HC Deb 13 June 1972 vol 838 cc1442-67

12.35 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr)

I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1972 for the reimbursement to any Member, within a maximum of £60, of two-thirds of the cost of a commercial course of study which he has completed in a European Economic Community language. Perhaps, at this late hour, it would be convenient if I were to move the Motion formally and then if questions are asked perhaps I would be allowed to answer them at the end of the debate.

12.36 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

In the last Session of Parliament the Leader of the House kept the House up late night after night on his Industrial Relations Bill, which, now an Act, today, above all days, has turned out to be a total wreck—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Kaufman

I shall immediately relate that exordium to the subject of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the right hon. Gentleman did last Session has turned out to be a catastrophe. Now the right hon. Gentleman is keeping us late on matters which should have been debated much earlier in the day when more hon. Members could have been present. I regard this as an effrontery to the House—and I refer particularly to this Motion, which I oppose.

The Leader of the House said that he would answer questions. I have a number of questions to put to him. First, I should like to know simply why the Motion has been brought forward. Other matters which have been brought forward, including the Motion which is to follow this one about reimbusing hon. Members who travel as a consequence of their parliamentary duties, have been part of what might be called "the Boyle package". This Motion is not part of the Boyle package. It has been brought forward gratuitously, and the minimum information has been provided to hon. Members. The only information which the House has about it is the minutes of the proceedings of the Services Committee on 12th April and following days, which are available from the Vote Office. When we turn to page iv of the minutes, we find less than half a page of a report of a meeting on 2nd May. The Leader of the House was in the chair. None of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench was in attendance. There was a thin attendance of the Committee. The report says: Language training for Members of Parliament considered. Resolved, That the proposal of the Government"— it was a Government proposal to the Services Committee— to contribute two-thirds of the cost, within a maximum of £60, of a commercial course of study in respect of an European Economic Community language"— I like the archaism, "an European"— be approved". That is all the House of Commons is told about a proposal which I believe to be both controversial and of some consequence.

I oppose the Motion for four reasons. The first is that it is purely a European Economic Community Motion. It is for a Member who studies a European Economic Community language. Therefore, it is part and parcel of the Government's Common Market policy. It is an extension of it. It is a policy which is very controversial in the House. The fact that the Government, in putting forward this Motion, are proposing to recompense only hon. Members who study one of the EEC languages proves a view that a number of us hold—that the whole European policy of this Government is inward looking.

I am sorry that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) has not been selected. It is the one that would have deleted "European Economic Community" and inserted "foreign". Then there would have been some logic to it, the logic that hon. Members seeking to learn a foreign language which they regarded as part of their parliamentary activities would be recompensed. Surely, looking at the languages of the Community and the problems of the world, it would be just as valuable for an hon. Member to learn Russian or Chinese, Spanish—

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

Arabic?

Mr. Kaufman

—or Arabic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) rightly says. There are so many problems in connection with oil and the Middle East. Urdu is a language which is useful to hon. Members with Pakistani constituents. All those languages would be at least as valuable to hon. Members as EEC languages. Therefore, I oppose this Motion, because it is purely an EEC Motion, limited and inward looking.

Mr. David Steel (Selkirk, Roxburgh and Peebles)

The hon. Member read out the recommendation accepted by the Services Committee. I hope that he will accept that the Select Committee on Services represents very different views on the European question. That is certainly not how we considered it.

Mr. Kaufman

I am interested in what the hon. Member says as he is not recorded as having attended and he therefore, speaks vicariously when he uses the word "We". In any case, the fact that 10 hon. Gentlemen meeting in the service of the House took a view does not mean that it is a view which I have to accept. I do not question the bona fides of the Services Committee in accepting the Government proposal, nor do I deny that there would be hon. Members on the Services Committee who oppose the Common Market, although if I take my hon. Friends on the Committee, the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) and the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well beloved), they are all supporters of British entry to the Community. The only one of my hon. Friends who attended the meeting and is an opponent of our entry is my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. David Reed), and the report does not say that the proposal was accepted unanimously.

Since the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) was not present, I do not know whether he can tell us whether it was accepted unanimously. [Interruption.] My right hon Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was not present. I said that nobody from our Front Bench was there.

Even if one accepted the Government proposal that it was an EEC language which was to be studied, why only one language? Why does the motion limit hon. Gentlemen in that way? Who is to judge the relative importance of learning French rather than German, German rather than Italian, or Italian rather than Danish? It says "a European Community language". Like the Industrial Relations Act, this is badly phrased and open to a large number of interpretations. On that basis I want the House to reject it.

What is a European Economic Community language? Is it just a majority language spoken in any European Economic Community country, or any language spoken in such a country?

Hon. Members

Welsh.

Mr. Kaufman

I will come to that in a moment.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

We should be here all night.

Mr. Kaufman

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is at liberty to leave at any time. There is no Whip on this.

For example, if one considers those European Economic Community countries which have more than one language and one looks at Belgium, to be able to speak only French in Beligum could well be offensive to the large and influential Flemish-speaking section of that country, which is very much divided on linguistic lines.

Again, the Motion is so badly phrased that one can ask whether it would allow a Member of this House to learn a language—and obtain recompense for it—spoken by a minority in France, the Basques, whose language is variously known as Euskara, Eskuara or Üskara. Could an English Member of the House use the facility which the Government wish to provide to learn Welsh or Gaelic, both of which are spoken in the United Kingdom, which if the Government have their way is to be a country of the European Economic Community?

I go further. Under the terms of the Motion—the fact that it can be ridiculed in this way is an indictment of the Motion—an hon. Member could claim £60 for a course of study in English, because English will be a language of the European Economic Community if we enter it. When one has considered all these points in detail—if some of them seem ironic it is the fault of the Leader of the House for the way he has phrased his Motion—even if the Government reject them all the Motion is in any event unacceptable.

I am not among those hon. Members who criticise the Government or who would in any way acquiesce in criticism of the Government for the facilities they have provided to Members under the Boyle Report. It is cheap and easy to criticise the Government for that and hon. Members on this side as well as on the Government side have not refrained from doing so. The Government have been courageous in accepting the Boyle proposals. My only criticism of the Government would be that the facilities available to Members of the House following the Boyle Report are, in my opinion, still not satisfactory in terms, for example, of accommodation and secretarial assistance.

Therefore, I am not opposing the Motion because of any carping view that facilities for hon. Members should not be provided at public expense, because we do our duties on behalf of our electorate. In this context however, and nevertheless, I believe that the provision of this facility would be a misuse of public funds. This facility, unlike the facilities recommended by the Boyle Report—of which, I repeat, this is not one—is in my view marginal to a Member of Parliament in carrying out his duties. It could be used by a Member of Parliament for many other things, including his business and indeed his holiday enjoyment.

What is more, assuming that the facility is available to Ministers as hon. Members of the House—the Motion states "any Member"—and the Prime Minister is blatantly in need of French lessons—it could involve the Treasury in the outlay of £37,800 of public money. I submit that a sum of that order could be far better—

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, West)

This could also apply to an hon. Member who took several courses, one after the other, in different languages. The sum of £37,800 is based on the fact that each Member learns only one language, but if an hon. Member chose to learn more than one language that sum would be doubled or trebled.

Mr. Kaufman

Yes, if that interpretation is correct, the outlay could be very much greater. But, whatever the outlay, I believe the sum of £37,800 could be spent far better in this building on facilities for hon. Members and certainly, for example, in my constituency on playgrounds for children. For these reasons I oppose this Motion.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I, too, oppose the Motion. I object to Members of Parliament obtaining privileges as compared with the ordinary taxpayer if it is not essential for hon. Members to have those privileges in carrying out their parliamentary duties. I am certainly in favour of hon. Members being given every help and assistance in all possible ways to help them adequately to carry out their constitutional duties. If the Motion were worded in such a way as to say that a taxpayer should have the same privileges if carrying out the same duties as a Member of Parliament, I should be in favour of it.

It has been said that Members of Parliament who wished to learn a language should be able to claim a £60 allowance. The Motion talks about …a course of study…completed in a European Economic Community language". However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) has said, it would be possible for an hon. Member, having claimed £60 for the learning of one language, then to claim a further £60 for the learning of another language. If this were done a number of times, the figure of £60 may well turn into a total of £400.

Mr. Deakins

The more the Motion is studied, the more complicated it becomes. The Motion does not state that the hon. Member concerned should have completed the course of study successfully. Therefore, it would be possible for an hon. Member to begin a course of study without giving much of his mind or attention to it—and this is understandable when it relates to a busy Member of Parliament—and then not to complete the course successfully. It might be necessary for him to take the course again on a later occasion.

Mr. Lewis

I agree with my hon. Friend. Every twelve months the hon. Member concerned could say "I have completed one course and now want to take another". He could in that way draw £60 every twelve months.

What I do say is why should Members of Parliament be entitled to claim? Why should a business man, a company director, a doctor or lawyer—indeed any taxpayer—not be so entitled? After all, this is to be paid for by the taxpayer; it will not be paid for by the Prime Minister out of his 85 per cent. increase in salary. [Interruption.] Nor by the Leader of the Opposition out of his 110 per cent. increase in salary. I do not see why we should ask the taxpayer to pay £60 for maybe seven or eight languages. I certainly could not finish a course in the time allowed. I would have to come back two or three times, but I would claim my £60.

If it were a genuine attempt to assist in exporting to the Common Market it might be acceptable. The Minister could then say how this will help the economy. I read in HANSARD that there has been a 200 per cent. increase in the imports of foreign cars, mainly from the Common Market countries in the last year. This is before the reduction in tariffs. What will the figures be when the tariff reductions are made? Will we be assisted in selling our cars overseas by learning languages?

Mr. Eddie Griffiths (Sheffield, Brightside)

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the reason why foreign car manufacturers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not follow the elasticity of the remarks of his hon. Friend.

Mr. Lewis

I was giving way to my hon. Friend who was asking me a question about the remark I had made about learning a foreign language.

Mr. Griffiths

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the reason why foreign manufacturers do so well in this country is because their representatives have been educated to speak English? Similarly, if we as Members of Parliament were more acquainted with European languages we would be far more effective.

Mr. Lewis

I was coming to that. If it may be useful to us to learn a foreign language, how much more important is it for those who actually make and sell cars to be able to speak a foreign language and how much more important is it that they should be able to get this £60?

Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton)

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that any industrial firm selling goods abroad can pay for its employees to learn a foreign language and charge its expenses against tax on behalf of the business? This is already being done.

Mr. Lewis

I agree. It is true that some firms can claim tax relief in that manner if expense is incurred in the furtherance of the business. However, individuals cannot get that advantage. Smaller businesses and one-man businesses, which cannot afford to pay such expenses, even though they are written off against tax, cannot take advantage.

It can be argued that a Member of Parliament, if he can prove that he has incurred such expenses in the course of his parliamentary duties, can claim £60 or whatever he will against his income tax. Is the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) saying that we cannot be treated differently from the ordinary person? We can claim such relief if we want to do so.

I am objecting that we shall be treated in a different manner from the ordinary taxpayer. This advantage is being allowed without any special reason. If it was to be given to every citizen who could prove a necessity because of the development and improvement of his business with the Common Market countries, I would agree.

I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ard-wick (Mr. Kaufman). If this is a good thing—I am not arguing the merits of the matter—why limit it to the Common Market countries? We export to countries other than the EEC. We have done so for more years than I care to remember and for more years than the EEC has existed. Therefore, why should we not say that Members of Parliament and other persons should be allowed to claim £60 for any foreign language they may learn, particularly countries where we have an export business? I cannot see why a Member of Parliament should be able to claim £60 to learn French or German but not Swedish. What is the difference? I cannot understand why one should not be allowed to claim this advantage for learning Finnish.

Let us go one further and one better. The biggest potential market we can ever consider is China. It would take a long time to learn Chinese—it would take me and perhaps most hon. Members a long time—but I suggest that this is the language we might encourage hon. Members and members of the public to learn.

I know that there have been a number of Motions on the Order Paper recently condemning the Japanese for flooding the British market with ball bearings. What a wonderful thing if this Motion were so worded that it included the opportunity to learn Japanese.

I cannot see why the Government are picking out these countries. I am being dishonest with the House. I do know why. So does my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick. The reason is that we have a Prime Minister who is a bit hatters, mentally deranged, about the Common Market. The right hon. Gentleman means to go into the Common Market with or without the full-hearted consent of Parliament or the people; he means to drag us in whether we like it or not. As a means of helping us in, he is suggesting that Members of Parliament should get a £60 grant for learning one of the languages of the Common Market. I do not see why we should support the Prime Minister in his endeavours to further his Common Market plan by learning the languages of other countries.

The Motion refers to the languages of the Six—the enlarged Nine when it comes about. However, I should like to see this proposal extended to include any language. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West, or possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), said that we might even claim the £60 for learning English.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

Not me.

Mr. Lewis

Perhaps it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick. The Motion refers to a commercial course of study which he has completed in a European Economic Community language. At the moment we could not claim the £60 for learning English; but when we are in—which God forbid—we shall be able to claim it for learning English. I assume one would have to go to a private commercial college—not to a Department of Education and Science technical college—go through a course in English and then claim £60 for having learned a language of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths

May I help my hon. Friend to make his point? Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have supported the nurture of the Welsh language, which I am proud to speak. Therefore, if and when we go into the Common Market, Wales as a nation will go in. Would my hon. Friend advocate that Welsh would then indeed be a European Economic Community language?

Mr. Lewis

I certainly should be of that view. I am not a legal gentleman. It is a pity that one of the Law Officers is not here to advise us. If we go into the Common Market and I learn Welsh, or Gaelic for that matter, I suggest that I should be entitled to claim the £60 because it would be a language of the European Economic Community. Whether I should be able to learn Welsh is another matter. Although I have some Welsh blood, I am not sure I could learn the Welsh language. However, the Motion is so loosely worded that I think that would be covered.

I do not think the Government mean the Motion to cover that point. They have in mind the learning of the languages of the Six, and the extended Nine. I do not think they mean the Ten, because that would include English.

As the Motion is worded, I could go to a private commercial study course in English and, having completed it, claim the £60, and say to the Government: "There it is, I have learned the languge." Having completed that course in, say, six, three, two months or even one month, I could go back and take another course. Each month, or even each week—there is no time limit—I could complete a course and claim my £60. I could spend one month on English, the next month on French and the next month on German. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) shakes his head. Perhaps he will tell me where the Motion says that I cannot do that.

Sir John Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)

I was expressing the hope that the hon. Gentleman would come to a conclusion. We have his point.

Mr. Lewis

If the hon. Gentleman does not like what I am saying he can leave the Chamber. The Motion is so loosely worded that it gives to Members of Parliament privileges that are almost unlimited, unnecessary and greatly in excess of those available to the general taxpayer, and I cannot support it.

1.11 a.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) possibly is not entirely serious in what he says. If it is possible according to the exact wording of the Motion for him to take a course in English and claim a proficiency allowance that would be his own responsibility. As with similar Resolutions relating to hon. Members' activities, this Motion when it becomes a Resolution will be followed by rules which hon. Members abide by.

If the hon. Gentleman received a proficiency allowance for studying English I am sure his constituents would be interested. The sum of money paid to him would appear in the Estimates of the House. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said it would not be generally known who had received such an allowance, but it would be perfectly easy to find out by putting down a Question.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North made much of the large number of grants that could be claimed. Any hon. Member who could pass the proficiency test which no doubt would follow the courses—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The Motion does not say so.

Mr. Cooke

The words may not be contained in the Motion, but the House is not just governed by words in Resolutions. There are rules administered by Mr. Speaker which follow Resolutions, and we all abide by them. If the hon. Gentleman managed to become proficient by taking courses in a great number of languages, good luck to him. No doubt he would be able to claim for every one, but I beg him to show a sense of proportion. The Motion is only the framework, and the Minister who replies to the debate will no doubt make the House aware that there is much more to follow.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

Will the Leader of the House follow the honourable traditions of his office and withdraw the Motion? If the Motion is passed it puts every Member of Parliament in an utterly immoral position in relation to all that we have been saying in the last few months.

We have all been saying over the last few months that our increase in salary and allowances was fixed by an independent committee. The Government, entirely correctly and appropriately, gave an assurance that they would implement the Boyle Report. We have thus all been able to say, in the face of much hostility, that the increase in salary and allowances was determined by the Boyle Committee and that we were only—and I stress "only"—implementing it.

If the Motion is passed, we shall no longer be able to say that. This is not a question merely of whether we like the Community languages. It is a deep question as to the morality of what we are doing in relation to parliamentary salaries and allowances. This is a cash payment, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said, the Boyle Committee never recom- mended it. But the Boyle Committee did make a recommendation that was relevant to this matter. It mentioned that Members have great expenses in terms of having to have an additional home in London or of payment of a secretary, and so on. The Committee provided allowances for these things. It also said that Members have other expenses, which it estimated at some £200 on average—some hon. Members have more and some less. It said that it would not provide a specific allowance for all these other expenses but would allow for the figure of £200 in the salary of Members.

The Government have said that they are implementing the Boyle Report. The report was not only a collection of salaries and allowances but also contained a recommendation that no further allowance should be paid until the next review body met. I suggest that the implications are very much greater and this is why I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing the Motion. The implications of the Motion are very much greater than merely the question of what languages should be taught, because it is a direct breach of the Boyle recommendation which allowed £200 for incidental expenses of membership of this House—expenses which certainly exist, as we all know. The report said "This is allowed for in the salary and we do not want any other expenses."

If the Government are to honour their assurance of carrying out the Boyle recommendations, they should not only carry out those of direct benefit to us but the recommendation that there should be no further allowance. This may be an unpopular view, but supposing the right hon. Gentleman does not accept my request, I ask him to consider the ultimate implications. No longer will he be able to say, when a Member asks for an additional cash payment for some other purpose, "This is something that was not dealt with by the last review body." The right hon. Gentleman said only last week that he would refer a matter to the next review body because it should not be dealt with in the interim period. He will no longer be able to say that with justification because we shall be able to point out that on 14th June, 1972, he broke the principle he himself had enunciated.

Mr. Robert Cooke

The hon. Gentleman has been of great service to the House in the past and I am sure that he will be in the future. He has fought—and I use the word advisedly—for better facilities for Members of this House. It was the strong request from a great number of Members for a language laboratory that led the Select Committee to examine the possibility. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his own intimate knowledge of this Palace—it is probably greater than mine—there is no room for such a facility here. It was out of the proposal for a language laboratory here that the suggestion in this Motion arose.

Mr. English

I take the point and, strangely enough, as the hon. Gentleman will see, I accept it.

I do not ask the Leader of the House to make no provision for hon. Members to learn languages. I ask him to withdraw his Motion, and I do that because it proposes a direct cash payment. I know that it is offset against a Member's direct cash expense, but so is the secretarial allowance, and so is the accommodation allowance. If this is to be done, it should be done by providing the service, which is very different. It should not be done by means of a direct breach of the Boyle Committee's recommendations.

The Leader of the House Is creating a precedent by creating a direct cash payment contrary to the Boyle recommendations. I supported the right hon. Gentleman in spirit the other day when he refused to consider a proposal put forward by hon. Members and said that he would refer it to the next review body. He was right to do that. However, his proposal in this Motion will open the flood gates to a series of requests for additional allowances. The terms of the Motion provide only for courses in European Community languages, but the way will be opened to requests for assistance towards courses in other foreign languages and for other educational purposes.

When the Deputy Leader of my party first came to this House, he felt that he had time to spare to make himself more useful to the House, and he took an external law degree. That was very laudable. He did not wish to become a lawyer or to earn additional money. However, presumably he spent money on the course. He felt that it would be useful to obtain a law degree so that he might understand the technicalities of legislation of the kind that we have to deal with every day. One can hardly say that he did not succeed in his ambition to become a more useful Member of this House.

The extensions are endless. Why should not we train Members of Parliament as outside organisations do? Why not arrange for academics to create a course of study of the procedure of this House? New Members are thrown in at the deep end. They have no knowledge of how this House works. Some training would be very laudable. But it should be done as it is in large industrial organisations. The Government have modern facilities for teaching people languages. If it was thought fit to enlarge the use to which they were put, they might need some extension. However, they are not just used at the moment to teach Ministers languages or to refresh their knowledge of them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of your predecessors went on such a course. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) that it would be worth considering how training facilities for hon. Members in matters useful to them might be provided. I suggest that it should be done by the Government or by the House, but not on a cash payment basis which is infinitely extendable to training and a host of other matters.

If I might remind the Leader of the House of his former appointment for a moment, we are not setting a very good precedent to the country in general industrial terms when we say, "You must negotiate, and you must accept reasonable pay awards in the light of inflation and the conditions of your industry ", if we receive a pay recommendation from an impartial review body and immediately we break it to our own advantage.

Hon. Members have referred to the political tinge to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion. It is not customary in this House to put through matters relating to its procedure or services if they have a controversial tinge. Obviously some of my hon. Friends feel that because it is restricted to European Community languages there is such a tinge to it.

Hon. Members have torn this proposal to pieces on its detail, but what is surely even more important is that we should follow the recommendations of our own review body. They do not relate to the services of the House. If the Services Committee thinks that we should be provided with language courses, there are more than enough resources in the Government or the House of Commons to provide such courses if there is a demand for them. But we should not do it on this basis, and the Leader of the House should withdraw the Motion for that reason.

1.25 a.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, East)

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) gave one powerful reason for not proceeding with this Motion tonight—the absence of any recommendation along these lines in the Boyle Report, which covered comprehensively the pay and conditions of Members of Parliament. I have two misgivings—one minor, the other fundamental—about this Motion.

The minor one is that the Motion may be thought desirable because learning a foreign language is presumed by the Services Committee and the Leader of the House to make us in some way better Members of Parliament. That is a worthwhile and praiseworthy objective, but there are far more important ways in which hon. Members could spend this money, later to be reimbursed, to make them better Members. It could not be argued that some fluency in a foreign language is of more than marginal importance to the job of an MP in the United Kingdom, where the national language is English.

One way of spending this money which should have much more priority would be in encouraging hon. Members to take courses in the social services, particularly social case work, since the most valuable part of our work is helping our constituents, most of whose problems should be dealt with but are not by trained social workers—including housing and family problems—and we should train ourselves properly for this work.

Even though it is only £60 a course, this money should go to help us improve our minds and our ability to perform services to our constituents. After all, our only legal obligation as MPs is to turn up at the start of a five-year Parliament to sign the book and take the oath—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

We do not even have to do that.

Mr. Deakins

I stand corrected. And if a Member goes to stay in the Bahamas until the next General Election, he can still draw his salary. Our only party obligation is to turn up and vote. But the reason that we are paid £4,500 a year is to serve our constituents. The ability to speak a foreign language, particularly just an EEC language, will be of only very slight importance in improving our ability to service our constituents, whereas my suggestions for social courses and so on would certainly do that. That is my minor point.

I come now to my major point. It may be that, in the opinion of the Select Committee, the Motion is not only desirable but absolutely necessary. The Select Committee is saying that without some such provision for courses, Members of Parliament do not have the ability to speak foreign languages. If that is so—I suspect that it is—it discloses a very serious state of affairs in the teaching of foreign languages in secondary schools.

Here I interpolate the fact that the Motion is not restricted to hon. Members who have not had the advantage which many of us have had of taking four-year or five-year courses in foreign languages at secondary schools. I have no doubt that there are hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, who left school without having taken any foreign language course, partly because they did not attend schools which taught foreign languages, perhaps during the First World War and just after it. It is a serious matter if they have to go abroad but cannot speak a foreign language. If the Motion were so worded that it was confined to hon. Members who had not had the educational advantage which the rest of us have had, I should be the first to support it fully. One Amendment standing in my name, which has not been selected—I fully understand the reason for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—sought to cover that point.

No one would wish to deprive hon. Members of the chance to learn a foreign language if they did not have the chance of doing so at school. But the Motion goes much wider. It makes money available to any hon. Member, even to those who have learned foreign languages at school.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

My hon. Friend keeps talking about "a foreign language". The Motion does not say "a foreign language" but "a European Economic Community language".

Mr. Deakins

I take my hon. Friend's point. I hope that the House will forgive me. It is a little troublesome to keep saying "a European Economic Community language". The House will accept that I am referring to such languages. If after having been taught a foreign language at school hon. Members cannot speak that language without an expensive commercial refresher course, a very serious state of affairs is disclosed, and this is a very serious reflection on the state of foreign language teaching in our secondary schools.

What the Motion is implying, if not specifically stating, is that our foreign language teaching is incapable of producing Members of Parliament who can speak a foreign language without having to spend money later in life on re-learning a language. My concern is about the public expenditure implications of the Motion. If the Motion is necessary, vast sums of public money are being wasted in our secondary education system on foreign language teaching which does not produce people who, in adult life, without further courses, are capable of speaking a foreign language.

The Department of Education and Science cannot answer a question of mine on how much money is devoted to foreign language teaching in our secondary schools. That is a pity. But I have worked out an approximate cost. On the basis of about 12,000 teachers working full time in our maintained secondary schools teaching modern foreign languages on an average salary, at the latest count, of over £2,100 a year, and on the basis that teaching costs are about 55 per cent. of total educational costs at secondary level, I conclude that foreign language teaching in our secondary schools is at present costing about £45 million to £50 million.

We are implying by the terms of the Motion that money spent on education is being virtually wasted if it is necessary to provide hon. Members with facilities to learn a foreign language after they have already had a four-or five-year course at secondary school level.

This is an appalling state of affairs and a commentary on the expenditure of money on our schools. If my analysis of the situation is correct I believe it needs investigation by the Department of Education and Science. I feel so strongly on the matter that I believe the Leader of the House should defer consideration of the Motion until we have a report on the quality of foreign language teaching in our schools.

I now come to my Amendment, in line 3 leave out "commercial". This was not my Amendment originally. The idea for it was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) who hopes to speak later in the debate. I am sure he will want to develop the point. It is basically a probing Amendment designed to find out the exact meaning of "commercial". If it means a commercial course at a school that is run for profit only, my hon. Friends and I would be extremely worried about the purpose of the Motion. If the meaning is quite innocent and merely relates to a course which costs money, for example at an evening institute, polytechnic or technical college we would understand. But without an explanation we have misgivings about the use of the word.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out "commercial".

Mr. John Roper (Farnworth)

Unlike my hon. Friends, I am in general agreement with the terms of the Motion but I would like to restrict what I have to say to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins). I regret that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), which would have allowed us to include a debate on the advantage of including within the terms of the Motion other languages apart from those of the EEC has not been selected. I am sorry that the important subject of the learning of languages is being confused to some extent with de- bates on entry into the EEC, which is a different matter.

It is important for hon. Members to know the European languages when they are attending meetings of the Council of Europe and of the Western European Union. I have not taken part in these meetings, but I understand that, while translation services are provided in the formal meetings, there are many informal discussions with fellow parliamentarians and without some knowledge of the languages being spoken these meetings are not as fruitful for hon. Members as they might be.

We are concerned over the use of the word "commercial". There seem to be three possible interpretations of the word. One is that a commercial course of study would be a study of a language with particular reference to commercial use. I do not think that is what the Leader of the House has in mind. It is obviously not appropriate to us as Members of Parliament merely to learn commercial German or commercial French. We are concerned with French, German, Italian or Dutch for much wider purposes, and, therefore, I do not think that is the intended meaning of the word.

An alternative interpretation would be that a commercial language course would be one which must be paid for, as distinct from one provided free. This interpretation seems slightly implausible, because if we did not have to pay for it there would be no case for reimbursement. Therefore, I suppose the implied meaning is that it is a course run by a commercial organisation. If so, it would presumably exclude courses run by universities both in this country and abroad and by polytechnics in this country—there is one within a short distance of the House which provides appropriate language courses, very much of the nature concerned—or by such non-commercial bodies as the German Institute, which has an office and a school of languages within a couple of miles of the Palace of Westminster.

I do not consider myself capable of assessing the relative merits of courses provided by different organisations and bodies. I am extremely grateful to the Library, which has collected a most valuable set of brochures of different commercial language courses available in London. It is a fascinating selection of courses. One of the courses which might well be appropriate to hon. Members is that organised by the German Institute, a body which is run under the auspices of the German Government and which has their financial support. Therefore, it would not normally be considered to be a commercial organisation, any more than the British Council would be considered to be a commercial organisation in any country where it operates.

I hope the Leader of the House will be able to accept the Amendment or give us an assurance that the Motion would not preclude hon. Members from taking courses at such non-commercial bodies as universities, polytechnics or institutes sponsored by overseas Governments, such as the German Institute.

I am sorry it has not been possible to find a site for a language laboratory in the House or elsewhere in the near vicinity of the Palace. I am sure that in the long run that would be the best solution, but in the absence of space I believe the Motion represents a second-best solution which is desirable, though I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment or give us an assurance on this important matter.

1.42 a.m.

Mr. R. Carr

As on the previous motion, I am speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the Services Committee in support of a Report to the House by that Committee, and I am in no way pressing the matter from a Government point of view. It is entirely for the House to make up its mind what it wishes.

Mr. Kaufman

We accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Services Committee was considering, and approved, a proposal of the Government. That is made quite clear in the Committee's minutes.

Mr. Carr

That may be so, but the Committee agreed with it and thought it was a good idea. It is an all-party Committee and, thank goodness, its members are not appointed after some political testing or discovery as to which section of their party they belong to. I do not have to look around it very long to realise that it contains anti-Common Market Members and not only pro-Common Market Members.

We did not wish the word "commercial" to have any of the implications suggested by the hon. Members for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and Farnworth (Mr. Roper). The best way to make that clear is to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment to leave out "commercial". The word crept in. It is not necessary, and we would not wish to exclude the sort of institutions the two hon. Gentlemen mentioned.

We were asked why the proposition had been brought forward and why it had been put to the Committee in the first place, and therefore, presumably, why it recommended it to the House. The answer is simple. We were trying to meet customer demand. Expressions of need were put to us and an effort was made on both sides to discover how great the demand was. We had a positive request from no fewer than 93 Members on both sides of the House for this sort of service. That is not an insubstantial expression of demand from fellow Members, and the Services Committee was right to take it seriously.

The purpose is clear. We are already involved in European institutions, apart from the Common Market. Most of us would agree that, in or out of the Common Market, the future of this country is probably more tied up with Europe than it was a few decades ago. That is probably inevitable. There are European institutions outside the Common Market. It helps hon. Members to do their duty to this House and, therefore, to the country if they are able to participate more freely in these institutions and to talk the languages of other members who join in them.

But this Motion is related particularly to the EEC. While there are members of each and every party who will oppose this country's membership of the EEC, no matter what the terms are, and who will go on opposing it honourably to their dying day, it is a fact that each party in the House is firmly committed in principle to Britain's membership of the EEC; and that is just as true of the main opposition party as it is of my party. The Leader of the Opposition was at pains to emphasise that commitment in principle only in the last two or three days in a major public speech. The argument, he says, is about the terms. He says that he does not like the terms which the present Government have negotiated. But presumably he hopes that one day he will be Prime Minister again, and he is confident of his ability to negotiate the terms which he would wish to recommend to the country. It would be interesting if that ever happened.

Therefore, we must expect that, whichever party is in power, this country will be a member of the EEC in the near future. That being so, hon. Members will have to participate in the institutions of the Community, and the Services Committee therefore believed that it would be to the advantage of the House, and necessary if Members are to serve to the full the interests of those they represent, that as many of us as possible, certainly those of us who may be called upon to serve the House in the institutions of the EEC, should be able to speak, if not all the continental languages, then one or two of them. That is undeniably the purpose of the Motion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I revert to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Leader of the Opposition having confirmed that he is in favour of the Common Market. That may be the case, but the Leader of the Opposition has, for a much longer period, been a confirmed Commonwealth supporter, and the Leader of the House is not suggesting that we should have the opportunity to learn Indian languages, Punjabi, and the African languages of the Commonwealth. If that was in the Motion, he would be going full steam ahead with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Carr

I am glad to say that I am also a confirmed Commonwealth supporter and there is nothing inconsistent between that and being a supporter of British membership of the Community. They are strongly complementary and if Britain is to be an effective member of the Commonwealth she will be more effective within the EEC than outside.

As I was explaining, the Commonwealth does not have institutions which require the learning and knowledge of other languages. One thing about the Commonwealth now is that English is the common language used in all our institutions and meetings, and any hon. Member who has attended Commonwealth meetings of any kind will know that that is the case. Representatives of Parliaments of the countries of the Commonwealth, whatever their relations with Britain, regard this feature as one of the strengths of the Commonwealth.

However, if we are to draw into the European institutions as strongly as we should, we should speak their language, and that is the purpose of this Motion.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and others, it is misguided in principle to be judging this Motion as if it were on a par with the matters dealt with by the Boyle Committee. I do not regard the proposal in the Motion as part of the pay and conditions of hon. Members of this House.

What about the Library? Is it wrong that because the Boyle Committee did not suggest that we should have a Library that we should? Should we perhaps give it up because it is somehow wrong?

If I may go further, I agree with the hon. Member that we should provide a service. We should have a language laboratory so that we should make use of such language teaching facilities as exist within the Civil Service. There is nothing in this Motion to prevent that. I think I am right in recollecting that the Services Committee specifically refers to that possibility, but the truth is that the number of places available in any Civil Service course for hon. Members is too small. There is a great demand. We should have, in this modern world, a language laboratory available to us, just as any big company has nowadays. The fact remains—and the Services Committee got a sub-committee to look into this—that there are not the physical facilities available within the premises for such a

language laboratory. Therefore, are the Services Committee to say that it thinks there should be a service available to hon. Members, like the Library, and do nothing until a new parliamentary building is erected and working? That is bound to be some years away even if we can all agree on what we want, and that is the next subject I shall have the honour, or difficulty, of speaking on in my capacity as Chairman of the Services Committee.

That will be some years ahead. So the Services Committee said: "We believe this should be a service; where vacancies are available in Civil Service courses they should be used by Members of Parliament, but they are not adequate to meet the demand and we cannot provide the service ourselves, so temporarily we are prepared, not to pay the whole cost, but to help hon. Members to meet the cost of learning these languages, which we believe increasing numbers of hon. Members will need in order to do their duty to Parliament within the context of Britain being a member of the European Economic Community.

That was the rationale behind the report. I repeat, however, that it is entirely for the House to make up its mind about this, but I hope that hon. Members, even those who from the most deeply-held motives do not wish to see this country a member of the European Economic Community, will consider the Motion on its merits and accept the recommendation of the Services Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put: —

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 4.

Division No. 218.] AYES [2.0 a.m.
Adley, Robert Goodhew, victor Roper, John
Atkins, Humphrey Gower, Raymond Scott, Nicholas
Carlisle, Mark Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Wiggin, Jerry
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Clegg, Walter Haselhurst, Alan Mr. Hugh Rossi and Mr. Hamish Gray.
Cooke, Robert Hawkins, Paul
Emery, Peter Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Fox, Marcus Money, Ernle
NOES
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Langford-Holt, Sir John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Drayson, G. B. Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Mr. Michael English and Mr. Gerald Kaufman.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris)

Since it appears from the result of the Division that 40 Members are not present, I declare under Standing Order 29 that the Question is not decided and the business accordingly stands over until the next sitting of the House.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]