in many other industrialised countries. France, Germany, Switzerland and Japan are among those who have replaced their lowest-value notes by coins whose value is broadly comparable with the pound. Others, like Australia and Norway, are in the process of making a similar change. Like us, these countries want to ensure that the taxpayer gets a better deal over time. Even if we spent more on the note, it is unlikely that people would treat it any better; so that it would not lead to the longer-lasting, secure unit consistent with purchasing power which we all wish to see. To those who say, as some have said, that the authorities have deliberately rubbished the notes, I can assure your Lordships that there has been no attempt to restrain the number of new £1 notes being put into circulation over the last 12 months.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question? If what he says is correct about the coin against the note, why is it that in the United States of America the silver dollar is very much a scarcity rather than being in current circulation?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that the Americans treat their dollar notes in rather a different way from the way we do. If the noble Lord will bear with me, he will hear a little more from me on that subject in due course. I referred to other countries and to the fact that, like us. these countries want to ensure that the taxpayer gets a better deal over time, and that even if we spent more on the note it is unlikely that people would treat it any better. I went on to say that it would not necessarily lead to the longer-lasting, secure unit consistent with purchasing power that we all wish to see.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord really saying that the general public are deliberately ill-treating the notes?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, what I am saying is that they are not treating the notes in the same way as they did when the £1 was worth rather more than it is now. I can think of many examples of this. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to the way in

109
which he, himself, folds his notes a number of times in order to get them into his purse. There are others who just squash them into their pockets. The fact is that they are not treated in the same careful way as they were when those who handled them put them carefully in their wallets. I suppose it is deliberate, yes. But it is rather more careless, I think, than deliberate.
I referred earlier to the rubbishing of the notes, and I have said that that was not the case. Nevertheless, the deterioration continues. I have no doubt that we are all too aware of examples of pound notes which show just how tatty, torn, dirty and even disgusting in many cases they become in the circulation pattern into which they now fall. The prospect is that the problem will simply worsen unless steps are taken to break out of the vicious circle.
Whatever one's views, the coin has a number of advantages over the note. It has great potential use in vending machines and in meter use, and once the circulation increases this potential can be fully realised. There are millions of gas and electricity meters where a pound coin should be increasingly convenient, and hundreds of thousands of other machines have been converted to take the pound coin. It has been welcomed by organisations who represent the blind. If a pound coins falls it makes a noise, and that evidently helps blind people to find it. A note flutters to the ground silently. The coin's specification, its thickness, the milled edge with the security wording, and so on, make it relatively easy to distinguish from the 5p or 2p coins; and those design features, too, help the partially sighted and the handicapped.
There are those who have criticised the the coin as being difficult to distinguish and there have been those who have done so tonight: and also because it adds weight when carried in pockets or purses, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said. Perhaps I should now explain that long before the pound coin was launched extensive consultations were carried out about what would be the best design. Among those consulted, as I said earlier, were organisations representing the blind, the handicapped, the elderly and the consumer bodies. All their comments were taken into account in reaching final specifications. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, concern about weight was considered and the Government decided to introduce the relatively new 20 pence coin, which is displacing two of the heavier 10 pence coins. One in four of the ten pence pieces has now been removed from circulation; and the withdrawal of the halfpence coin should also help to make space in pockets, purses and tills, as well as to reduce weight.
Lord Molson: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Was this argument produced and arranged before the news in the newspapers today that the banks have now changed their view about the desirability of introducing this new coin?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall return to that point in a moment and pick it up with some of the points that were made by the noble Lords who actually took part in the debate. That would be very helpful to me; and I have an answer for that particular point later.
110
Ceasing to issue the £1 note saves money. Whilst the £1 coin admittedly costs a little more to mint than the note to print, it has a much longer life; it is estimated that a coin will last nearly 50 times as long as the note in active circulation—40 years, compared with the 10 months to which I referred earlier. That means that over the lifetime of the coin it is many times cheaper.
Of course there are those who will argue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that the saving of £3 million a year which will result from ceasing to print the note is itself not a large sum, and is small measured against the totality of public expenditure. But the Government cannot afford to ignore small public expenditure savings. Many of them taken together add up to a much larger sum which can help the Government in their efforts to restrain public expenditure.
I should like now to refer to a number of points that were raised in debate. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and my noble friend Lord Rodney, asked about the use of better quality paper, taking up a suggestion made by the Bank of England's paper suppliers, Portals, to use a more expensive product. Despite the declaimers made by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, I suppose they do have a degree of self-interest. Their argument is perhaps based on the fact that the United States' notes last longer, but the comparison is not straightforward. I think that this answers the point raised by my noble friend Lord Morris. The life of the notes is calculated differently. The United Kingdom note has an actual circulation life of only 10 months. I know that Portals say that it is 18 months for the United States, but currency is used differently. Here it is used more for low and medium value transactions. The proportion of wage earners paid in cash is greater in the United Kingdom. As cash is used more frequently, our notes become tattier. We cannot prove that better paper means a longer life. If notes, for example, did not tear quite so easily, the probability is that they would become even dirtier.
There is a cost to the banks from the switch to coins from notes because currently banks can return surplus bank notes to the Bank of England, whereas there is no such facility for returning coins to the Royal Mint. But coin has always been handled differently and the cost is offset by the benefit to the banks of the business which supplying cash to customers brings to them.
Several of your Lordships made mention of the position of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Government's position has always been that the note might eventually replace the coin. I can quote from a letter from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Mr. Norman Atkinson, a Member of another place, in which she said:
"There is no question of withdrawing the note for the time being. But equally, that may eventually be the right thing to do".
It was prudent to provide an alternative because of the rapid deterioration of the note to which I referred earlier. Equally, it was sound to retain the note as long as was reasonable to allow the public at large and retailers to adjust. But last Christmas, when all this cropped up, it would have been too soon to withdraw the note and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said so. As the matter now in hand does of course touch on public interest, my right honourable

111
friend the Prime Minister was of course consulted about the Chancellor's announcement on the 12th November.
My noble friend Lord Rodney raised the question of the £2 pound note. The possibility has been considered but, apart from the additional cost, a £2 pound note would tend to circulate much like the £1 note and so be open to the same objections of wear and tear with treatment as small change which I described earlier. These are reasons for substituting a coin for a note but not for introducing a new note. To opt for a £2 note would erode the savings gained from ending the £1 note.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked about the loss of overnight interest by clearing banks; I believe that was the theme he was trying to develop. The switch from notes to coins does have a cost to the banks because they can return surplus bank notes to the Bank of England, whereas they is no such facility for returning coin to the Royal Mint. But coins have always been handled differently, as I am sure my noble friend is aware—and, as I indicated earlier, the cost is offset by the benefit to the banks of the business which supplying cash to customers brings to them.
Another point my noble friend raised concerned job losses. A number of jobs at the Bank of England will go, but it expects to contain those numbers by natural wastage or selective voluntary redundancies. There will be compulsory redundancies. In answer to my noble friend Lord Molson and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I, too, have read the article in The Times today to which they referred. Publicly and privately, the banks have confirmed that they support the £1 coin and favour its introduction in place of the note. The financial arrangements for handling the coin to which that particular article referred are an entirely separate issue and will no doubt be resolved with the authorities in due course.
The noble Lords, Lord O'Brien and Lord Monson, referred to plastic coatings. The Bank of England has been investigating the use of plastic coating for 20 years or so as the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, suggested it had. There are various problems. Two of them are the difficulty of interpreting results and the translation of results into comparisons against cost. For example, is extra cost matched by a higher note life? The conclusion is, there is insufficient evidence that plastic coating lengthens note life, when account is taken of cost. Other countries have tried it from time to time; many are believed to have stopped its use since.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked in simplified language: why not start again with an orderly coin series? Major upheavals and replacements of the coinage are expensive and they are also disruptive. Our approach has been to adopt evolutionary development, of which the £1 coin is the most significant to date. As was recently announced, the Royal Mint has commissioned some research from Nottingham University into alternative specifications for existing coins; that is to say, the 5 pence, 10 pence and 50 pence coin. The aim would be to improve the size and weight configuration of the coinage, but
112
Ministers have not yet considered any further change.
My noble friend Lord De La Warr referred to the Royal Mint's financial affairs. I can tell him that it has enjoyed excellent financial results, achieving its last financial objective, and is selling well throughout the world.
My noble friend Lord Moyne asked about making Scottish notes legal tender. I can confirm to him that they were legal tender in England during the Second World War. But legal tender status is not the issue. Current legislation for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes it not legal to issue Scottish £1 notes outside Scotland, or in the case of the Northern Ireland note, outside Northern Ireland.
It was because the Government recognised that currency changes can upset people (and they obviously do) that we considered the case very carefully before reaching conclusions. It was in part to help people become accustomed to the new coin that the Government deliberately introduced it alongside the note to allow them to circulate together for some time. The £1 coin has been with us for more than 18 months and the note will stay in circulation for at least another 12 months. I am glad to be able to say that the utility of the coin is being increasingly recognised. Its circulation in the hands of the public, despite being on issue alongside the note, has risen by 25 per cent. over the past 12 months.
The points made in this debate are valuable and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the views that have been expressed. I sympathise with much of what has been said but I am sure, as is the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, that this change is the right thing to do. In a sense, we are reverting to the past. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, a coin of £1 value was introduced in 1489 by King Henry VII. Although no longer made of gold, the new £1 coin retains many features of the old sovereign. The Government remain confident that the fears and prejudices about the new coin will diminish and its virtues will become more widely appreciated.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes will he say something about the position of charities, to which I referred, who fear that their incomes will drop dramatically if the £1 note is abolished?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point and I am sure that that is one of the aspects which my right honourable friend will note.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.

  FLAX: PRODUCTION AND DEMAND
  FLAX: PRODUCTION AND DEMAND
  DENTAL SERVICE: CATEGORIES OF PATIENTS
  DENTAL SERVICE: CATEGORIES OF PATIENTS
  DENTAL CLINICS, RICHMOND: CLOSURES
  DENTAL CLINICS, RICHMOND: CLOSURES
  ROYAL PHILANTHROPIC SOCIETY: REQUEST
  ROYAL PHILANTHROPIC SOCIETY: REQUEST
  BUSINESS TAXES: ACCOUNTING AND PAYMENT
  BUSINESS TAXES: ACCOUNTING AND PAYMENT
  EC: BUDGETARY DISCIPLINE
  EC: BUDGETARY DISCIPLINE
  CYCLE SCHEMES: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  CYCLE SCHEMES: FINANCIAL SUPPORT
  CYCLING: DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT
  CYCLING: DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT
  CYCLING POLICY UNIT: FUTURE
  CYCLING POLICY UNIT: FUTURE
  HM INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS: NUMBERS
  HM INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS: NUMBERS
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACT AND PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES: REPORT
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACT AND PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES: REPORT
  AIRPORT INQUIRIES: REPORT
  AIRPORT INQUIRIES: REPORT