My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, there has been a steady and welcome improvement. The latest statistics for January-March this year show 70 per cent. of planning applications in England being determined in eight weeks as against 60 per cent. three years ago. This represents a considerable and sustained effort by most planning authorities.

My Lords. I thank my noble friend for that reply and for the information contained in it. Can my noble friend say how many of these applications refer to housing?

My Lords, they are not differentiated quite as much as no doubt my noble friend would wish, but I can tell her that, during the period to which I referred in my original Answer, for housing generally, 93,000 decisions were made in England and, of those, 40,000 were on householder developments and 17,500 on developments of new dwellings.

My Lords, will the Minister agree that, although speed is essential, the quality of decisions is equally important?—as in certain cases an authority may reject an application in eight weeks and, therefore, get a good mark for speed, whereas more extended negotiations with the applicant could result in an approved application and reduce the costs and the time involved in appeals.

My Lords, I would agree with the noble Baroness that the only good decision is the right decision. But I would take issue with her on the subject of speed, because I believe that that has to do with efficiency rather than quality. The credibility of the planning system depends on good decisions being reached quickly. Slow decisions are neither better nor worse.

My Lords, on this question of speed, can the noble Lord give the position with regard to appeals? Is he aware that at one stage there was considerable complaint that it took far too long for appeals to be heard because of the shortage of inspectors to hear them? Can he say whether there has been any recruitment of inspectors, and can he confirm that the average time taken for appeals to be heard has also shortened?

My Lords, yes, as far as I know there is a full complement of inspectors; but, as I am sure the noble Lord also knows, more and more appeals are being referred to inspectors. The department has introduced a system to help speed up planning appeals. In particular, we have issued a circular upon the subject. We have streamlined the internal procedures and we have introduced a computer to assist in the managment of case work and the collection of statistics. But we are by no means satisfied with the situation, and I do not think that this is a subject upon which one can ever be satisfied until every planning authority turns up 100 per cent. I do not see that happening—not within my lifetime, anyway. But I should like to assure the House that we are continuing to do everything we can to process these appeals speedily.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in this area of delay in granting applications, to which the computer will not be the answer, too many have a say in granting approvals and too many tiers of local government have to be gone through before you receive a practical reply and can get on with the job of building houses, factories, or anything else? Is my noble friend aware that for those reasons one hopes that the Government will proceed with removing at least one of the tiers of government in order to speed up the process?

My Lords, the tiers of government do not always affect the matter. For example, I notice that in the Isles of Scilly in the last six months they have improved from 89.8 per cent. of applications settled within eight weeks to 100 per cent. I do not think that that has anything at all to do with tiers of government.

My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister swept so broadly aside any argument for a more lengthy time for applications. Will he not agree that there are certain cases where, if the applicant can get together with the authority and the developer and there can be further negotiations, an approved application can then be arranged? Would he not accept that that surely is much better than a decision going to appeal and the whole process being started all over again, with the costs and time involved? Is the noble Lord aware that, as I made quite clear, I am not making a general case for it: I am saying that there are cases where flexibility ought to be encouraged?

Yes, my Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness; and, of course, this is one of the points that was in the circular to which I referred.

My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that his words "tiers of Government" are correctly spelt in the Official Report?

My Lords, I will give the House that assurance.

My Lords, referring to my supplementary question, can my noble friend say whether it is possible to let us know what proportion of the planning applications for housing are for special accommodation for disabled people?

My Lords. in my reply to my noble friend's first supplementary question I said that the categories were not as well defined as she or I would like. But I have no reason to suppose that planning applications in these particular cases should take longer to deal with. If my noble friend or, indeed, any Member of your Lordships' House has any specific case to which they would like to bring my attention, I shall of course be delighted to take it up.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, appropriate action is taken by the Insolvency Service in respect of all allegations of malpractice reported to it and no particular area is singled out for special attention. Earlier this year the Office of Fair Trading began a wide study of prepayment problems. The findings of that study, when received, will be considered in conjunction with the general review of insolvency law on which a White Paper is expected early next year.

My Lords, I do not think that the Minister said whether or not the Government were satisfied with the progress being made. I wonder whether he has details of the written reply that was given to me on 27th July, stating that only seven disqualification orders had been made under Section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976. This supports the view that the existing law is not adequate to deal with the delinquent director problem. Is the Minister aware that this view is held by the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, the Office of Fair Trading and I think by members of the Cork Committee? Are the Government satisfied?

My Lords, I always knew that there would be one part of the noble Baroness's main Question that I would not satisfactorily be able to answer. The Government, your Lordships, and, indeed, I are eternally grateful to the noble Baroness for the interest that she shows in these matters; and, above all, for her tremendous work in the very complicated matter of the Cork Report, which I shall forbear from referring to today. Indeed, I have details of the last oral sally that the noble Baroness and I had in your Lordships' House, which was on Bastille Day—14th July. I do not have details of the written reply, which is an error on my part; nor do I have details of Section 9 of 1976 Act. But I stress to the noble Baroness and to your Lordships what I stressed in July this year: the Government are aware of the problems which are raised by the noble Baroness. The Office of Fair Trading is also aware of these special problems in the consumer area. Indeed, the report of the Office of Fair Trading is expected later this year.

My Lords, I know that the Minister really does wish to help, and I thank him for his remarks—and one day I might get a good answer. However, I wonder whether he would look at the written reply that I received on 27th July to which I referred. Referring to about the last sentence of his original reply to the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Fletcher, about the White Paper being published early in the new year, may I ask the Minister whether I am correct in thinking that he said that that White Paper would be on certain aspects of the Cork Report? If I am correct, could he say what those aspects are?

My Lords, I shall certainly examine in detail the written reply which was given by my noble friend. As I do not have it in front of me I am not aware of certain aspects of the Cork Report which will be covered by the White Paper, but I understood that the White paper was to be very comprehensive. If it covers 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. of the matters referred to in the Cork Report—doubtless there will be, or there may be, gaps—I hope that the White Paper will be in its usual comprehensive form.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, in the first three quarters of 1983 the United Kingdom's balance of trade in manufactured goods is estimated to have been in deficit by £ 1¾ billion.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what was the last year in which the balance of trade in manufactured goods for Britain was in deficit? Can he also confirm that, as as result of the Government's policy over the last four years, what they inherited as a surplus of £5 billion a year has now sunk to a deficit, and that during the same period the employees in manufacturing industry have declined from over 7 million to round about 5 million?

My Lords, I could not confirm the figures of the noble Lord's last suplementary without further consultation, but may I write to him on that point? So far as the noble Lord's second question was concerned, he referred to the figures in 1979. I could not give him a definite answer on that. I can tell him, though, that in 1980, 1981 and 1982 the United Kingdom had a visible balance-of-payments surplus of £1.2 billion, £3 billion, and £2.1 billion. We regard that as extremely encouraging, and indeed a tribute to British industry. So far as the noble Lord's first supplementary question is concerned, research undertaken by the Government has been unable to unearth the two precise years, although we understand that 1918 and 1931 may have been the years to which the noble Lord was addressing his mind—I stress "may have been".

My Lords, can my my noble friend tell us what was the productivity per man employed in industry last year compared with 1979?

I am sorry, my Lords, I am not able to give my noble friend that precise figure, but I shall find it and be in written touch with my noble friend as speedily as possible.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, should take into account that productivity per man is not a question of a man running around and working harder; it is a question of investment?

It is a question of both, my Lords.

Would the noble Lord comment on the fact that reported in the press today was a statement of the chairman of British American Tobacco explaining why they are proposing to put £730 million in Eagle Star, and saying that they examined the situation and decided that the financial sector in this country was the most profitable? Is this not one of the most devastating criticisms of the British economy?

Why?

As a result of Government policy it is much more profitable to dabble in money than to make actual goods.

My Lords, the remarks which are attributed to the chairman of British American Tobacco, alas, I have not had an opportunity of reading yet, since I was attempting to struggle through the figures for this particular question all morning, but I thank the noble Lord and I shall certainly read them. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and indeed your Lordships would regard the comments of the chairman as being congratulatory to the financial sector of the United Kingdom economy, and indeed we would wish to add our congratulations to that sector.

My Lords, does not the noble Lord the Minister realise that his own record of productivity about which we have just heard is about the poorest in the country?

My Lords, I take that on board, but of course with this Government we have a high record. I intend to improve on my personal part in that record later today.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in so far as we have a small deficit in manufactured goods in terms of trade today it stems directly from a drop in our share of world markets from nearly 20 per cent. in 1960 to under 10 per cent. in 1978? Under this Administration and the previous one, would he agree that the slide has now been arrested and that we are starting to regain our share notwithstanding the world recession? Would he further agree that we now have a chance to start to catch up in prosperity the 13 nations that overtook us in the 1960s and 1970s?

My Lords, as is normally the case my noble friend is absolutely correct in four particular cases. I would wish, and the Government would wish, to thank him for his support, and indeed for pointing out these encouraging facts.

My Lords, may I try to ask the noble Lord a question which he can answer? Is it not the case that this is the first year since the Industrial Revolution that Britain is in deficit in its manufacturing trade? Is it not further the case that. notwithstanding the boasts of the Government about the so-called recovery based on a 6 per cent. increase in retail sales, it is demonstrably caused by a rapid increase in imports over exports; and that this is at least partly attributable to the massive outflow of capital from this country to our competitors rather than an investment in manufacturing industry in this country to supply the demands of our retailers?

My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's last question is definitely no. So far as the noble Lord's first question was concerned, I would stress to him and to your Lordships that it is not necessary, or indeed even desirable, to have a surplus on trade in every single commodity. As the noble Lord, and indeed your Lordships will know, the structure of the economy of the United Kingdom has naturally changed and is changing with the advent of such things as North Sea oil; and indeed we only need to look at my part of the country in Aberdeen to see that. Secondly, we now enjoy surpluses on trade in oil and indeed on services, and occasionally we enjoy surpluses on other commodities.

My Lords, is the Minister aware—

My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—

Lord George-Brown!

I think it is the turn of this side of the House, my Lords. May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether the discussion that has taken place over this Question is not entirely unsuitable for Question Time since it has involved the expression of a series of opinions which have no relation to the obtaining of information from the Minister? Is it not extremely unfair on the Minister that he should be asked to answer a small debate of this sort without having proper opportunity of preparing for it?

My Lords, while the noble Lord the Minister is having his consultations—

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene and I shall certainly await with eagerness the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. Perhaps I may attempt to reply to the kind supplementary question of my noble friend. I am grateful for his support. I regret that some of the questions have gone a little wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. I have done my best. I have undertaken to write to my noble friend Lord Soames. If I have missed any details, then certainly I shall write to any noble Lord to whom I have promised to write.

My Lords, the simple point that I wish to put to the Minister—

Ask! Ask a question!

My Lords, if you put it to the noble Lord, then you are asking him. Is not the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to many others who intervened, that this country cannot survive on a financial and leisure basis only? Is it not true that we have to he a manufacturing-based country? Thirdly, we have a deficit on our manufacturing base not just because we are not investing but—should he not have said to the noble Lord. Lord Beswick?—because the trade unions by their practices are refusing us permission to make use of the investment we are making. Should he not invite the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to use his influence to bring the trade unions to understand that restrictive practices are also at the bottom of our problem?

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in any putative conversation between old friends, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord. Lord George-Brown. But I stress to the noble Lord. Lord George-Brown, and to the House, that our industrial output—indeed, our manufacturing exports—have risen from, in 1981, £37 billion to nearly £39 billion in 1982; and. on 1983 figures, our exports are at the rate of £40 billion for this year. I believe that those figures provide firm encouragement for British industry. As a Government we are very grateful for their help in supporting our trading profession. As for the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, wondering whether I would be able to deviate from any of the answers on trade, certainly I believe that I should not this afternoon.

My Lords, perhaps noble Lords feel that we have had a very good run on this Question.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, there is evidence of a considerable reduction in the incidence of secondary picketing and other abuses which led to the introduction of both the 1980 Employment Act and the code. I regret to say that there have been some instances of large-scale picketing which clearly conflict with the code's guidance on numbers; but it is of course for the police to judge in each case whether or not the number of pickets constitutes a threat to public order.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the code says that pickets and their organisers should ensure that, in general. the number of pickets does not exceed six? Has he noticed that in the Mercury case and other cases the number of pickets has been in hundreds rather than six? As many people are trying to reduce tension and because the general atmosphere of industrial relations has improved over the years, would he consider, now that legislation is pending, whether there are any further steps that might be included that would reduce the risk of violence owing to the excessive numbers?

My Lords, I sympathise with my noble friend's desire to see a continued industrial calm overall, while I share his anxieties where there are breaches of good practice as outlined in the code in terms of picketing. However, the evidence from academic research, I am advised, shows that picket organisers generally pay attention to the code's guidance, and that usually the numbers are in single figures.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provisionas regard roads in Scotland, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (Amendment) Order 1983, a copy of which was laid before Parliament on 18th July 1983, be approved. I must apologise for bringing this statutory instrument on to the Order Paper at short notice. This order enables us to give effect to a Community regulation which requires all sheep on which sheep variable premium is paid to be slaughtered or exported within 21 days of certification for the premium. The Community regulation came into effect on 1st August. The order, which has been operative from the same date, provides the necessary powers to enforce it in Great Britain. It has been framed to cause the minimum disturbance to traditional patterns of livestock marketing in this country. The existing requirement that people buying or selling certified sheep should keep records has been extended and there is a new requirement that purchasers of certified sheep must be notified of the slaughter requirement attaching to these animals. The purchaser then has the responsibility for ensuring that the animals are slaughtered (or exported) within the specified period. Records are available to enforcement officers within the constraints set down in the parent order. Offences for breach of the rules and penalties are specified in the Agriculture Act 1957.

Concern was expressed at the time the slaughter rule was introduced that it could lead to depressed market prices this autumn. We secured from the Commission an undertaking to review the rule if it led to market distortions. We are monitoring market movements closely and will draw the Commission's attention to any untoward developments which we believe can be ascribed to the slaughter rule. I ask the House to approve this order.

My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We are sorry that he was rushed into this at short notice and I personally would like to thank him for getting it on to the Order Paper a little early to suit me. Variable premium, as we all know, is valuable in the livestock production of cattle and sheep in this country. There is no doubt that the system with sheep where a farmer could buy sheep out of the ring after they have been certified and keep them for a considerable time to improve on them—or to gamble on the price, for that matter—was one which was quite open to a lot of malpractice. I think that this order is right.

I suppose it is right that records should be kept for a longer period, but three years is such a long time to ask people to keep records. Farmers are not prone to looking after records and such things. Probably because this order is valuable to the livestock trade in this country we should put up with it. I see no reason for holding it up, and we give it our blessing.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time. As no noble Lord has tabled an amendment to it, it looks as though our work on this complicated measure, now making no less than its eighth appearance before us for consideration, is beginning to draw to a not unwelcome close. We have spent so much time on it already that I do not intend to detain your Lordships long with it now. I shall not rehearse either the debates we have held or the decisions we have come to. I wish merely to say "Thank you" to the House as a whole and to individual noble Lords in all parts of the House, not only for the many hours we have spent on this measure in the Chamber but for the immense care taken with the details of the work.

That extends far beyond the time actually spent in the Chamber. It has involved acquiring a great deal of knowledge from a wide variety of sources. It has involved much correspondence, much consultation, endless essays in drafting and re-drafting and the careful distillation of all this effort into explanatory speeches. To these the Government have listened with care. From them they have learned much, and by them, in many instances, this Bill has been improved even beyond the condition to which we had brought it while it was passing through all its stages in this House during the last Parliament. That is a measure of the effectiveness of your Lordships' House.

Ministers are served by their departments and are supplied with cogent arguments in the course of duty. I readily record my grateful acknowledgement of all the midnight work done on my behalf and on behalf of your Lordships as a whole by my own very expert team. But the rest of your Lordships toil, often far into the night, bringing a huge volume of non-governmental experience and wisdom to bear upon the legislative anvil. If the process generates some heat, that is to be expected. Your Lordships have worked very hard on this instrument. I believe it is now a great deal better as a result, and I ask your Lordships to give it its third and final reading. I beg to move.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his own patience, courtesy and, if I may say so, immense conscientiousness in leading this Bill and steering it through the House. Also, if I may, I thank my noble friends and noble Lords in all parts of the House who have made their contributions to it. I am afraid that my temptation to do a little rehearsing is (the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear) irresistible, at any rate to me, if to no one else.

On Third Reading of the Bill way back in March, 1983, when this highly unlovable Bill first came before us, I ventured to say that, while on the Government's part there was an intention to comply with the convention on data protection, there was also a determination that the compliance would he minimal rather than generous. Since then, as the noble Lord has said, there have been many important changes made to the Bill. I agree with him that the value of this House as a revising Chamber has been very significantly proved. Several improvements to the Bill have been achieved by amendments put down not only by the Opposition but also from different parts of the Chamber. Nevertheless, it is sadly the case that there are still serious deficiencies in the Bill as it goes on its way to another place, despite the efforts of the Opposition and other Members to put the matter right.

As to improvements, I think it would be less than generous if I were not to note some of those which have been effected and accepted by the Government. There is an inclusion in Clause 3 of persons to represent data subjects on the data protection tribunal. There is the amendment to Clause 17 to ensure that the Official Secrets Act shall not preclude the registrar from disclosing information if disclosure is necessary for the fulfilment of the registrar's duties under the Bill. There is the amendment to Clause 22 extending the right of compensation to those who dispute the accuracy of data. Then, the amendment to Clause 24 modifying the clause in such a way that the court can now order data to be rectified and erased without the data subject having to prove that he has suffered any damage.

But more significant was the amendment to Clause 27, which the Opposition achieved, in the national security exemption provisions of the Bill. A certificate of exemption on the grounds of national security now has to be signed by a Minister of the Crown. As the Bill was introduced by the Government originally, it would have sufficed if it were signed by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown, with no definition as to the status of such a Minister.

But perhaps the most important concession made by the Government after prolonged pressure—for which concession we are grateful—was their decision before we resumed after the Recess to omit control of immigration from Clause 28 and from the list of purposes in respect of which data could be withheld. That provision had caused intense suspicion and apprehension among members of the ethnic communities.

On Clause 28 as it now stands, it may well be that in another place the exemption of data held for the somewhat wide and ill-defined category of prevention of crime will be the subject of further consideration. Having expressed gratification at the removal of the paragraph from Clause 28(1), nevertheless the retention of Clause 28(2) has still left what we deem to be a serious flaw in the Bill. The result of its inclusion, if it becomes law, is that it could well mean that highly confidential and sensitive information could be secretly disclosed to the police, the Inland Revenue or the Customs and Excise without any indication at all on the data protection register that anything of this kind was even possible. That is perhaps why its provsions have been called by the Lindop Committee "a palpable fraud on the public"—severe words indeed.

When we last debated this matter I quoted a letter from Sir Douglas Black, as chairman of the inter-professional working group on access to personal health information, supporting the amendment to Clause 28(2) which my noble friends and I proposed. I have little doubt that this issue will be raised again vigorously in another place. We regret also the refusal of the Government to give way, among other matters (although there is no time to cover the whole ground), on our proposals for a data advisory committee and for advisory codes of practice to be made by the registrar—proposals which were supported in many parts of the House.

I do not propose to detain the House at any length on this matter, which we have traversed hard and long, but I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister for his own courtesy and to my noble friend Lord Mishcon and others in various parts of the House. Although heat was raised occasionally, also a great light was cast upon the subject of the debate.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, I also would like to say a warm "thank you" to the noble Lord the Minister for the care he has always given to the points we have raised during the long proceedings on this Bill both during its previous incarnation and on its latest appearance in this House. We thank him for the immense care that he gave during the Summer Recess to some very important questions of principle which had divided us during the proceedings in Committee before we dispersed.

We were aiming in this legislation to protect the data subject whose private affairs are recorded in an increasing number of computer files—files held by the Inland Revenue, the banks, local authorities, hospitals and many other financial institutions—and whose privacy may be affected by the increasing flow of data between those computers if we do not get this legislation right in the first place. The legislation also was designed to enable us to sign the Council of Europe Convention, which the noble Lord mentioned, without which there could have been very serious inhibitions on the flow of data across frontiers and also on the ability of businesses to conduct their affairs where they have computer files in more than one country.

There were several things which worried us when we first saw this Bill. The main one, as the Minister knows, and one which the noble and learned Lord has also discussed, concerned the way in which the Government attempted, so it seemed, through this Bill to open the way for increased flows of personal data from all those other computers that I have mentioned into the ones under the ownership of the Home Office and used for the purposes of immigration control. Also important, though not quite so important, was the way in which subject access was to be denied in the case of personal data held for any of those purposes.

It was, and still is, our view that what was sought to be done in the original Clause 28 was in contravention of the convention, and we were not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister that Article 9 covered what was being attempted. At any rate, I think that the noble Lord the Minister will concede, while he may remain of the same opinion, that there was very good legal advice in favour of the proposition that what was being done in this Bill would have been a serious contravention of the convention, and it was not simply—though this is important—as the noble Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has mentioned, the intense apprehension and suspicion which have been aroused in the minds of ethnic minorities which led to the removal of those offending clauses.

I agreed with what the noble and learned Lord also has said, that we need to give further thought to the question of disclosures of other kinds under Clause 28(2). I think that in the end we ought to arrive at a state of affairs where the data users are forced to consider at the outset what kinds of disclosures they would make, instead of always making the decision on an ad hoc basis, when they are confronted by the police, of one or other of the examples given by the Minister during the course of our proceedings.

On Clause 29(2) we believe there is need for additional work to be done in another place so that right of access to medical and social records is not left entirely to the discretion of the Minister and to orders which, while they would be considered by both Houses of Parliament, as the Minister has explained, would be unamendable and might be unsatisfactory in some respects, without giving your Lordships the chance to do anything about it. At the same time, we recognise that immense improvements have been made to the Bill and I shall not recapitulate those which have been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. We are immensely grateful to the Government for listening to all the points that have been made by Members of the Opposition and also by noble Lords on the other side of the House, and not least by the noble Lord, Lord Digby. We regret that some of his further advice, particularly regarding a data protection advisory committee and the institution of a code of conduct, has not been observed but we hope that perhaps another place will follow up those points.

My Lords, I think the Bill is better than when it first appeared but it could be a great deal better than it is, and I hope that it will be by the time it leaves the other place. Meanwhile, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his courtesy during our discussions.

My Lords, I should also like to add my thanks to my noble friend the Minister and indeed to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who, particularly the first time the Bill came before us, had a great deal to do with it, rather more than he did latterly. I think that the Government have been quite remarkable in regard to the degree to which they have listened to arguments for the amendments which have been put forward not only from this side but also from the opposite side. It has been very heartening that they should have done that. It has also impressed me greatly that some of the points on which my noble friend appeared obdurate were at a later stage the subject of amendments that he himself provided to meet the arguments which had been raised. This shows a breadth of thought on the part of the Government and of the noble Lord, and I like to think that perhaps it is also due to the good advice received from his advisers.

There is not very much more to be done to this Bill from the point of view of industry. Several noble Lords have said that there is more to be done in another place. On the whole, I think that the points which I have put forward—all the ones that reasonably could be—have been accepted, or well argued. I again thank my noble friend for his understanding and for the great care that he has given to this Bill.

My Lords, it would be ungracious of me, having taken part in all the seven previous sessions of debate, not to pay my tribute to the noble Lord the Minister for having accomplished what I, in particular, have been most anxious should be done right from the Second Reading the first time round.

May I just say to him that perhaps it is not he who should be asked to listen in future to the pleas of communities like the ethnic minorities, because I believe he has been doing so all the time. But I would ask him to use his influence, and if possible to strengthen his influence, in the Home Office to get other Ministers to listen to him, because I am assuming—I trust rightly—that he has been putting the case that has been so well argued here by my noble and learned friend from the Front Bench and, I would add, also from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

I was a little concerned when he gave as the reason for changing his mind, after the seventh session on Clause 28, that he still did not consider that the inclusion of the phrase "control of immigration" was one which should lead to any unease among the ethnic minorities. He seemed to suggest at one time that it was the debates in this House which were raising these fears among the members of those communities. That has never been the case, and I hope that he and his fellow Ministers will recognise that it has never been the case. We have been putting those fears as they were expressed to us. We have not been at any time raising those fears. The fact that we agreed there was a reason for fear certainly did not provoke the fears in the first place: we were the channel through which these fears were expressed. I hope that in any future legislation this lesson will be learned by the Home Office and that it will not require the accident of a general election to start the Bill again before it is possible to remove such offensive references.

If anything has been learned by the Home Office through the debates in the House on this Bill on the very delicate subject of the sensitivity of the ethnic minorities. then it has been worthwhile. Like my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. I am still concerned about Clause 28. I am still worried that the phrase "the prevention or detection of crime" is a very loose one that can he interpreted in so many different ways that it is dangerous in law; but that will have now to be left to the other place.

All I would say to the noble Lord is that I certainly have appreciated his continuous courtesy in argument. even if not the logic of his argument. I trust that the experience that he has had during this long period of going through the Bill twice will have reinforced him, in his role within the Home Office, in convincing his colleagues that race relations can be very seriously damaged unless the sensitivity of the ethnic minorities in this country is recognised when legislation is first drafted.

My Lords, the atmosphere of a Third Reading in your Lordships' House is so pleasant, and I cannot resist the temptation to indulge in some of this pleasant atmosphere by expressing my own thanks to the noble Lord the Minister for his continuous courtesy and help. On these occasions one remembers those worthy organisations which, even though they may not have the adeptness of the Civil Service which serves the Minister, help to give those in Opposition the chance of an authoritative brief when they speak. I am thinking in this connection, as indeed does my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, of organisations like Justice, the National Council of Civil Liberties and several others which, with great sincerity, put forward reasoned argument which your Lordships heard in this House as a result of their efforts.

I promise to be brief in order not to ruin the atmosphere of a Third Reading, and I merely want to add one general observation of deep regret that this Bill will leave the House for another place with such a wide duty of registration cast upon people who were never meant to come within the formalities of this Bill. I remember that on a previous occasion I threw most gently at the noble Lord the Minister, almost as though we were playing in the nets and not on the cricket field itself, an example which was given to me by the Law Society, to which I also owe a debt of gratitude, and not only for what they have done for me on this occasion. That example was of a schoolboy who was not a member of a society or of a cricket team but who, being most interested in that game, put through the school computer the names of the first eleven and the second eleven, and the runs that they had respectively scored or the wickets that they had managed to take during the season. As I read the Bill, and as those who are much more learned in the law than I shall ever be read the Bill, it seemed that that innocent insertion into the school computer would make it necessary for the school to register the computer. This could never have been intended.

But this is not the time for argument. This is a time, I suppose, for a plea to another place to do something which this House was unable to do. If I may repeat what my noble and learned friend, the Minister and others have said, much has been done in this House to improve the Bill, which has largely been the result of the Minister's receptive mind, and for that we are grateful.

My Lords, noble Lords have shown great restraint in not going over the arguments that have taken place previously, and I shall certainly not break that restraint except parenthetically to regret that my noble and learned friend did not close with a little more about the considerable achievement of himself and others in encouraging the Government to remove the immigration exclusion clause. But at this stage of the Bill, as it goes to another place, it is not inappropriate to reflect about the position which it will have, together with other legislation which is about to go before the other place and come before us in due course.

This is a reactive Bill and not (in the horrible modern phrase) a proactive Bill. It is reacting in the most narrow sense to the necessity for us to comply with the European Convention. But in the wider sense it is reacting to something which has been taking place over a very considerable time, without necessarily having any reflection in legislation; that is, the increasing power of data processing machines (if that is still the correct description) not only to assemble and analyse data but also to transmit them, and the ability of those machines to do this for data which affect all of us as individuals—the "data subjects", as the Bill puts it.

I happen to believe that the concessions which were made on Clause 28 of the Bill, removing the immigration exclusion, were quite inadequate, because I believe that the exemptions which still exist for, in particular, the prevention of crime, which can mean very much more than the detection and apprehension of offenders, which is already in the clause, still permit far too great a power for, in particular, police computers, and also for many other Government computers and Government data banks with information about individuals.

The only reason why I am saying this now—because I can see that I could be accused of repeating arguments, which I do not want to do—is that this Bill will be going through concurrently with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It is not the role of this Bill to curb the power of the state; that is not its primary intention. But it is the purpose of this Bill to see to it that that part of the power of the state which is increasingly infringing the rights of individuals, that part which is due to the increased power of data processing machines, is brought into the sphere of general control.

One of the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill ought to be not just to define more clearly the conditions under which the police operate in their relationships with the general public, but also to see to it that the internal operations of the police are consistent with the ideals of personal liberty which are expressed in the European Convention and in the data protection principles set out in this legislation. I hope that, as the other House considers both Bills and as this House considers the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in due course, the wider interest reflected in both pieces of legislation, which is not fully reflected in the wording of either—that wider interest being the interest of the individual in relation to the state—will never be far from our minds. With that, I, too, should like to express my appreciation for the courtesy and consideration with which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has dealt with all the matters which have been before him.

My Lords, may I very briefly and very quickly congratulate my noble friend on the skill with which he has taken this rather complicated legislation through this House, and on the considerable courtesy with which he has dealt with all the arguments. However, may I ask the noble Lord to ensure that his department keeps an eye on the computer, which is a very new tool and is developing the whole time, in order to make certain that once this Bill becomes law any amendment to the law in the future, because of the development of computers, is brought in as and when necessary.

My Lords, I am most grateful for the way your Lordships have responded to my Motion. Every single one of your Lordships has been kind enough to thank me, as I have thanked your Lordships. I am grateful to all noble Lords. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who were the only two who did not say "but" after they had said "thank you". I shall not reply to the series of "buts" in detail because I take it that they are addressed to another place and that they will be read there with the appropriate interest. However, it is fair to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that certainly this is a reactive Bill in some respects because it reacts to a present situation. But it is—I hesitate to use the word, his dislike of which I share—proactive in another sense, in that throughout we have had to bear in mind the very rapid and quite unforeseeable developments which may take place in the technological field in which we are acting. I take on board the point of my noble friend Lord Swinfen as to that.

As to the amendments which have been made, they have been copious. There has been a remarkable balance, although it has not perhaps always seemed that way to noble Lords opposite, between the points we have taken from different parts of the House. In doing the sums we must also remember the very large number of amendments which were taken on board between the Parliaments. So we have achieved quite a lot.

Our aims throughout have been threefold in principle: the protection of the individual, the protection of the community, and the furtherance of commerce and trade. It is clear that the whole Bill is intended for the protection of the individual, right from the point of registration, subject access and correction, notably helped by the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. As to the protection of the community, I cannot, I think, pass by the further repetition by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, of the quotation from the Lindop Committee's report which refers to Clause 28 as "a palpable fraud on the subject". We want more light than heat now. If we had put through this Parliament a Bill which was supposed to protect the individual and which did so at the expense of the community by shackling the powers of enforcement, particularly of the police, that would have been a fraud. I feel that a just balance has been struck here, so I make no apology. But I take note of the point of view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, as I take note of the point of view expressed by those who sit on the Liberal Benches, concerning the individual. The furtherance of commerce and trade will now be taken in hand, when we have finally enacted this Bill, by signature of the convention.

In conclusion, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, first that the last general election was no more an accident than the next one will be and, secondly, that there is complete and mutual confidence between all Ministers at the Home Office. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to exert myself in any way to see that right prevails therein. I am deeply grateful to your Lordships for your patience which has extended over very many months.

rose to call attention to the need for the House to consider its procedure on Public Bills with a view to providing that decisions on amendments in Committee should be taken only by Lords selected by the House on the recommendation of the Committee of Selection, having regard to their qualifications and to the proportion of the votes cast for the main political parties at the last General Election; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, may I ask him how many votes were cast in the last general election for the Cross-Benchers?

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for asking that question, for obviously he would not have done so if he were not in something of a quandry and in doubt. Clearly, I have not explained fully the arrangement to which I have just referred; namely, that it would be right and proper in this Chamber to have full regard to the Cross-Benchers, notwithstanding that they do not come within the formula I have described, because it would be your Lordships' wish, I am sure, to have the benefit of their objectivity, knowledge and experience. I do not believe—and I repeat this to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who has just questioned me—that this detracts to any extent from the validity of the argument I am putting to your Lordships; particularly because, in the event, the Cross-Benchers' vote tends to divide fairly equally and would not upset the proportions. The answer to the noble Lord's question is, of course, none.

That is what I am suggesting and those are the benefits which I claim. I recognise immediately, arising out of the Cross-Benchers, that such a commit tee would not be manned in exactly the same proportions as a committee in another place would be. I say that not as a criticism against my proposal, but as an advantage. I do not think it is your Lordships' desire that this House should pretend to be a pale image of the other place. Nor is it your Lordships' desire that it should be a rubber stamp, which would be the situation if the representations in the other House were exactly repeated here and the Government of the day would know therefore that they would have no more difficulty getting legislation through this House than through the other. So I think that is an advantage which the curious composition of your Lordships' House provides.

The disadvantages which have been put to me during the course of some two years of discussions and six years of thinking about this proposal—I thought about it long before I became a member of the party to which I am proud to belong, and it is no party matter that we are discussing—I do not know why the noble Lord on the Front Bench thought that a matter for laughter. This is a conclusion I reached when I was sitting in the same place as he is now sitting—a conclusion I reached as being in the best interests of the whole House, whether you happen to be sitting on the Front Bench of the Labour Party, on the Front Bench of the Social Democrats or in any other place in your Lordships' House. What we are all considering is what is in the best long-term interest of your Lordships' House, what would be the most likely to assure it of a long and useful life.

The criticism which could be levelled against it is that I say nothing about Report stage. I do not need to say anything about Second and Third Reading, because of course your Lordships already exercise self-restraint in not voting against the Second or Third Reading of Government Bills coming before your Lordships' House. That is a convention which is now well established. The only other part of our procedure that one need consider is Report stage.

I think it is wiser to go a step at a time, but more particularly I think it is wiser to have the Report stage as a longstop in case the decisions reached in Committee are not the decisions which would have been reached had a full Committee been present—and one does not want the kind of "whipping" which is anathema in this place to see that every single Member of a Committee is present the whole time. It should be regarded with the same relaxation by the Chief Whip and the other Whips, as by all the membership of your Lordships' House, that people get along when they can, and if they cannot then they cannot. If, as a result of some accident of that kind, the vote goes against the way the Government intended had all the Committee members been present, the Report stage can put it right. The Report stage can alter the decision of the Committee if, for example, the Committee has made a decision which the Government of the day do not think fits in with the overall important plans which the Government may have. My conception of democracy is that the Government of the day should have the final say. Therefore, one has to leave the Report stage as a longstop, as a safeguard.

With that, I think we have a suggestion here which could do much good. What I am asking is merely that the House should give it consideration now, and that the Government should consider whether it would not be in the best long-term interests of the House to set up a Select Committee—because there is no existing committee which is apt for the purpose—to consider these proposals in detail, for there is a great deal of detail I have not the time to go into. This is, of course, a Short Debate, and I see the clock is continuing to tick. That committee would report and come back to your Lordships' House, when we would have a full debate. Then, hopefully, if the committee so felt, we could adopt this variation in our procedure for a fair experimental period. I say an experimental period because if, after a year, say, it turned out that for some unforeseen reason it did not work there is nothing whatever to prevent your Lordships returning to the present method of a Committee of the Whole House considering the Committee stage. So that is the proposal I put before your Lordships. I hope the Leader of the House will give it a fair wind. I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him, as he has two or three times referred to this, about the millions of members of the public who seem to be discontented with the present composition of the House? I know that perhaps we are all very old-fashioned over on this side of the House, but could he tell us who these masses of people are?

My Lords, I can only repeat exactly, word for word, what I said: that everyone who has given consideration to this matter in great depth has come out with the answer that the present composition of the House is "indefensible", or similar words. I am quoting the noble Lord, Lord Home; I am not quoting a single person other than respected Conservative Members or groups. If the noble Lord cares to talk to people he will find that there is no body at all which considers these matters which believes that there is a right in an individual by virtue of birth to legislate and affect the liberty of another individual by that reason alone.

My Lords, then I put it to the noble Lord that the hereditary principle is really what he is attacking.

My Lords, I am not attacking any principle. I am repeating—and your Lordships can make your own judgment; if noble Lords take a different view, they take a different view—that the only expressed view which your Lordships have given is the view which I have quoted. I hope that that will restore the confidence of the noble Lord.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has considered the position of the Lords Spiritual?

My Lords, if the Select Committee which I am recommending be set up to consider the detail of this feel that the Bishops should be treated in the same way as the Cross-Benchers, there is no reason why there should be any difficulty whatever.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, knows that I have been for a long time a great admirer of his and in particular of his work as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is difficult enough to be Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a Conservative Government, but in a Labour Government it must be sheer hell! I see the noble Lord assents to this proposition. He will allow me to say—I hope he will assent to this—that, given the difficulties of that position, any of us who know a certain amount about the subject greatly admired his handling of it.

The noble Lord said he had had experience as chairman of a Standing Committee in another place, a recollection which I share with him, and I recall an occasion when the noble Lord came out with a really superb display of endurance. In the late 1940s, on the Bill to nationalise the gas industry the noble Lord was chairman of the Standing Committee, and there was no provision then for any deputy. That Standing Committee sat continuously for two days and nights subject only to a short interval after luncheon. That the outcome of its deliberations was quite disastrous was not the responsibility of the chairman, without whose sheer physical stamina the Bill would never have been enacted at all.

However, I think the noble Lord, if he reflects, will feel, as many of us who have spent a good many years in another place and are very fond of another place do, that we are all rather subject when we come here to the danger of regarding what happened and what happens in another place as being so good and so efficient that we are tempted to see some part of its procedures reproduced here. I am conscious that I am subjected to that temptation and I suspect the noble Lord is too. Indeed, I suspect it has a little bit to do with these particular proposals that he has brought forward.

I should like to comment on the noble Lord's speech—admirable and moderate and lucid in tone as it was—in two divisions. First, there are the general political assertions which he put forward as a basis for the proposed specific procedural changes. As he pointed out in reply to one of my noble friends, the expression "democratizing" the House" meant that he was attacking, as he did specifically attack, the hereditary element in your Lordships' House. Indeed, he went so far as to say that it was wrong that what he called the accident of birth should give to some of your Lordships a certain position in our constitution.

The noble Lord is wrong in thinking that that particular state of affairs is obnoxious to any substantial body of opinion outside. We have—and are fortunate to have—an hereditary monarchy. We have many occupations which are hereditary in practical terms—as any young man who some years ago sought to work in the London docks, without having taken the precaution of having a London docker as his father, quickly discovered. We are not unsympathetic to the idea of hereditary rights; and not only rights but duties. I hope your Lordships will not think I am being frivolous by saying that when our fellow countrymen consider whether to entrust their money to a horse or a dog they are extremely interested in that quadruped's heredity. The noble Lord is barking up quite the wrong tree in suggesting there is a very serious feeling on the question of an hereditary element. As he knows full well, the appointed or Life Peer element in this House has steadily increased since the Life Peerages Act 1958.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If he is right that there is nothing open to criticism in the principle, can he comment on the circumstance that when the matter was considered in the late 1960s there was agreement between both Front Benches as to the need for the abolition of the hereditary principle? At that time this was a matter of discussion between both Front Benches in the other place.

My Lords, I well recall the episode of the 1968 Bill which, as the noble Lord said, was approved by the Labour Front Bench and by some elements in the then Conservative Party leadership. I can however claim very clean hands on this matter because in company with the late leader of the Labour Party and Mr. Enoch Powell I was involved in the fairly firm opposition to that Bill which finally caused the then Government to abandon it in another place. If the noble Lord is quoting that measure as an indication of the appropriateness of this sort of proposal I can only remind him that the measure, although a Queen's Speech measure and supported by some elements in the Opposition, failed to pass the House of Commons and, if I may say so, deservedly so failed.

Finally, I come back to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. As a general proposition he referred to the inbuilt Tory majority in this House. There is no such thing. If one takes the various elements—the very substantial and immensely influential Cross-Bench element, the official Opposition and the ingredients of the Alliance—there is no overall Conservative majority. If there was, the life of my noble friend the Chief Whip might be a great deal easier than it is. In so far as the Conservative element is still the largest separate one, that lead is steadily diminishing as the years pass. Therefore, the general philosophy behind the specific proposition put forward by the noble Lord is based on a number of fallacies and misunderstandings.

I come now to the rather curious specific proposals related to the Committee stage of Bills. As I understand it, the Committee of Selection, aided in the normal way by the Whips, is to nominate a number of your Lordships to have a vote on the Committee stage of Bills in accordance with the outcome of the popular vote for another place at the preceding general election. The obvious beneficiary from that precept is so plainly the group with which the noble Lord now says he is himself that I was not wholly surprised when the noble Lord, the Opposition Chief Whip, was unable to restrain his hilarity at the suggestion that there was no party advantage involved. The Opposition Chief Whip has a very good sense of humour, and he needs it. These people to be selected would be the only people to have a vote. I still do not understand how the noble Lord deals with the Cross-Benchers who have no vote at the general election, the right reverend Prelates, or those Members of your Lordships' House who have no strict party alignment. The effect of his proposal must be to exclude them from a vote in the Committee stage of Bills.

Let us think this through a little. The Committee of Selection will be aided by the party Whips, and the party Whips— despite, sometimes, appearances to the contrary—being human will select as the Peers to have votes those Members of your Lordships' House who are the most loyal party members, unlikely to dissent or to vote the wrong way and likely to attend with considerable regularity. That is the kind of Peer they will select. That proposal would destroy a great deal of the value of discussion in Committee in this House. It is suspiciously reminiscent of one provision in the 1968 Bill of which the noble Lord opposite reminded us a few minutes ago. There was this same business of each side nominating their gladiators who could be relied upon to vote the party ticket for better or for worse.

This seems to be an extraordinary pity. It also seems very odd that the noble Lord should be advocating it. With such a system the Government of the day basically have a watertight majority in Committee. Yet the strength of this House is the ability of noble Lords to vote separately from their parties—if they have any—on the merits of the matter under debate. I believe that is very well understood outside.

I shall not weary your Lordships with examples, many of which, if the same principle applies, arise for the Report stage. But there was the famous occasion when the noble Duke the Duke of Norfolk and my late and very much lamented noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden succeeded in carrying an amendment on school transport against the Conservative Government of the day. There was the occasion in which I was a little involved where the rights of the citizens of Gibraltar to United Kingdom citizenship were preserved. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House will recall this. I should like to say in his presence that his handling of that matter as Home Secretary seemed to me impeccable. He treated the House with great fairness and justice on that occasion. If we had this party orientated voting system of Peers selected by the parties to vote specifically for the parties we should lose this flexibility. We should lose the right of the House as a whole to decide an issue on what seem to be the merits of the matter.

I think that so far from strengthening the position of the House in the minds of our fellow countrymen—as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seems to think—it would greatly weaken it. If I may say so as still a relatively junior Member of your Lordships' House, a great deal of the ever-increasing public standing of this House in the eyes of our fellow countrymen derives from the very fact that we are thought of and known to be not 100 per cent. party loyalists but exercise a freedom and discretion of voting in the way that we think will serve the national interest best. There is sometimes thought to be a contrast between that freedom and flexibility in this House and the discipline which perhaps inevitably exists in another place. It seems to me therefore that the proposal of the noble Lord, so far from strengthening the popularity and standing of the House— as he said and as I am sure he intends—would have the exactly opposite effect.

The noble Lord asked for a Select Committee on the details of his proposals. I hope that no such Select Committee will be appointed. It could be appointed only on the basis that the general principles behind his proposal were approved. The duty of the Select Committee would be, as I understand it, simply to make sure that the general principles were enacted in a form that made them workable. I am sure that we are indebted to the noble Lord for an interesting debate. It never does any harm to any organisation to have the chance to contemplate its own physiognomy and to hold up a mirror to itself to see whether improvements could be made.

I am the last man to say that improvements— quite substantial improvements—could not be made to the procedure of your Lordships' House. Indeed from time to time I have ventured with diffidence to suggest some. But I do suggest to your Lordships that this is not one. This is a retrograde step and one which would be harmful in its effect on your Lordships' House and harmful to its reputation. I hope that after we have discussed this today it will be the end of the matter.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I check back on a part of his earlier argument about which I was a little puzzled? Was the instance of hereditary dockers given as an example which the noble Lord thought should be followed in legislation or as a warning to us not to follow it?

My Lords, if the noble Lord had been good enough to follow my observations with the courteous attention that I am sure he normally gives them, he would have seen that I was quoting hereditary dockers as an example of the fact that at all levels of our society, so far from there being antipathy to the hereditary idea, there is a great deal of practical sympathy with it.

My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, not only in addressing your Lordships but—I hope I may say without impertinence—in expressing admiration based on long experience of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. Perhaps I ought to say that that admiration is widely shared. It is not limited to those who are former Treasury Ministers. I desire to say that right away because, like the noble Lord who has preceded me, I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his suggestions today.

It is with considerable diffidence that I address your Lordships on this subject. For many years a prior commitment to the judicial work in your Lordships' House has precluded me from playing a large part in the legislative work. Nevertheless last Session I was privileged to take part throughout the Committee stage of the National Heritage Bill. The lessons that I learned there, not only intrinsically but by comparing the work done there with that of a Standing Committee in another place, embolden me to address your Lordships today.

I hope that it is not being unduly cynical if I say that the main thrust of this Motion lies in the little words:

"having regard to … the proportion of the votes cast … at the last General Election".

After all, this Motion follows the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, proposing proportional representation in local government elections. I supported that Bill. Nevertheless this seems to me to be a far less suitable milieu than that Bill for inserting the thin edge of the wedge of proportional representation.

I have two main objections to the noble Lord's proposals. The first is that it seems to me that the procedure by way of Committee of the Whole House in your Lordships' House works extraordinarily well. It worked outstandingly well in the Bill that mentioned—the National Heritage Bill. The muster of expertise on that occasion was quite extraordinary. One noble Lord after another had special knowledge of the myriad aspects with which the Bill was concerned. It would be a great pity to limit in any way the number of noble Lords who could participate in such proceedings. I know that the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, proposes a dichotomy between speaking and voting, but surely it is not very sensible to say that those who know best may speak but may not participate in the decision on the matter on which they have spoken.

The second reason which precludes my following the noble Lord in his ideas is that it seems to me that an impossible burden would be placed on the proposed Committee of Selection. A number of aspects have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and by way of intervention in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. But let us take the National Heritage Bill again. How could any Committee of Selection possibly have known the range of expertise, experience and knowledge that your Lordships' House had at its command?

I think that by supporting the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I demonstrated that I am no enemy of proportional representation. But I should have thought that this kind of niggling approach in procedure is not the right way to vindicate either that or the great principles of democracy for which the noble Lord declares himself so eloquently.

After all, we have been waiting since 1911 on the urgency of reform of your Lordships' House. We have been waiting under Conservative Governments, under Liberal Governments, under Labour Governments, and under coalition and national Governments; and of course all that time, too, proportional representation has been very much on the agenda: but nothing has been done.

It may well be—I think it should be—that, when the task of establishing an effective second Chamber is undertaken, regard is had in part to the votes cast at the previous election upon the principle of proportional representation. Whether it is by choice of Peer, by a popular vote, or by nomination by party leaders, is debatable, and this is not the occasion to debate it. But of this I venture to feel sure: that this present proposal is not the right way to attain it.

My Lords, this is a Short Debate, and under the rules governing such debates it should end at 6.35 and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, should rise not later than 6.15. So under those rules I have about an hour and 20 minutes to speak. But I can assure your Lordships that it is not my intention to take up my full quota of time.

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has spent considerable time and effort in developing the theme of the debate this afternoon. I noted that in the House Magazine of 22nd February last his article on the future of the House of Lords contained a leading paragraph which stated:

"For the first time since the Parliament Act 1911 the future of the House of Lords is going to be a major issue at the next general election".

I did not note that that was the case during the general election. We have also had the benefit of a paper prepared by the noble Lord in February 1982. Therefore I should like to thank him for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss his proposals for there form of the procedure, though I am afraid that I must join with other noble Lords in not welcoming the proposals that he has made.

It seems to me that the noble Lord is trying to achieve a major reform of this House by the back door. The noble Lord proposes that the House should set up committees on Public Bills and that the Committee of Selection should appoint people to those committees in proportion to the votes cast for the main political parties at the last general election. In other words, a system of proportional representation would be introduced into this unelected House, and inevitably a committee so composed would be comprised of people who would necessarily have to put their party allegiance first. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, commented on this point in his speech. It would go without saying that that would be a qualification for serving on a committee.

While the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was speaking I laughed at his remark that there were no party implications in his proposals. There are serious party implications, because he is proposing that the effective power of this House should be based on a system of proportional representation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, this would be the thin end of the wedge. One can imagine a situation in which we would say that the Committee procedure is based on proportional representation, and then after a period of time we would move to the Report stage being based on proportional representation. So this particular cancer would spread throughout the whole House. To say that there are no political implications in the proposals is just not right.

One of the advantages of our present Committee procedure is that all Peers can take part and do not have to have the same strong party allegiance as specially chosen Peers inevitably would have on a Public Bill Committee. I should add that the whole body of the Peers includes over 200 Cross-Bench Peers who have no party allegiance at all; and some of the Members on the Benches opposite have not as strong a party allegiance as would be necessary for those who were asked to serve on a special Select Committee. This means to say that the House of Lords can be receptive to public opinion in a way that the House of Commons cannot be, and so on occasion can enable the other place to be asked to think again.

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has argued with some validity that it is only when the Conservatives are in power that there is a democratic impact at Committee stage, in that the Government of the day have the largest say, and that the problem is how to achieve this for every Government. This is a misleading argument in that the noble Lord is trying to achieve a situation where this House has an electoral mandate to challenge the will of the elected House. Those who are aware of the problems which arise where the two Houses of a Parliament have equal, or almost equal, authority and are elected on different electoral franchises—for example, such as in Australia —will certainly want to avoid a situation where an authority is given to this House on the basis of a different but valid electoral authority.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, the question of House of Lords reform is a matter which has been discussed for almost all of this century. Indeed, it has been discussed since the 1906 Liberal Government were elected and immediately found that their radical measures were being opposed by the then vast Tory ranks in this Chamber. It is a matter to which no ready solution has been found. Some of my friends have become so frustrated in this situation that they have felt that the only answer to the problem of an unelected and unrepresentative second House is to opt for single Chamber Government. I do not myself believe that that would be satisfactory unless there were further radical changes in the way in which the other place operates.

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has sought to show how the procedures which he is suggesting would work. I am sure that if there were a will, there would be a way in which the procedures could work. But from the short debate that we have had this afternoon it is clear that there is not in the House a will to want to see such procedures work. I do not therefore feel it incumbent on me to discuss the detailed procedural arrangements that would be necessary. Suffice it to say that the noble Lord's idea that the end of Session pressure could be relieved by increasing the number of Standing Committees considering Bills would not be a feasible arrangement because of the staffing implications that would arise for this short period of time during the year and also because it would be necessary for each one of those Committee procedures to be repeated at Report and Third Reading stage on the Floor of this House. Therefore, it would not even solve that particular problem.

As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has stated, the most useful work of this House—and, indeed, the work that justifies the existence of the House—is our detailed work on the examination and amendment of Public Bills at Committee stage. Behind this work lies the ability of this House to ask the other place to think again about certain aspects of its legislation without challenging the principle of that legislation on which the Government have been elected. We are the Chamber that enables the other Chamber to have a second thought; and, so far as we are concerned on this side of the House, since we have been the official Opposition in this House we have never sought to challenge the principle of the will of the elected Chamber, although I am bound to say that the present Government party only accepted this view after the 1945 General Election.

I should add of course that we have constantly and with great success during the last Parliament sought to amend the details of that legislation. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has pointed out, there was the conspicuous occasion when the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, led people from all parts of the House into the Lobby to defeat a particularly pernicious proposal of the Government. That was only one of 48 occasions during the last Parliament when the Government did not have their way. I am sure, as we enter into a new Parliament, there will be many more such occasions to come.

So far as this Motion is concerned, I hope that we have had a useful discussion about it today. But, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I hope that it goes no further.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for what he said about my participation in the debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, as to so many noble Lords, for their kind help in what has been the extremely difficult task of arriving for the first time in your Lordships' House and finding oneself seeking, to the best of one's ability, to lead it. To the extent that the noble Lord (or, rather, the debate) has given me some further instruction and food for thought, I am for that reason extremely grateful to him.

I should perhaps start by recalling a comment that I heard during a conversation between two noble Lords not long after I arrived in your Lordships' House. One turned to the other, not apparently seeing me—that is in itself a difficult thing to do—and said, "I hope he does not think that he knows everything". I said to myself, "Lord—I certainly do not do that". Then the noble Lord said, "I hope to goodness he will not come here and say that as he has been in another place for 28 years he now intends to tell us how to manage our affairs". I thought to myself that I could survive both those remarks, because they are the last things I have in mind. I have no intention of acting in that manner. Indeed, it has almost been borne in upon me that my own prejudices are becoming such that I am most anxious not to do something that has happened in another place if I can possibly avoid it. I have become a quick convert to the view that your Lordships' House does things in its own way quite differently and, I believe, in many instances, exactly as it should.

For the House to be a mirror of another place would not be a good idea. There would be the danger of it becoming a pale image, and that would be even worse. While, as Leader of your Lordships' House, I am only too ready and, I believe, must be ready to listen to all proposals, I do not necessarily start with prejudices in favour of bringing any thoughts of mine here from another place.

I should like now to turn to a few reflections on the debate: first, about thorough-going reforms. I think that your Lordships would consider it reasonable for me to say that, in present circumstances, I am not perhaps the best person to comment on the wisdom or otherwise of hereditary peerages. I shall therefore not go further down that road. To follow my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in his reflections on the 1968 Bill, I can only say that I was at that time Opposition Chief Whip in another place. My noble friend Lord Carrington and I, who have agreed on practically everything in our political lives, did not, however, agree on that occasion. I am not saying that we did not agree on the merits necessarily, because, as Opposition Chief Whip, I was not really entitled to a view on the merits. I was there presumably to do what Lord Carrington and others among my leaders felt should be done.

One night long before the phrase was coined in the manner that has become familiar in recent times, my noble friend Lord Carrington turned to me and said, "You are very wet indeed". I asked, "Why is that?", to which my noble friend replied, "Because you haven't the courage to Whip our party properly and to make sure that the proposals that I believe to be right for the House of Lords will get through". I reflect now that when I was said to be "very wet", it was because I was failing to Whip successfully my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Enoch Powell and one or two other people of such eminence. I think it will be seen that, whatever my attributes, it was not altogether wetness that made me fail on that occasion. I have one thought for your Lordships as I look back on that effort—that on thorough-going reforms it will be very difficult indeed for the other place ever to bring forward worthwhile reform. There is a very simple reason. Too much reform would make the other place feel that this House has to have more powers than it has now. That is the last thing in the world that the other place actually wants to give this House. Whether the other place should feel like that, I am not sure; but I know that that is its view.

I must refer to the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about an inbuilt Tory majority. I shall not trespass upon the territory of my noble friend the Chief Whip in this matter. My noble friend constantly tells me quite a different story. I have become so conditioned to it that I now fully believe—if I did not do so before—what he tells me. My noble friend has told me that if I do not believe it now I very soon will, to which I have replied that I do not expect to be shown and do not desire to be shown, but that I will accept his view.

I can, however, tell your Lordships what happened to me as a Minister in another place when seeking to take Bills through Parliament. It was a most instructive experience which taught me lessons I have learnt and which I shall pass on to my colleagues who are Ministers now. I do so from the position that I now hold. It is this. It is very dangerous in legislation to take your Lordships for granted. It is worth reflecting, if you are not going to succeed, that, just possibly, your Lordships are right and that it is you, the Minister, who is wrong. I do not say that this is always the case. I have to admit that there were moments at the Home Office when I would not have wished right reverend Prelates collectively to hear what I was saying about them. I am not of course referring to them individu ally. But, collectively, I was having to pay attention to their views which, while irritating at the time, I recognised as right and a wise course to follow. So, as when I lost one particular amendment on the Nationality Bill in your Lordships' House—and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was most generous to me in this matter—I fully realised that probably I was wrong and I went to my colleagues in the Cabinet and said that I thought I was wrong and that it would be sensible to allow what your Lordships had done to go through. I believe that that is the right way to look at legislation.

Therefore, I hope that no one will imagine that any Ministers—certainly in the last Parliament and, indeed, I hope in this one—will ever be under any illusion that they have a built-in Tory majority in this House. On many occasions I have had to tell them why I know that they have not, and I am very ready to do so, and, on behalf of your Lordships, will certainly do so. There is no such thing now as the built-in Tory majority. I think that it is to the good of this House, although it will not be to the good of me always when I have to account to my colleagues as to why I have failed. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not think that we should proceed to reforms on the basis of something which does not exist in the working of this House at the present time.

Many of the points that I was about to make have already been made. They have been made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, when I first joined another place was someone I looked up to very considerably, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, with his considerable knowledge, and I shall not repeat too many of them. But on a very short experience I am bound to reflect that the procedure in Committee on Public Bills in this House seems to have very great merits. I personally would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the fact that Public Bills are considered in a Committee of the Whole House may be one of the great strengths of this House. In a House which is composed predominantly of part-time Members it provides the opportunity for noble Lords to take part on those occasions when they are able to and when the Bill under consideration deals with a subject in which they are specially interested or expert.

Surely it is one of the great strengths of this House that it has Members who are expert in so many different fields that their wisdom on a particular aspect of a Bill should not be lost to the discussions in this House. It would be a great pity if that were so. Indeed, if we moved in the direction which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has suggested I think there is a danger that that is exactly what would happen. If it did not happen that way, there is a risk (and I have been told that this has happened sometimes in the past) of Report stages becoming more protracted, because many Members might hold back or, if they had been denied a position in the Committee, they might seek to make their particular points on Report.

It is for that reason I join with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in believing that the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would not help the appalling problem—which I fully appreciate I face—of congestion in the summer months at the end of the Session. It is a problem that greatly worries me, about which I consistently speak to my colleagues. But from the evidence that has been given to me of the past, I do not believe that these particular proposals would help. So I do not think that I can support them on those grounds.

Therefore, I do not believe that the case has been made out. Indeed, since, on a very short experience in this House, I also profoundly believe that this House must work by consent, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby said, there is no sign of consent for a change of this sort and therefore I believe that my duty as Leader of the House is to point to that and say that if we were to succeed we would have to move by general consent. Equally, when the experiment was tried before I do not believe that it was all that successful.

Quite possibly the best way forward is through the Select Committee procedure, using committees like the Select Committee on Science and Technology and the European Communities Committee with its very eminent membership. They have, indeed, been a considerable advance in this House. I believe that that is the right way in which we should seek to go forward.

Of course, I would be very ready to consider any proposals if there was a general feeling of consent for them in this House. To everyone who asks me how I enjoy this House or how I find my job in this House I consistently say that it is extremely interesting to have to win consent for what you want to do. A House which works by consent needs a great deal of understanding and a great deal of work to obtain that consent. I shall seek to proceed on that basis and I shall certainly consider any proposals that come to me on that basis.

Therefore, as the evidence given to me leads me to believe at this time and from what has been said in this debate, I do not believe that the proposals of the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, as such would improve the procedures. So I could not agree to the procedure that the noble Lord proposes on behalf of the House because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, I do not think that that consent exists at the present time.

I do not believe that we could make major reforms by a side wind and, with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I rather suspect that perhaps it has something to do with the position of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, although I appreciate that he also believes that the Standing Committee procedure might be best. On the experience of another place, it is perhaps fair to say that not everybody in another place believes that the Standing Committee procedure, as they practise it, is to the best advantage of the House. I personally have considerable doubts about it. Of course, another place also sometimes has doubts about it, for whenever they deal with a Bill on which a great many Members of another place wish to speak the Government of the day are flooded with the most clamant demands for the legislation to be taken in a Committee of the Whole House, and they allow it because the Bill in question is a constitutional Bill or because it is a Bill of such importance that many Members will wish to take part in it. I hope that your Lordships will ponder on that, because I believe that the procedure in this House is a particular advantage. If another place believe that it is sometimes an advantage to them, all the more is it an advantage to this House.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not proceed with his proposals, but I thank him very much for having raised them. If some of my remarks seem to many noble Lords to be rather lacking in experience or understanding, perhaps this afternoon has given me an opportunity to gain both in experience and understanding.

My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude not only to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—particularly to the noble Viscount, who has been good enough to spare his time to do so, but also to many of your Lordships who have been good enough to stay and listen to the debate. I am sure that that will be a great encouragement to those who believe that the House of Lords takes great care to ensure that it is managed in the best possible way. That is what this debate is about.

I am most grateful to noble Lords who, notwithstanding that they are not of my party, have been good enough to make such kind references to me. It is very moving and I am most grateful indeed. Therefore, there is no need for me to repeat that the proposals which I have in mind are directed purely not only to improving the practice of this House but more particularly to ensuring its permanence. That is what I am after. I am bound to say that I do not entirely accept the views which have been expressed on the two major criticisms—proportional representation and the hereditary principle. Perhaps I may say why. I shall read to your Lordships again the views of the Bow Committee, as expressed in their report. The first recommendation is:

"75 per cent. of the Upper House should be elected by the regional list system of proportional representation at the same time as a General Election",

et cetera. That is 75 per cent. They propose proportional representation, and some weight must be given to the fact that here a number of intelligent people spent a great deal of time thinking about it. What element do they propose of hereditary representation? Nil. Then I return to the Conservative Party's committee on the reform of the House of Lords, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. What proportion of the House did they recommend for the hereditary principle? None. None in each case. Therefore, it is not surprising that I should take it that there is a body of informed opinion which takes the view that the hereditary principle is not here for all time. I was making an attempt to move a step forward in the only way in which we could move forward, and which is wholly in line with these two committees to which I have referred.

I have already quoted one reference to proportional representation. If one is to get a direct democratic impact of a kind that would be seen by the outside world for what it is—an attempt to introduce more democratic understanding of some of our procedures—I do not see what formula is better than the formula of votes cast at the last General Election. I do not know of any other way of demonstrating that principle. If anybody can think of a better answer, then by all means let us have it.

If one considers this Mother of Parliaments, as we so happily call it—this fertile Mother of Parliaments—I am bound to say that it is the case that of all the offspring she has produced there is no single offspring in her own likeness. There is no single offspring which has a hereditary element in it, and one can see Parliaments all over the world which take our basic approach as their principle for creating their own Houses. Therefore, I do not think that I need to go further in demonstrating the view of solid, hardworking committees of the Conservative Party, views held by other parties, views held by the population at large here, and views held by other countries as shown by the Parliaments which they have established.

The only other thing I would say is that I know that it does not necessarily form part of this debate, but nobody has come forward with a better idea. I wish they had. It is not making much progress towards something which I think we need to progress towards, although I am much assuaged by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who makes it clear that at all events this part of the Labour Party is not in favour of the destruction of the House of Lords, though other parts of the Labour Party may have it as their official policy. That is good news, which I welcome, but I wish that somebody had come forward with some other constructive idea.

Nobody has said that this is the only idea. It is an idea which of course is similar to the idea adopted by the Labour Committee which looked at this in 1977 under the chairmanship of Lord Champion, with which I was closely associated. If there had been another idea we could have looked at that as well. I hope that that will be so. I hope that Members will turn over what has been suggested in their minds. One does not expect victory at first go. If the noble Viscount will recollect, there was a time in the other place when we sat opposite one another, and I used every opportunity I could of bringing in a Private Member's Bill to provide for compensation for loss of jobs. He did everything he could, and he was completely successful at the time, to prevent that Bill having any chance of seeing the light of day, and he talked it out very successfully on every occasion. But, my Lords, this has been the law of the land for a considerable time now, and I am somewhat encouraged by that recollection of the past. I am grateful to everybody who has participated. I am most grateful to everybody who has listened. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on the Easing of Frontier Formalities.

My Lords, among the many gifts that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has brought to this House and to the country are so lucid a mind and such an ability, in a speech of some 25 minutes, to take from a fairly long report and much evidence all the salient points that were raised by the sub-committee on which I have the privilege to serve, that anybody who takes 10 minutes after him in order to try to refer to the report and the recommendations is, I believe, being over-generous to himself in regard to the apportionment of time.

I therefore intend to abide by that generalisation and to say only this: for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord has given, not the least of them being the desire in this country to keep our constitutional principles of the freedom of the subject from unnecessary interference in the form of identity checks in the streets, the possession of identity cards, and so on, it is quite obvious that it would be quite wrong for us in our peculiar island position in the family of the EEC to do away with, or indeed to reduce at all, the passport controls and the limitations that we put upon people who pass through our frontier by way of a very short check—a check that takes a matter of seconds, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out.

I think we would all agree that the general principle that has been adumbrated in the EEC is a good one. There is the very first sentence that forms part of this report and gives the history of the thought within the EEC:

"At the European Summit meeting held in Paris on 9 and 10 December 1974, the Heads of Government called for an examination of the possibility of establishing a passport union, which was to include the introduction of a uniform passport, a progressive harmonisation of legislation affecting aliens and the abolition of passport control within the Community."

Some of us when hearing those words will remember a great Foreign Secretary of this country, Ernest Bevin, who regarded it as the aim of the foreign policy of this country, although he realised it would take many years to achieve it, that one would be able to walk anywhere across frontiers without indeed having to have a passport at all. That dream has not yet been achieved and, for the reasons given in this report to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention, there is no suggestion at this stage, from the point of view of security, for the release of the controls that we have.

The noble and learned Lord referred quite properly to the fact that in the course of our endeavours to meet these ideals and to achieve some feeling of real "family" within the European Community, there is to be a common form for a European passport in January 1985. This has caused some concern among people who have heard of this and who feel that they are to give up the very precious national format of their passport. They should be assure that the national particulars and description will certainly be prominently displayed on that common format. I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness who is to reply to this debate at least to give a little more information, since the date is not far off, as to what is to happen in January 1985 with this common format.

Are all of us to give up our passports and thereby, one would have thought overburden the poor Passport Office with having to issue new passports in January 1985? Or are we to be allowed to go to the normal permitted extent of the passport period and wait until shortly before the end of that time before asking for the common format? If that is so, many of us will have passports with perhaps nine years still to run, and it may be somewhat peculiar that many of us will be retaining for a number of years the old passports of which we are fond before being issued with the common format.

Before I sit down, there is one matter to which the noble and learned Lord called attention and about which there is very little knowledge indeed. He dealt with it briefly but concisely, as always. I refer to the right of the members of the European Community to reside in various countries within the European Community. I think it is understandable that people do not know about the right of residence. The right to work they know of, and also of the right to open up a business; but the right of residence—is it automatic or is it not? It is something which one finds few people really understand—and I say this with the greatest of respect to the witnesses who appeared before us and who were so helpful. But, as one reads the report, even one very able official of the Home Office expressed matters, not by way of mistake but in a way which he himself thought afterwards ought to be corrected.

I wonder whether, within the few minutes I have allowed myself only because I think it is of general importance, I may be allowed just to quote one or two questions and answers, and the clarification. I think it might be useful. Question No. 45 was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and I quote:

"The requirement to register with the police has been withdrawn, as I understand it, as far as European Community nationals are concerned, but there is a requirement to obtain a Home Office residence permit".

The answer was:

"They do apply for a Home Office permit".

Question 46 was as follows:

"Are they told that as they go through immigration control? Are they told there is a requirement to register with the Home Office?"

The Home Office official replied as follows:

"They are told that they can apply. I do not think there is a requirement for them to apply, this is an aspect of EEC law. In fact the EEC national may apply for a residence permit but we cannot require it".

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, then said:

"That seems to be a very extraordinary situation".

That matter was clarified later at page 63 of the report. It contains some very interesting figures and in reading that paragraph I shall close my remarks, I promise your Lordships.

"The answer recorded at paragraph 46 needs some qualification. The position is that EC nationals must obtain a residence permit from the Home Office after they have been in this country for six months if they intend to remain. We suggest this is corrected by a footnote on the following lines, which also includes the further information requested by Lord Harris (paragraph 50)".

I quote:

"Under the Immigration Rules an EC national may remain in the United Kingdom for six months without a residence permit but then must obtain one from the Home Office. A residence permit will be issued if the EC national is in employment; has established himself in business, or in a self-employed capacity, or in accordance with rights relating to the provision and receipt of services; or is a member of the family of such a person. But a residence permit can be refused on grounds of public policy, public security or public health".

The interesting figures after that are that in 1981 a total of 48 residence permits were refused and in 1982 the total was 89. Those are rather interesting facts and figures. But, having said that, and the noble and learned Lord having said everything useful about this report, I hope that the House will endorse the recommendations that have been made.

My Lords, I an extremely grateful to be able to have an opportunity to comment on this report and, as usual, to congratulate all those involved, not only the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and his fellow-members on the sub-committee, but also those who wrote the report. It is the greatest joy for me to read a good report written in good English. It does not happen very often on the other side of the channel, so I particularly welcome it. I should also like to say as a preliminary remark that I have notified my noble friend Lady Trumpington of one or two questions that I may ask. I hope that if I exceed my quota of questions she will understand, and of course I shall expect a written reply at some later stage and on no account an immediate reply tonight. Clearly, questions of nationality are very confusing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, even the learned officials at the Home Office do not always get it 100 per cent. right and have to send an amendment to their statement.

To begin with, all of us who travel frequently within the Community welcome the idea of easing frontier formalities—this is clear—and as members of the Community we have already benefited. First, we no longer, as we did in 1973, have landing cards to fill in at whichever airport we are going to. I think that the only country in the Community which now has landing cards is Greece, and in a recent reply in the European Parliament the Foreign Minister said that they were now trying to make arrangements so that a landing card would not be required in Greece for EEC nationals. That is a great improvement and we welcome it.

I also welcome very much the measures that have been taken at Heathrow, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, so that we now have a channel for EEC nationals and then a channel for what may be described as "others". We have a channel also for United Kingdom nationals, but, when that column is rather long, those of us who recognise that we are members of the EEC sometimes go through the EEC channel and are treated with the usual courtesy, politeness and efficiency of the passport control officers—something to which we have now become accustomed. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating them and thanking them for the way in which they conduct their business, and for the way in which they check people going through the passport control with such efficiency and courtesy.

The third benefit that we have had, which those who do not travel by car so much may not recognise—and I travel a great deal by car across the internal frontiers to which the noble and learned Lord referred—is the fact that practically never are you asked to produce your passport if you go through in a car with a Community number plate. It is very rare indeed. Of course, there are one or two black spots which are well-known to travellers and I shall not embarrass member states by mentioning them here now. But, certainly, pressure on one or two frontiers would ease traffic congestion and columns waiting for an hour or an hour and a half to go through. It is probably due to a lack of sufficient passport control officers at those frontiers. But, by and large, those who travel by car throughout the Community, crossing internal frontiers from one country to another, are very seldom indeed asked to produce a passport if they are in a Community car, by which I do not mean an official car but an ordinary private car.

Here I should like to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues in the European Parliament, particularly Mr. Basil de Ferranti and my noble friend Lord Bethell, who have done so much to try to ease the passage of individuals travelling throughout the Community; because it is only by pressure on Governments that you achieve even these limited objectives.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has referred to the complex problem of defining an external frontier and an internal frontier. But it is fair to note that in the Council's draft resolution it is stated that the specific measures which are used at external frontiers are to remain, so that, in so far as we have external frontiers—and this is a matter for discussion—the measures that are employed at them are to remain and there is no question of removing them.

But the noble and learned Lord, quite understandably, raised what I think is the crucial element in all this. If this proposal were to go through blank with no amendment, and with no further consideration, the proposal itself would be leapfrogging over Community law. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, there is no right of residence for an EEC national in any other member state—and, of course, in the United Kingdom as well. Then there are the three grounds on which an EEC national can be debarred—grounds of public policy, public health or public security. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will recall only too well the famous Van Duyn case, where an EEC national was stopped from entering the United Kingdom.

But let us be clear. It is very much easier to stop somebody from entering the United Kingdom by way of immigration control, than to try under the very complex rules that we have in this country to deport somebody who has once acquired, rightly or wrongly, entry to this country. At the moment, I cannot conceive, as Community law stands, that the proposal of the Council holds water, because it simply denies the fact that this Community legislation is not prepared to meet the problems which would arise if checking were stopped. So that this would be the practical effect if checking were stopped at points of entry.

Let us also recognise that all member states in the Community—and I am sure that this will come out in discussions between Foreign Ministers—have problems of illegal immigrants and no member state is going to allow complete freedom of entry for every EEC national throughout the Community, without any kind of checking. Let us also be clear that, even if nationals of EEC states are allowed through, there are two countries, at least, which have other forms of checking which are currency control checks. So that even where they let you through without seeing your passport, you may well be checked on grounds of currency control, and there is what might be called a "back-stop" to anybody going through a point of entry. Thanks to the removal of restrictions on exchange control we no longer have that check in this country, but it certainly exists in at least two of the Community countries. Certainly, I would not welcome any relaxation of the checking as it now exists at points of entry in the United Kingdom, and, once again, I congratulate those who have to operate the rules and strongly endorse the way in which they do that.

With regard to the Community passport, that is welcomed by many, partly as a symbol of identity of membership of a community, and partly because it will bring recognition as a member of the European Community not only within the member states but also outside the Community. I should like to raise five points, some of which I have already mentioned to my noble friend. The first is that we want an assurance—this would allay some of the fears of those who dislike the idea of having a Community passport—that the nationality will be on the outside cover of the passport. There is, after all, a principle of international law that a national can turn to his or her state of nationality for protection when abroad, and the passport is nearly always the only evidence of nationality. This would still be necessary, even if travelling in other member states.

We have only to think of those who today may be lingering in gaol in Holland for various activities last night at a football match, to know that they may need aid from their consul or legal representation in a Dutch court. This is a typical example of where you would be able to show your passport, or some document, to prove that you had British nationality and wanted to see the British consul. This is an essential element if there is to be a Community passport. I know that it has been said that this is to be on it, but I should like an assurance from my noble friend that indeed this will be so.

My second point relates to the United Kingdom passport holder. This is only going to be a problem for a limited period of time until the Community passport, if it is introduced, fully replaces the other. As I understand it, under the declaration of December 1982, giving the new definition of "national" (in accordance with the British Nationality Act 1981) as regards the European Community, United Kingdom passport holders who do not have the right of abode in this country would not be included. Perhaps my noble friend could either confirm or deny that particular point. It means that a United Kingdom passport holder who has no right of abode would not be entitled to a Community passport because, in accordance with the definition tabled by the United Kingdom in this recent declaration, he would not be a Community national.

My third point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It relates to the issue of the Community passport in January 1985. As I read the report—which was rather late in the evening so perhaps I did not fully comprehend it—I understood that the Government intend to link the issue of this Community passport with a machine readable passport. However, the report also said that it would be several years before the system could be introduced. Does that mean that the Government do not intend to introduce a Community passport in January 1985? Or do they accept that they will not be able to link it, to begin with, to the machine readable passport and that therefore the bordeaux coloured passport will be issued in January 1985 to those who apply for it? With regard to the colour, perhaps I should say that if we had been fortunate enough when passports were first introduced in 1910 to have had them coloured dark red instead of blue, the emotions which the colour has aroused now would not perhaps be so deep as they appear to be in some minor sections of the population in Britain. I point to the colour of the Benches of your Lordships' House.

I should like to make a comment about one paragraph in the report. In paragraph 24 we read:

"There would be no effective obstacle to the presentation of forged, borrowed or stolen passports".

This I would cover by the euphemistic term "misplaced patriotism". If you look at the way that British visitors' passports are issued and at the way that they are acknowledged and allowed as documents of identity in other member states, the fact is that if Governments of other member states knew how these passports are issued I should be amazed if they ever allowed anybody in. Indeed, I sometimes wonder why people are allowed to re-enter the United Kingdom if that is all that can be given as evidence of having left the United Kingdom.

Today I obtained a form from the post office to find out exactly how easy it is to get one of these passports. The only form you have to produce, although there is a choice, is either a National Health Service medical card or a DHSS retirement pension book. These do not in any way show that you are a British subject. We know that there are many people in this country who are not British subjects but who naturally and quite fairly are entitled to those benefits in this country. Although the application form for a British visitors passport says on the face of it, "For British citizens" there is nothing on the document which asks you to sign that you are a British subject. Indeed, it does not require a signature. As about 1 million of these passports are issued every year I would suggest that the Home Office, which criticises other countries about forgeries, should look at the way these passports are issued and the dangers they may present in enabling illegal immigrants to enter this country without sufficient control.

Finally, may I say a word about non-passport excursions. Many of us have had problems with these recently. I know that it is said that this is no part of the Community passport problem, but in my view it is. These excursions are based on agreements which were bilaterally signed before we entered the Community. I should have thought that the obligation to allow freedom of movement to EEC nationals has superseded those agreements. Therefore, this matter should be looked into. If Community passports were issued to these travellers, no doubt the problems, which have been very unfortunate at certain ports on the north coast of the Continent of Europe, would no longer arise.

I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for having exceeded the 10 minutes which he laid down. I did not formally agree to the proposal. I apologise to the House for having spoken four minutes over my time, but I hope that some of the thoughts which I have shared with your Lordships will be answered by my noble friend.

My Lords, those who know and admire the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, will not be in the least surprised by the welcome gravity and the pellucid clarity of this report. In addition, those noble Lords who have attended the whole of this debate must be wondering whether there is anything left for me to say. I am delighted to be able to inform your Lordships that there is very little indeed.

In reading this report, which I found immensely interesting and from which I have learned a great deal, I was rather sad but not really surprised to learn from the evidence that was given by Dr. Taschner, when he answered a question of devastating simplicity put to him by the chairman of Sub-Committee "E", namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that he had let the cat out of the bag quite seriously with regard to the point of delay. It must be immensely sad for the members of these committees, who work so terribly hard in order to influence the decision-making process, to hear that the answer to the question, "What do you see as the objectives that this proposal is designed to achieve?" is: "To make the first step in the direction of passport union". This should be the final objective—not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow, but perhaps in the future. This of course is a recipe for doing absolutely nothing at all.

We have all suffered very many examples of the Government doing nothing, for it is fundamentally the easiest answer to all the problems that lie at their door. However, it is my belief, which is not necessarily of any importance whatsoever, that when the European Communities receive reports of this clarity and quality they should be immensely grateful for them and should take great note of them.

The only other point I should like to make is the one referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, concerning the figures which were quoted to the committee by the Home Office; namely, the time that it takes an immigration official to process a member of the European Communities. It was given as six seconds. I know from my own experience that it is disingenuous to consider this point alone. When you see only two or three immigration officers processing a planeload of some 350 people you know that it takes a great deal longer than six seconds to get through that process. I would suggest that one of the greatest benefits in the easing of frontier formalities would be to increase the number of staff at the frontier points rather than to decrease them. This would make life a great deal easier for inter-Community travellers.

My Lords, I am sure we are all most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for so eloquently bringing to the notice of the House the report of the European Communities Committee on the Easing of Frontier Formalities. I would add that the Government are very grateful for this report on this draft Council resolution.

As your Lordships know, discussion of the proposal is at only a very early stage in Brussels and the committee's analysis will be a great help to us in the continuing negotiations. We have also listened to the very interesting speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friends Lord Morris and Lady Elles. If I omit any points they have raised, I shall be delighted to write to them. I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend for their prior notice.

The committee have pointed out that the resolution proposed by the Commission would have no legally binding effect. We should nevertheless be bound to have regard to it if we had agreed its terms because it would be, in the Commission's words, a "gentleman's agreement". The committee were not sure that the proposal to abolish systematic checks on the entry of EC nationals to this country could be brought about without a change in our domestic law. I believe that changes in domestic law could well be required. The Commission's answer to that is "Very well, change the United Kingdom law". But I do not think it is desirable that the United Kingdom's immigration law should be made for us in this way in an area which has impact outside the scope of the Treaty of Rome. We are, of course, sympathetic to the Commission's wish to create symbols which would give EC nationals a greater sense of belonging to a community of states. And I think that we should all agree that easing the formalities of travel abroad is desirable for its own sake where it can be done without damage. But the Government's ability to respond positively to this sort of proposal has to take account of the practical consequences for our system of immigration control.

As I shall explain shortly, we have good reasons for wanting to retain our present system of immigration control at the ports, which relies on an ability to carry out systematic checks, and we could not accept any proposal which might lessen our ability to do this. In paragraph 9 of the report the committee recommend that the resolution should be considered by the Governments of the member states rather than by the European Council. In the Government's view, such proposals as this would indeed be more appropriately considered in a political forum in which the member states could decide for themselves what is practical and possible.

I am sure I do not need to dwell at length on the reasons why the Commission's proposal for the abolition of systematic checks at ports is unacceptable to us; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has already given some examples of this. As your Lordships know, we are able to take advantage of our position as an island to place the emphasis of our immigration control on checks at the ports. Our EC partners with long land frontiers are not so fortunate and must rely much more on internal checks on the movements of foreign nationals in and out of their countries. Systematic checks at the ports are perhaps not so vital to them as to us and this places the United Kingdom in a difficult position in responding to the Commission.

The draft resolution refers to "internal frontiers" but the Commission have made it clear that they mean any port through which EC nationals pass. I realise that some of this ground has been covered already, but I feel that I should repeat the Government's point of view for the sake of the record. The only realistic way of achieving their objective would be to abolish systematic checks on EC nationals arriving from any part of the world. All that we could demand from them on arrival at a United Kingdon port would be a sight of the front cover of their passport or identity card. Occasional spot checks and questioning would be allowed, but only where the immigration officer believed that there were special reasons.

Your Lordships will appreciate, as the Committee did, the possibilities for abuse which could greatly undermine the effectiveness of our control. There would also be the risk that constant arguments would follow as to what constituted a spot check—and EC nationals who objected if an immigration officer looked into their passports would complain to the Commission and demands for explanations would follow.

I think it is fair to ask whether this proposed change of procedure is really necessary. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I do not think that it is. There was general agreement among those who gave evidence to the committee that it took longer for an EC national to recover his baggage than to pass through immigration control. An EC national can be cleared through immigration control in, on average 12 to 15 seconds; that is, once he arrives at immigration control. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Elles paid tribute to the efficiency of our immigration officers, and I share her view.

There is no suggestion that our present procedures put EC nationals to any real inconvenience—and any advantage to them of abolishing the very short, albeit systematic, check to which they are subjected at present would make very little real difference to the speed of their passage through the airport. What it would do is to hamper immigration officers very considerably in their ability to identify criminals, drug addicts, people on forged papers and people seeking to evade the control by posing as EC nationals and using documents which did not belong to them. The Government's view is that the gains to passengers would be very much outweighed by the loss to the efficiency of the control.

Since the Government have no intention of abolishing their present system of examining passports on entry, there is perhaps little point in my saying much about what we should have to do if we did. The committee agreed, I think, that an internal control involving compulsory identity cards and police powers to examine them would be the only alternative. Some of our EC partners already have such a system. I understand that identity cards are compulsory in Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece and Luxembourg. They are not compulsory in France and Italy, although French nationals must be able to produce evidence of identity if challenged. Only Denmark and the Netherlands do not issue them at all. In addition citizens, as well as foreign nationals, in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany have to register their addresses with the police or local authorities.

If the United Kingdom were to adopt a system relying on internal control, it could not be confined to foreign nationals but would have to embrace British citizens as well. The police could not confine their inquiries as to a person's immigration status to foreign nationals because they would first have to establish whether the person was a British citizen or not. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the British people are unlikely to take kindly to any proposal that they should carry identity cards and register their addresses with the police just so as to enable EC nationals to get through immigration control without having their documents checked.

On this particular point, I will finish by saying that I have some difficulties with the committee's conclusion that the Commission's objectives could be better achieved by member states applying identical checks to all EC nationals, drawing no distinction between own nationals and nationals of other member states. It may be that other member states make a greater distinction than we do between own nationals and others, but I think that such a distinction is inevitable and could not be abolished. As your Lordships know, British citizens have a right to enter this country and their passports are only examined at the ports to make sure that the individual in question does indeed have that right. EC nationals, even if they are workers coming here in exercise of their free movement treaty rights, have no such right. They can be refused entry on grounds of public policy, public security and public health, and that is the difference.

Immigration officers have a duty to satisfy themselves that EC nationals presenting themselves at the control can properly be admitted, and that is what accounts for the examination taking a few seconds longer, on average, than it does for British citizens. I do not honestly think that there is any possibility of doing away with the distinction between the way we treat own nationals and other EC nationals, although the immigration service constantly tries to speed up the clearance rate of passengers such as EC nationals.

It could be, however, that the committee was making a point about the way own nationals and EC nationals approach the immigration control, and this brings me on to the second limb of the Commission's proposal relating to separate channels. The Commission has said that its recommendation that there should be separate channels for EC nationals at ports was influenced by the provision of such channels at Heathrow and Dover. I think I am right in saying that we are in the lead in Europe in making special arrangements to speed the efficient means of clearing EC nationals.

Our criteria for deciding on channelling arrangements at the ports is the most efficient means of clearing the passengers. Our approach is essentially a pragmatic one, in that it is designed to permit flexible response to the demands of passenger traffic. We have occasionally tried to have a combined channel for British and other EC nationals, but it can sometimes be more trouble than it is worth and lead to British passengers being slowed down without any compensating benefits for other EC nationals. Essentially therefore we leave it to the Immigration Service to make the most efficient arrangements it can on the spot, and I think that this is right. I can assure your Lordships that we are only too aware of the need to use manpower and space resources as efficiently as possible at the ports and it is something which we keep under constant review. But, as I said, we have provided separate channels for other EC nationals at the ports and airports that handle the bulk of the passenger traffic to and from other member states. We hope that the other member states will be able to follow our lead in this.

Taking the questions put to me by my noble friend Lady Elles, the first one concerned the European Community common format passport. That has been agreed to between member states for introduction on 1st January 1985 or as soon as possible thereafter. It will be smaller than the existing United Kingdom passport, will be burgundy red in colour, and will have "European Community" as well as the name of the member state on the front cover. The Government are committed both to the common format passport and to a machine-readable passport, and a further statement will be made in due course.

Following on that—taking the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—the new common format passport will be issued to persons when they need new passports. It will be a gradual process with the old ones running their course until they expire, and I shall be in the nine-year situation.

My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to put a supplementary question? I was not quite clear whether she said that the passport would be introduced on 1st January 1985. If she cannot say, I quite understand, but could she say whether it is expected to be introduced on that date?

My Lords, I do not think I can say specifically that that date has been agreed. Consultations are still proceeding as to the date and I would not wish to tie the Government down to the actual date. Certainly agreement has been reached. I did say '"or as soon as possible thereafter".

My noble friend's second point concerned the issue of common format passports to British citizens. I understand that the intention is to issue the common format passport to all persons who will have been defined as United Kingdom nationals for EC purposes. In practice this means British citizens and British dependent territory citizens who acquire citizenship by virtue of their connection with Gibraltar. The exact format of passports issued to those who are not United Kingdom nationals for EC purposes is yet to be decided. In the case of British dependent citizens this will be by consultation with the authorities in the dependent territories concerned.

Point No. 3 raised by my noble friend concerned the British visitors' passport. The Rayner scrutiny of the Passport Office recommended abolition of the British visitors' passport alongside the computerisation of the Passport Office. No decision has yet been taken and the matter will be further considered in the context of the computerisation of the Passport Office.

The fourth point raised by my noble friend is about no-passport excursions and the free movement provisions for EC nationals. The no-passport excursion arrangements with France are not relevant to the EC Treaty or the free movement of labour provisions. My noble friend is quite correct that the no-passport excursion arrangements have been voluntarily undertaken on a bilateral basis and are concerned with visitors whose admission they are designed to facilitate on the basis of documentation less formal than a passport or identity card. We regret the way in which the scheme has been operated by the French in recent months and are in contact with them about its future operation. We are hoping to have further talks with them later this month.

The other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, concerned the right of residence. EC nationals are usually admitted for six months whatever the purpose of their visit. If they wish to remain longer they are required by the immigration rules to obtain a resident's permit from the Home Office. Those who wish to remain are usually workers, businessmen and their families. After four years these people may apply for settlement and may remain without further immigration conditions.

Finally, it may be interesting to your Lordships if I give some indication of the way matters have progressed in Brussels in the past few months. At the end of their presidency in June the Federal Republic of Germany produced an interim report on progress so far. Essentially the working group had to report that it had not been possible to reach agreement, especially on the question of abandoning systematic checks which was seen to pose security and immigration problems for member states. Several countries have said that they could not abandon them, and all agreed that merely showing an unopened common format passport would not be enough to establish citizenship.

I think that this strengthens my message this evening that there are considerable differences in the member states' various systems of frontier checks, and that any proposals for change will have to deal with some complicated relationships. The presidency proposed that trials would be necessary to assess what further easing of formalities would be feasible, what bilateral arrangements would be necessary and what the cost might be in terms of money and manpower. The date for the next meeting of the working group has not been fixed, but we understand that the focus will now be on some sort of feasibility study. The Government will be happy to collaborate in this, provided that what is proposed will not detract from the present effectiveness of the immigration control.

I hope I have now said enough to leave the House in no doubt as to the Government's welcome for this report and the very useful arguments and analysis which it contains. We shall do what we can—if I may paraphrase the words of its concluding paragraph—to engender a sense of belonging to the European Community without detracting from the safeguards which we regard as essential.

My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Baroness for the formal expression of views on behalf of the Government which we have just heard, and also the care with which she has dealt with a number of questions arising upon passports—questions which do not strictly arise out of this report.

One matter I should like to mention in reply is the impact of these proposals—or the possible impact of these proposals—if they should become effective, on United Kingdom law. I have no doubt that the committee were quite right in believing that that impact would not be insignificant. Unfortunately, it will be significant in the field of civil rights. That is the underlying danger of dismantling systematic controls in the airports and seaports and substituting for them internal controls.

Every member state of the Community, other than ourselves, and I think the Republic of Ireland, who rely, as they do, on internal checks, being unable to establish satisfactory external frontier checks, have to give and do give a right to the police and other authorities to stop people and demand proof of their identity on the streets, however innocent, saintly and orderly those people are. Those are the legal implications and they are serious.

Summing up, I do not think that our friends in Brussels will be at all surprised either at the course of this debate or at the contents of the report. I think that when Dr. Taschner left this building to return to Brussels he knew—at any rate he could surmise—that so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, discontinuing systematic identity checks at our airports and seaports was a non-runner. I think he also knew that we had a very efficient system—and I am glad that others in this debate have said so—for conducting these checks quickly. I think he also knew that the special channels which we have established, and which are now a model, are the way forward.

There is nothing in this report (and nothing I perceive in this debate) which indicates any lack of will to go forward towards common-form passports and no lack of will to see established at all the busier points of interest special channels for EC nationals. I hope that it will not be interpreted in Brussels and elsewhere that this report—discouraging as it is on one aspect of the proposals—is in any way discouraging ease of movement and travel between member states. That is not the point at all. Our point is something quite different: it is the maintenance of our immigration control in a way which causes the least offence to EC nationals and other innocent visitors—and welcome visitors—to the United Kingdom.