HC Deb 07 March 1972 vol 832 cc1371-405

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Shore

I will not, even with the temptation of the Prime Minister sitting opposite me, attempt to repeat the remarks I have already made in that part of my speech which I have just delivered. I can only say that, whatever other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may think, I believe that it would have been a very good thing indeed for the Prime Minister to have been able to be here during the course of the day for he would have heard arguments and words of very serious substance that might have given him, with his immense enthusiasm and obsession with Europe, reason to think more carefully——

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order, Sir Robert. It is quite obvious that certain hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have come from a certain place where they have possibly been enjoying themselves. I hope that we are going to have real order in the Committee and not the behaviour we are having at the present moment.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is only one Member of this Committee who has to keep order. That is the person here, and I will keep order.

Mr. Heffer

Well, keep it.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. For the information of the hon. Member, I have just come down from one of the hardest working Committees——

The Chairman

Order. There is no need to pursue this subject any further.

Mr. Shore

In spite of the change in the atmosphere of the Committee since I first rose to address it some 20 minutes ago, I will try to resume the argument which we were developing. I think it is very important for us to get this straight and to see whether we have understood properly the points that have been put to us earlier.

10.15 p.m.

I was saying that there were two kinds of future treaty which could affect us and which are covered by Clause 1(3). The first category is those treaties which the Community itself is empowered to enter into with other States or organisations and which, although we are not a direct signatory, could greatly affect us. I referred to possible changes in the trade strategy in the Communities which could have a considerable and adverse effect on British interests in Commonwealth countries and on North America as a whole, on the assumption, that is, that trade strategy developed in a protectionist manner.

If this were to happen—the House will agree that substantial British and British-Allied interests would be involved—under the first part of subsection (3), what we have come to call Part A, the treaty entered into by the Community which would have these large trade effects would be known to the House only in as much as the treaty would be declared formally. There would be no question of its being discussed or of anyone being able to move against it. That is not an altogether reassuring prospect.

It is when we consider the other treaties, those which this country could expect to be involved in, that we face very important matters. It would be useful to have some information from the Government. It is all very well to talk of future treaties as though they were an abstract group of treaties which may or may not be signed, but there is already in the pipeline a number of matters which could be treaties or agreements or which could subsequently be declared to be treaties. This, after all. is the procedure by which the Communities have developed their activities in the past and will presumably do so in the future.

There has been a considerable growth in the last 12 years in the area of affairs for which the Community has become responsible. There was, for example, the treaty at the beginning of 1970 which gave the Community control of its own resources. Clearly, treaties of this kind are to be expected; and this would be the way in which the frontiers of the Community would be advanced as it moved towards what it and others hope will be an ever closer economic and political union.

So there can be no question about the importance of these treaties. If the people who are so keen for the success of the Communities are correct, and they become successful, then inevitably that success will be recorded in further agreements and treaties which will carry forward the process of economic union. That is what is envisaged. It therefore matters very much indeed what machinery the Bill provides for extending the Community powers and how that machinery would affect the powers of the House and Parliament.

We are not talking about anything that is the least bit abstract. I have very much in mind—and I am sure the Treasury Front Bench has, too—the fact that almost within the next year or two years the effort of the Communities to establish an economic and monetary union will probably come to fruition. Indeed, they have advanced a considerable way towards that already, and it is the leading topic of current discussion in Western Europe today. Had the Prime Minister been able to receive his guest, President Pompidou, a few weeks ago he would undoubtedly have included this as one of the major topics at Chequers. Presumably he will return to this a little later this month.

The status of the economic and monetary union, as I understand it, still falls short of what one might call an international agreement, a Community agreement or a Community treaty. The resolution—it is an agreed resolution of the Council—is something just short of a decision. I am not sure how far short of a decision it is. Perhaps as we get used to the terminology of the Community we can get these matters a little clearer in our minds. At any rate, there is little doubt that it is the declared aim and purpose, and it is not far beyond the reach of agreement of those in the Community today, to establish an economic and monetary union.

If they establish that economic and monetary union—and I refer now to phrases which have been used by all those who have been serious about European affairs in recent years—they say that an economic and monetary union would be the biggest thing that has happened in Western Europe since the signing of the Rome Treaty. They say that the implications of an economic and monetary union leading to a common control—monetary policies, exchange rate policies, unemployment policies, growth policies, the regional policies of the member countries—would be a major advance of the frontiers of the Communities, an advance of that frontier into the existing sovereignty of the member States. I would have thought that was not seriously in debate.

My goodness, what a difference there is in the proceedings which it is now contemplated Parliament should employ to subject this new Rome Treaty, as it were the second Rome Treaty, to scrutiny under this Bill, compared even with those which are available to us now as we consider the matter of whether we should join the Community or not! The Prime Minister and his colleagues rather boast of the opportunities they have given to Parliament to consider the question of joining the Common Market. We think the opportunities have been wholly inadequate compared with the scale, complexity and importance of the subject. Nevertheless, we put that to one side.

There have at least been many days of serious debate. We have just now begun the process of serious scrutiny of this Bill. What is contemplated here for the second Rome Treaty? What was the Solicitor-General's phrase? He disagreed with what his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said about the parliamentary frailty of scrutiny and control. "It is not a bit frail", said the Solicitor-General; "look what you can do under Clause 1(3). That says that for Britain, as it were, to accept a new Rome Treaty in the years ahead, in perhaps two years' time if the Prime Minister gets his way, you have actually got to get through the House of Commons and the other place an affirmative Resolution". That is not frail, he says; that is a real opportunity for Parliament to do its job, for democracy to work, for the nation's will to focus in a serious way on the matter in hand.

It is unbelievably frivolous for the Government to say that this is a serious piece of machinery designed to make Parliament effective. It is a serious piece of machinery for shovelling away the rights of the House of Commons and of British democracy. It is an engine for their destruction. If we are in a situation in which all that a Government in the future have to do to make agreements on matters of this immense importance with the other Community countries is to have an affirmative Resolution approved, I cannot see that there is any possibility of resistance left to the most profound changes in the whole of our way of life, in the making of law in this country and in all matters of great importance to us and to the nation. That is of very great importance indeed.

The right hon. Gentleman used a phrase which, I think, will live beyond this debate. He said that this amounts to prerogative legislation. That is what it is, the exercise of prerogative to sign the treaty, and then the treaty, under the Bill, will be fed in and declared to be a Community treaty. Then all the rights of Parliament, all that for centuries people in this country have fought to achieve, is reduced to a debate on an affirmative Motion. That is all that is left.

If the Prime Minister in beginning to take an interest in our affairs, that is remarkable. We shall be delighted to hear a good deal more from him. I wish he would spend more time with us in a serious examination of what he is doing to the House of Commons, to our democracy and to the country.

In conclusion, on this first debate, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have just begun. I am certain beyond doubt that the explanations we have had on the first two Clauses are explanations that must feed the anxiety of the House of Commons and of the country, and we shall certainly vote for our Amendments tonight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. English

On a point of order.

Hon. Members


Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. English (seated and covered)

On a point of order. Is it not the fact, Sir Robert, that only three back benchers on this side of the Committee have had the opportunity to speak upon the Amendment upon which we are now dividing? If this restriction of debate is to continue, Sir Robert, it will be a very difficult situation for back-bench Members upon this or any other side of the Committee.

The Chairman

I have taken very good care to fortify myself on precedents. Would the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) remove his hat, please? As I am sure he will realise, what I have done in granting the Closure now is well within the precedents, by miles, on everything that has been done for many years.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (seated and covered)

Is it not the custom of the Chair to accept the Motion for the Closure only if it feels that there has been an adequate debate and that all points of view have been adequately expressed? I am sure it was not intentional, Sir Robert, but could I point out, for further consideration, that not one member of the Liberal Party has had an opportunity to speak although its official spokesman rose to be heard. At least he should be given the opportunity notwithstanding that other hon. Members on both sides have not been called to speak. Is it not a negation of democracy for the Liberal Party not to be given an opportunity to contribute to the debate?

The Chairman

The duty of the Chair in all matters connected with the Closure is quite clear. The Chair has to decide whether the time given for the discussion of any particular Motion before the Committee can be considered in all respects to be reasonable and adequate. That is how I arrived at my decision.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 237, Noes 209

Division No. 71.] AYES [10.0 p.m.
Adley, Robert Gurden, Harold Morrison, Charles
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Murton, Oscar
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hall, John (Wycombe) Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Neave, Airey
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Astor, John Hannam, John (Exeter) Normanton, Tom
Atkins, Humphrey Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Nott, John
Awdry, Daniel Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Balniel, Lord Haselhurst, Alan Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Hastings, Stephen Osborn, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hawkins, Paul Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Page, Graham (Crosby)
Benyon, W. Heseltine, Michael Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hicks, Robert Pardoe, John
Biggs-Davison, John Higgins, Terence L. Parkinson, Cecil
Blaker, Peter Hiley, Joseph Percival, Ian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Pink, R. Bonner
Boscawen, Robert Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Pounder, Rafton
Bowden, Andrew Holland, Philip Price, David (Eastleigh)
Holt, Miss Mary Price, David (Eastleigh)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hordern, Peter Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Bruce-Gardyne, J
Bryan, Paul Hornby, Richard Proudfoot, Wilfred
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M) Hornsby-Smith Rt Hn Dame Patricia Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Buck, Antony Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Burden, F. A. Howell, David (Guildford) Raison, Timothy
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Hunt, John Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Carlisle, Mark James, David Redmond, Robert
Channon, Paul Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Chapman, Sydney Jessel, Toby Rees, Peter (Dover)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Churchill, W. S. Jopling, Michael Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Kaberry, Sir Donald Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Clegg, Walter Kimball, Marcus Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Cooke, Robert King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Coombs, Derek King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Cooper, A. E. Kirk, Peter Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cormack, Patrick Kitson, Timothy Rost, Peter
Costain, A. P. Knight, Mrs. Jill Russell, Sir Ronald
Critchley, Julian Knox, David Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Crouch, David Lane, David Scott, Nicholas
Crowder, F. P. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Curran, Charles Le Marchant, Spencer Scott-Hopkins, James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Shelton, William (Clapham)
Dean, Paul Longden, Gilbert
Divon, Piers Loveridge John Simeons, Charles
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Luce, R. N. Skeet, T. H. H.
Drayson, G. B. McAdden, Sir Stephen Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Eden, Sir John MacArthur, Ian Soref, Harold
Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke) McCrindle, R. A. Speed, Keith
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McLaren Martin Spence, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Sproat, Iain
McMaster, Stanley Stainton, Keith
Eyre, Reginald Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Stanbrook, Ivor
Farr, John McNair-Wilson, Michael Steel, David
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Fidler, Michael Maddan, Martin Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Marten, Neil Stokes, John
Fookes, Miss Janet Mather, Carol Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Foster, Sir John Maude, Angus Sutcliffe, John
Fox, Marcus Mawby, Ray Tapsell, Peter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Gardner, Edward Mills, Peter (Torrington) Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Gibson-Watt, David Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W) Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Moate, Roger Tebbit, Norman
Goodhew, Victor Money, Ernie Temple, John M.
Gower, Raymond Monks, Mrs. Connie Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Gray, Hamish Monro, Hector Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Green, Alan Montgomery, Fergus Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Grieve, Percy More, Jasper Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Grylls, Michael Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Tilney, John
Gummer, Michael Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Trew, Peter Walters, Dennis Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Tugendhat, Christopher Ward, Dame Irene Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin Warren, Kenneth Woodnutt, Mark
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard Weatherill, Bernard Worsley, Marcus
Vickers, Dame Joan Wells, John (Maidstone) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Waddington, David White, Roger (Gravesend) Younger, Hn. George
Walder, David (Clitheroe) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) Wiggin, Jerry TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Wilkinson, John Mr. Tim Fortescue and
Wall, Patrick Winterton, Nicholas Mr. John Stradling Thomas.
Abse, Leo Forrester, John Meacher, Michael
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Fraser, John (Norwood) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Allen, Scholefield Freeson, Reginald Mendelson, John
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Gilbert, Dr. John Millan, Bruce
Armstrong, Ernest Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Milne, Edward
Ashley, Jack Gourlay, Harry Molloy, William
Ashton, Joe Grant, George (Morpeth) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Atkinson, Norman Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Baxter, William Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Moyle, Roland
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hamling, William Murray, Ronald King
Bishop, E. S. Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Oakes, Gordon
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hardy, Peter O'Halloran, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Harper, Joseph O'Malley, Brian
Booth, Albert Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Orbach, Maurice
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Heffer, Eric S. Orme, Stanley
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Horam, John Oswald, Thomas
Buchan, Norman Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Huckfield, Leslie Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cant, R. B. Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pavitt, Laurie
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hughes Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Pendry, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Hunter, Adam Pentland, Norman
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill) Perry, Ernest G.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Prescott, John
Cohen, Stanley Jeger, Mrs. Lena Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Concannon, J. D. Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Price, William (Rugby)
Conlan, Bernard Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Probert, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) John, Brynmor Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cronin, John Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Richard, Ivor
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Dalyell, Tam Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn (W.Ham, S.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Davidson, Arthur Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Roper, John
Davies, Denzil (Lianelly) Kaufman, Gerald Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Kerr, Russell Sandelson, Nevilie
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Kinnock, Neil Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Lambie, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Deakins, Eric Lamond, James
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Latham, Arthur Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Delargy, Hugh Leadbitter, Ted Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Dempsey, James Lee Rt. Hn. Frederick Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Doig, Peter Leonard, Dick Sillars, James
Dormand, J. D. Lestor, Miss Joan Silverman, Julius
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Skinner, Dennis
Driberg, Tom Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Small, William
Duffy, A. E. P Lomas, Kenneth Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Dunn, James A. Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Spearing, Nigel
Dunnett, Jack Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Spriggs, Leslie
Eadie, Alex McBride, Neil Stallard, A. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McCann, John Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McCartney, Hugh Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Ellis, Tom McElhone, Frank Strang, Gavin
English. Michael McGuire, Michael Swain, Thomas
Evans, Fred Mackenzie, Gregor Taverne, Dick
Ewing, Henry McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff W.)
Faulds, Andrew McNamara, J. Kevin Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Tomney, Frank
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Marks, Kenneth Tuck, Raphael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Marquand, David Urwin, T. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Marsden, F. Varley, Eric G.
Foley, Maurice Marshall, Dr. Edmund Wainwright, Edwin
Foot, Michael Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Wallace, George
Watkins, David Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Weitzman, David Williams, W. T. (Warrington) Mr. John Golding and Mr. Donald Coleman
Wellbeloved, James Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Whitlcok, William Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Division No. 72.] AYES [10.28 p.m.
Adley, Robert Hannam, John (Exeter) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Haselhurst, Alan Parkinson, Cecil
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Hastings, Stephen Percival, Ian
Astor, John Hawkins, Paul Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Atkins, Humphrey Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Pink, R. Bonner
Awdry, Daniel Heseltine, Michael Pounder, Rafton
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Hicks, Robert Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Higgins, Terence L. Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L
Benyon, W. Hiley, Joseph Proudfoot, Wilfred
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hill John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Biggs-Davison, John Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Quennell, Miss J. M
Blaker, Peter Holland, Philip Raison, Timothy
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Holt, Miss Mary Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Boscawen, Robert Hordern, Peter Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Bowden, Andrew Hornby, Richard Redmond, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Rees, Peter (Dover)
Bryan, Paul Howell, David (Guildford) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Buck, Antony Hunt, John Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) James, David Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Carlisle, Mark Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Channon, Paul
Chapman Sydney Jessel, Toby Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Chataway Rt. Hn. Christopher Kaberry, Sir Donald Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Churchill, W. S. Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Rost, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) King, Tom (Bridgwater) Russell, Sir Ronald
Clegg, Walter Kirk, Peter Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Cooke, Robert Kitson, Timothy Scott, Nicholas
Coombs, Derek Knight, Mrs. Jill Scott-Hopkins, James
Cooper, A. E. Knox, David Sharples, Richard
Cormack, Patrick Lane, David Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Costain, A. P. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Shelton, William (Clapham)
Critchley, Julian Le Merchant, Spencer Simeons, Charles
Crouch, David Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Skeet, T. H. H.
Crowder, F. P. Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Curran, Charles Longden, Sir Gilbert Soref, Harold
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Loveridge, John Speed, Keith
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James Luce, R. N. Spence, John
Dean, Paul McAdden, Sir Stephen
Dixon, Piers MacArthur, Ian Sproat, Iain
Dodds-Parker, Douglas McCrindle, R. A. Stainton, Keith
Drayson, G. B. McLaren, Martin Stanbrook, Ivor
Eden, Sir John Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) McMaster Stanley Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham) Stokes, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) McNair-Wilson, Michael Sutcliffe, John
Eyre, Reginald McNair-wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Tapsell, Peter
Farr, John Maddan, Martin Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Marten, Neil Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Fidler, Michael Mather, Carol Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Maude, Angus Tebbit, Norman
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Mawby, Ray Temple, John M.
Fookes, Miss Janet Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Fortescue, Tim Mills, Peter (Torrington) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Foster, Sir John Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Fox, Marcus Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W) Tilney, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G Moate, Roger Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gardner, Edward Money, Ernie Trew, Peter
Gibson-watt, David Monks, Mrs. Connie Tugendhat, Christopher
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C) Monro, Hector Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Montgomery, Fergus Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Goodhew, Victor More, Jasper Vickers, Dame Joan
Gower Raymond Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Waddington, David
Gray, Hamish Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Green, Alan Morrison, Charles Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Grieve, Percy Murton, Oscar Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Grylls, Michael Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Gummer, J. Selwyn Neave, Airey Wall, Patrick
Gurden, Harold Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Ward, Dame Irene
Normanton, Tom Warren, Kenneth
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Nott, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally White, Roger (Gravesend)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Osborn, John Wiggin, Jerry
Wilkinson, John Woodnutt, Mark TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Winterton, Nicholas Worsley, Marcus Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Michael Jopling.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard Younger, Hn. George
Abse, Leo Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Murray, Ronald King
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Oakes, Gordon
Armstrong, Ernest Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Halloran, Michael
Ashton, Joe Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) O'Malley, Brian
Atkinson, Norman Hamling, William Orme, Stanley
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Oswald, Thomas
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Hardy, Peter Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Baxter, William Harper, Joseph Pardoe, John
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Heffer, Eric S. Pavitt, Laurie
Biffen, John Horam, John Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Bishop, E. S. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pendry, Tom
Blenkinsop, Arthur Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Pentland, Norman
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Huckfield, Leslie Perry, Ernest G.
Booth, Albert Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Prescott, John
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Roy (Newport) Price, William (Rugby)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Hunter, Adam Probert, Arthur
Cant, R. B. Irvine,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Carmichael, Neil Janner, Greville Richard, Ivor
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Jeger, Mrs. Lena Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) John, Brynmor Roper, John
Cohen, Stanley Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Concannon, J. D. Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Sandelson, Neville
Conlan, Bernard Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Cronin, John Jones, Dan (Burnley) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Short.Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Cunnmgnam, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Dalyell, Tam Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Kaufman, Gerald Sillars, James
Davidson, Authur Kerr, Russell Silverman, Julius
Davies, Denzil (Lianelly) Kinnock, Neil Skinner, Dennis
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lambie, David Small, William
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lamond, James Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Latham, Arthur Spearing, Nigel
Deakins, Eric Leadbitter, Ted Spriggs, Leslie
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Leonard, Dick Stallard, A. W.
Delargy, H. J. Lestor, Miss Joan Steel, David
Dempsey, James Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Doig, Peter Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dormand, J. D. Lomas, Kenneth Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Strang, Gavin
Driberg, Tom Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Swain, Thomas
Duffy, A. E. P. McBride, Neil Taverne, Dick
Dunn, James A. McCartney, Hugh Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Dunnett, Jack McElhone, Frank Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Eadie, Alex McGuire, Michael Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mackenzie, Gregor Tomney, Frank
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Tuck, Raphael
Ellis, Tom McNamara, J. Kevin Urwin, T. W.
English, Michael Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Varley, Eric G.
Evans, Fred Marquand, David Wainwright, Edwin
Ewing, Harry Marsden, F. Wallace, George
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Watkins David
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Meacher, Michael Weitzman, David
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Wellbeloved, James
Foley, Maurice Mendelson, John Whitlock, William
Foot, Michael Millan, Bruce Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Forrester, John Milne, Edward Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Molloy, William Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Freeson, Reginald Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Gilbert, Dr. John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gourlay, Harry Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Mr. Donald Coleman and
Grant, George (Morpeth) Moyle, Roland Mr. John Goldling.

Question accordingly agreed to

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 216 Noes 235.

Division No. 73.] AYES [10.39 p.m.
Abse, Leo Grant, George (Morpeth) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Murray, Ronald King
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Oakes, Gordon
Armstrong, Ernest Griffiths, Will (Exchange) O'Halloran, Michael
Ashton, Joe Hamilton, James (Bothwell) O'Malley, Brian
Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Orme, Stanley
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hamling, William Oswald, Thomas
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Baxter, William Hardy, Peter Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Harper, Joseph Pavitt, Laurie
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Biffen, John Heffer, Eric S. Pendry, Tom
Bishop, E. S. Horam, John Pentland, Norman
Blenkinsop, Arthur Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Perry, Ernest G.
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Body, Richard Huckfield, Leslie Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Booth, Albert Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Prescott, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Price, William (Rugby)
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Roy (Newport) Probert, Arthur
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Hunter, Adam Reed, D. (Sedgefieid)
Cant, R. B. Hutchison, Michael Clark Richard, Ivor
Carmichael, Neil Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Janner, Greville Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Robertson, John (Paisley)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jeger, Mrs. Lena Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Roper, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cohen, Stanley John, Brynmor Sandelson, Neville
Concannon, J. D. Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Conlan, Bernard Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Cronin, John Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Sillars, James
Dalyell, Tam Kaufman, Gerald Silverman, Julius
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Kerr, Russell Skinner, Dennis
Davidson, Arthur Kinnock, Neil Small, William
Davies, Denzil (Lianelly) Lambie, David Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lamond, James Spearing, Nigel
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Latham, Arthur Spriggs, Leslie
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Leadbitter, Ted Stallard, A. W.
Deakins, Eric Leonard, Dick Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Lestor, Miss Joan Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Delargy, Hugh Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Dempsey, James Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Strang, Gavin
Doig, Peter Lomas, Kenneth Sutcliffe, John
Dormand, J. D. Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Swain, Thomas
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Taverne, Dick
Driberg, Tom McBride, Neil Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Duffy, A. E. P. McCartney, Hugh Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Dunn, James A. McElhone, Frank Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Dunnett, Jack McGuire, Michael Tomney, Frank
Eadie, Alex Mackenzie, Gregor Tuck, Raphael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McNamara, Kevin Urwin, T. W.
Ellis, Tom Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Varley, Eric G.
English, Michael Marquand, David Wainwright, Edwin
Evans, Fred Marsden, F. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Ewing, Harry Marshall, Dr. Edmund Wallace, George
Farr, John Marten, Neil Watkins, David
Fell, Anthony Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Weitzman, David
Fernyhough, Rn. Hn. E. Meacher, Michael Wellbeloved, James
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Whitlock, William
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mendelson, John Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Millan, Bruce Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Foley, Maurice Milne, Edward Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Foot, Michael Moate, Roger Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Forrester, John Molloy, William
Fraser, John (Norwood) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Freeson, Reginald Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gilbert, Dr. John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. Donald Coleman and
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Mr. John Golding.
Gourlay, Harry Moyle, Roland
Adley, Robert Harrison, Col, Sir Harwood (Eye) Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Haselhurst, Alan Pink, R. Bonner
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hastings, Stephen Pounder, Rafton
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Hawkins, Paul Price, David (Eastleigh)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Astor, John Heseltine, Michael Proudfoot, Wilfred
Atkins, Humphrey Hicks, Robert Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Awdry, Daniel Higgins, Terence L. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Hiley, Joseph Raison, Timothy
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Benyon, W. Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Berry, Hn. Anthony Holland, Philip Redmond, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John Holt, Miss Mary Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Blaker, Peter Hordern, Peter Rees, Peter (Dover)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hornby, Richard Rees-Davies, W. R.
Boscawen, Robert Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Bowden, Andrew Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Howell, David (Guildford) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Bryan, Paul Hunt, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) James, David Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Buck, Antony Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Jessel, Toby Rost, Peter
Carlisle, Mark Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Channon, Paul Kaberry, Sir Donald Scott, Nicholas
Chapman, Sydney Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Scott-Hopkins, James
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Sharples, Richard
Churchill, W. S. King, Tom (Bridgwater) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Kirk, Peter Shelton, William (Clapham)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Kitson, Timothy Simeons, Charles
Clegg, Walter Knight, Mrs. Jill Skeet, T. H. H.
Cooke, Robert Knox, David Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Coombs, Derek Lane, David Soref, Harold
Cooper, A. E. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Speed, Keith
Cormack, Patrick Le Marchant, Spencer Spence, John
Costain, A. P. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sproat, Iain
Critchley, Julian Lioyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Stainton, Keith
Crouch, David Longden, Sir Gilbert Stanbrook, Ivor
Crowder, F. P. Loveridge, John Steel, David
Curran, Charles Luce, R. N. Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry McAdden, Sir Stephen Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James MacArthur, Ian Stokes, John
Dean, Paul McCrindle, R. A. Tapsell, Peter
Dixon, Piers McLaren, Martin Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Drayson, G. B. McMaster, Stanley Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Eden, Sir John Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham) Tebbit, Norman
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) McNair-Wilson, Michael Temple, John M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Mc Nair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Moddan, Martin Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Eyre, Reginald Mather, Carol Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Maude, Angus Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Fidler, Michael Mawby, Ray Tilney, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Trew, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Tugendhat, Christopher
Fortesue, Tim Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)
Foster, Sir John Money, Ernie Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Fox, Marcus Monks Mrs. Connie Vickers, Dame Joan
Galbraith Hn. T. G. Manro, Hector Waddington, David
Gardner, Edward Montgomery, Fergus Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Gibson-Watt, David More, Jasper Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Wall, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Ward, Dame Irene
Morrison, Charles Warren, Kenneth
Goodhew, Victor Murton, Oscar Wells, John (Maidstone)
Gower, Raymond Nabarro, Sir Gerald White, Roger (Gravesend)
Gray, Hamish Neave, Airey Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Green, Alan Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Wiggin, Jerry
Grieve, Percy Normanton, Tom Wilkinsin, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Nott John Winterton, Nicholas
Grylls, Michael Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Gummer, J. Selwyn Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gurden, Harold Osborn, John Woodnutt, Mark
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N) Worsley, Marcus
Hall-John (Wycombe) Page Graham (Crosby) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page John (Harrow W.) Younger, Hn. George
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Pardoe, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hannam, John (Exeter) Parkinson, Cecil Mr. Bernard Wcatherill and
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Percival, Ian Mr. Michal Jobling.

Question accordingly negatived

The Chairman

Amendment No. 96——

Mr. Michael Foot

On a point of order. I wish to raise, Sir Robert, the point of order which I mentioned earlier this afternoon and which you suggested it would be more appropriate for me to raise after we had discussed the Amendment on which we have just voted and before coming to the next Amendment.

The Amendment which we have just discussed, and which everyone who heard the debate will accept was one of major significance, was selected at the last moment. Had we debated it on Wednesday night, we should have had to debate this important matter without any notice whatever. I think everyone in the Committee would agree that that would have been a procedure which would not be for the benefit of the Committee. Perhaps I could put to you Sir Robert, a point about selection, of course not to question your selection, but to help us in the way you have already helped on this question.

One of the difficulties we have had with this Bill in particular has been that a distinction has been drawn more than in most other Bills about Amendments which are excluded by your Ruling because they are not within the scope of the Bill and those which are selected. You helped us particularly by sending a letter, which was referred to in the previous debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), indicating the reason why some Amendments were not selected. This is a matter of some importance to us. While we are most grateful for the consideration which you have given to the further Amendments which we have submitted to Clause 1, several of which now appear on your list of selected Amendments, we should also be grateful if you could indicate by some appropriate method the reason for the exclusion of the others which we have put down.

They are in particular, Nos. 153, 155, 157, and 158 and 161. If you could indicate the grounds on which they are excluded, whether it is because they are considered to be beyond the scope of the Bill or not selected, that would assist us in framing necessary Amendments to cover the points which we desire to cover. That process has enabled us to put down Amendments to other parts of Clause 1. It would be of considerable assistance if you could help us in this way.

The Chairman

I am grateful for the kindly way in which the hon. Member has raised this point. I cannot give an answer straight away, but I shall take an early opportunity to give what I hope will be satisfaction.

Mr. Deakins

May I raise an entirely separate point of order? I gave you notice yesterday, Sir Robert, of my intention to raise this point on the grouping of Amendments. Yesterday we had your selection of Amendment No. 96 with Amendments Nos. 81, 82, 28, 2 and 83. You were good enough, perhaps on advice and not merely in response to my letter, to separate from that list Nos. 28, 2 and 83, now shown separately on your provisional selection. You have now added a further three Amendments, so that if this grouping goes ahead we shall be discussing no fewer than six Amendments together.

I respectifully suggest, because you said the other day that you were open to suggestions from the Committee on the way in which Amendments should be taken, that a more convenient grouping and one more conducive to orderly discussion would be to take No. 96 with Nos. 162, 147 and 163 and Nos. 81 and 82 separately. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 in the name of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) are concerned with removing virtually the whole of lines 5, 6, 7 and 8 on page 2, whereas Amendment No. 97 deals with a procedure for treaties involving a Resolution of Parliament which on the face of it has nothing to do with Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. Amendments Nos. 162, 163 and 147 specify an enactment by Parliament for certain procedures. I submit that four of these Amendments should be taken together, and that Nos. 81 and 82, having no immediate bearing on the others, should be separated.

Mr. Powell

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins). You are aware that had you called Amendment No. 96 I was about to rise on a point of order to request that a separate Division should be permitted by you on Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 since they are substantially different. I hope, Sir, that you will be able to give consideration to this point.

The Chairman

I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) have put this matter. I went into the situation very carefully indeed this morning and came to the conclusion that the best interests of the Committee as a whole would be served by handling the matter in the way in which I have. I am prepared to consider allowing a separate Division on Amendment No. 81—in fact, if pressed, I might even consider another. However, on the whole I believe it will be better for the selection of Amendments to remain as I have made it.

Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)

I beg to move Amendment No. 96, in page 2, line 5, after and', insert: 'subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament'. I understand, Sir Robert, that you have selected the following Amendments to be taken with this Amendment: Amendment No. 81, in page 2, line 5, leave out from 'into' to 'as' in line 7.

Amendment No. 82, in page 2, leave out lines 7 and 8.

Amendment No. 162, in line 14, after ' but ', insert: ' subject to subsection (5) hereof'. Amendment No. 147, in line 18, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 20 and insert: 'enacted by Parliament'. Amendment No. 163, in line 23, at end add: (5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) hereof a treaty which changes the general law of the United Kingdom or imposes financial obligations on Her Majesty's subjects shall not be regarded as one of the Community treaties unless accepted and approved by an Act of Parliament. [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

11.0 p.m.

The Amendment that I move lays down the machinery set out in the linked Amendments. Since, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said, Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 have no bearing on the other four, I do not propose to refer to them at all.

The machinery for parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty is laid down in Clauses 1(2) and 1(3). The need for a revised machinery other than that in the Bill is heightened by the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for North-wich (Sir J. Foster) said on Amendment No. 49 that he recognised that fresh machinery should be established by this House for the scrutiny of legislation and for the scrutiny of treaties, and so on, which come from the Community. He was saying that the machinery laid down by the Government is insufficient adequately to scrutinise the treaties.

During that debate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General raised the Ansiminic case, and said that if any Order in Council were ultra vires it could be challenged in the courts. I would be glad if he would deal with that case in his reply. What we have to consider here is the right of a subject to challenge the use of prerogative by the Sovereign. I understand, and it has been reinforced by many of the contributions in the debate, that the use of prerogative is really an unchallengeable right of the Sovereign, and the Ansiminic case in particular dealt with an inferior tribunal, namely, an administrative tribunal. It is quite clear that the High Court can review any decisions of an administrative, inferior tribunal, but it is by no means as certain as the Solicitor-General sought to imply that that court could review or declare ultra vires the exercise by the Sovereign of the prerogative laid down under Clause 1(3).

The Solicitor-General has said that under Clause 1(3) we can discuss any treaty which is entered into by the United Kingdom, either as an ancillary treaty or as a party with the Communities, or upon its own behalf, but that we could not review, and it would not be open to us to scrutinize, any legislation entered into by any of the Communities without any of the member States. This is important, because it points the way to the future.

If we are to have the full-hearted consent which has been spoken of so freely in connection with this legislation this is a continuing duty. It applies not only to the point which we have reached but to all future legislation, so that at all stages during the continuance of British membership of the E.E.C.—if we are misguided enough to go through with that—people should be reassured that there is the utmost publicity for the documents to which we are assenting on behalf of the nation and the greatest control by this Parliament commensurate with membership of the E.E.C. As it stands, the only mechanism of parliamentary control is that contained in Clause 1(3) of the Bill, and it gives only partial cover, and cover only so far as the affirmative Resolution procedure is concerned with one and a half hours.

We have now to examine the documents which have already been entered into by the Community, and we see a number of examples where the Community has entered into treaties with other countries without any member State being a party to the treaty. I refer in particular to Vol. 8, Part I of "Treaties and Related Instruments", page 147, the agreement which set up an association between the E.E.C. and the Tunisian Republic. That was done by the Council of the European Economic Community of the one part and the Tunisian Government of the other part and merely signed by Gustav Thorn and Jean Rey on behalf of the Community. It was not an association or treaty to which any member State was a party. Similarly, if we look further back in the same volume, page 107, we see a commercial agreement between the European Economic Community and the Imperial Government of Iran—another example of the E.E.C.'s entering into a treaty without any member State being a party to it.

I am not sure about the next example I wanted to give and should be grateful if whoever answers would deal with it. In Volume II, page 13, there is a decision of the Council, contained in "Treaties and Related Instruments", regarding the association of overseas territories and countries with the European Economic Community. Again, no individual country was party to that agreement.

It is true that in the treaties with Greece and Turkey individual countries were parties, but the first point is that there is no necessity for individual countries to be parties to an agreement between the Community and another State; and the second point is that in those treaties entered into directly between the Communities and other States there are provisions such as import quotas, production quotas and so on which deliberately and definitely affect individual States.

As I understand the position and the formula which the Solicitor-General has laid down, none of those treaties—or neither of the specific treaties and the probable third—which I have quoted would be the subject of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever, notwithstanding the fact that there may be in one or more of the articles of a commercial agreement provisions as to quantity or as to imports and quotas which might affect Britain in this regard. It is clear that this legislation could, and probably will, affect Britain in future. It is one aspect of these treaties of which there can be no scrutiny by this House under the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Deakins

Would my hon. Friend agree that his third example is by far the most important affecting the treaty-making powers of the European Communities? In Volume II of "Treaties and Related Instruments" we have the decision of the Communities on the association of overseas countries and territories, and on page 35 we are told that from the Decision, the governments of Surinam and the Dutch Antilles shall discharge the obligations arising out of that Decision". whereas the point of this decision is that it relates to territories which used to be colonial territories of member States of the Communities. It must be a sign of the times for us that any agreement made on behalf of or with the former colonial territories of any Community member is made only by the Community and not by the Community with the former colonial territory concerned.

Mr. John

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The point is heightened by the statement on page 29 of that volume, which indicates that not only the amount of aid—the millions of units of account—but the manner of aid which we give to overseas territories will not be scrutinised by us.

I understood that the establishment of an effective means of parliamentary control over this legislative programme, with the need to take account of the changed parliamentary circumstances, was common ground to all. I recollect the Chancellor of the Duchy saying that there would be various means—by Select Committees and so on—of scrutinising these matters.

Amendment No. 96 would, if passed, save the right hon. and learned Gentleman a great deal of time, for it suggests that all those treaties which are made by the Communities without the member States having been parties to the decision shall be the subject of affirmative Resolution in this Parliament.

A number of advantages would flow from this course. For example, the negative Resolution procedure would be inappropriate in this context; if treaties to which we have not been a party affect us greatly, it is our duty to scrutinise them; positive approval by us is preferable to acquiescence on the part of the House of Commons.

One disadvantage which the Patronage Secretary will appreciate is the fact that a time limit of one-and-a-half hours would apply, which would not mean the Government becoming involved in closure or timetable Motions. Although one-and-a-half hours is not much, it is better than nothing. In this connection, I remind the Solicitor-General of what the Chancellor of the Duchy said about there being sufficient time for Parliament to debate these issues. Indeed, if he was not boasting, he certainly took pride in the amount of time which the Government had allowed for debating the decision to accede to the E.E.C.

If it was right to grant that amount of time—and I say that that was the minimum time necessary to consider it—it shows up in stark relief the claim of the Solicitor-General that an important treaty can be disposed of in an hour and a half and we still have time for a cup of tea before an early evening. It is not good enough, and I ask the House to support this first Amendment in that spirit.

The second series of Amendments, particularly Nos. 163 and 147, deals with the other treaties, treaties which are at present covered by affirmative Resolution procedure. When the United Kingdom is party to a treaty, whether on its own account or as a member of the Community, or an ancillary treaty, it is not good enough to say that we should be able to pass it by affirmative Resolution procedure. The least that should happen is that it should come before the House in the proper way and be enacted in the proper way.

Amendment No. 147 calls, substantially for the deletion of the affirmative Resolution procedure and seeks that any such treaty as is mentioned in Clause 1(3) should be enacted by Parliament.

If the Government are as proud of this Bill as they claim, although at times they have tried to stifle discussion on the detailed proposals, they are concealing their pride in its birth very well. If they are as proud as they claim to be, they will not object to the open and full examination that the House should give such treaties for they affect us not only by our membership of the Community, but directly because we are parties to the treaties.

Amendment No. 162 is more circumspect. It would add a new subsection (5) and says that where a treaty changes the general law of the country or imposes financial obligations, it should be subject to Act of Parliament. These are minimum requirements which will enable the House of Commons and the people of Britain in future to keep track and to keep the spotlight of scrutiny on these various measures to which Her Majesty's Government of whatever party accede on our behalf.

This is the minimum that we should require: the minimum that we as Parliamentarians, if at all conscious of history and the way in which our present rights have been obtained, should insist upon. All hon. and right hon. Members, whether they agree in principle with Common Market entry or not, will join in saying that if Common Market entry is to be effected adequate means should be established by the House of Commons for controlling and scrutinising the treaties to which we shall accede in future. I hope the House will support these Amendments.

Mr. Powell

On a point of order, Sir Alfred, may I ask what is the intended form of debate? Earlier this evening there was an important statement from the Solicitor-General which it is highly desirable that hon. Members should be able to study before the main part of the debate takes place. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend apparently intends himself to make an intervention. But would it be possible, without too great inappropriateness on a point of order, to inquire what is the prospective form of debate this evening?

The Temporary Chairman

That is not a matter for the Chair.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Rippon

It is not for me to determine the form in which the Committee will feel it most convenient to deal with this batch of Amendments, but it seems reasonable that we should make a start on the discussion of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has made a valid point about the need to study some of the matters which have been raised today. No doubt he wishes to study what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said. For our part we shall study with care the valid points which have been made on both sides and which may require further discussion and elucidation as we go on with our consideration of Clause 1.

I hoped that it might be helpful if I rose now to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), especially those in relation to future Community treaties—that is to say, the treaties entered into without the member States.

As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 96 and, perhaps, Amendment No. 28 is to require affirmative Resolutions, whereas Amendment No. 81 would exclude them from the Bill completely. I thought it might be helpful to the Committee if, by way of opening our discussion, I indicated some of the reasons why the procedure in Clause 1(3) does not apply to future treaties which any of the Communities enter into without the member States.

The reason is that, under Article 228 of the E.E.C. Treaty, the member States are automatically bound by treaties concluded by the Community. That is an advance commitment which forms an integral part of our membership of the Communities, and it is known in advance to Parliament. There is no similar advance commitment binding us to treaties entered into by member States.

It has been made clear in our earlier discussions that the Communities have, we must accept, certain expressly conferred powers under the treaty to conclude treaties themselves. Those powers are contained in Articles 111, 113 and 238, subject to the procedures in Articles 114 and 228. In fact, Article 111 is now spent because it related to the original transitional period of the Community

Mr. Denzil Davies

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that treaties which the Communities enter into with third party States are automatically binding on member States according to the articles of the Treaty of Rome. Does that mean that, should the Crown not seek to specify under Clause 1(3) that one of these treaties is a Community treaty, the rights and obligations arising under that treaty are still binding under Clause 2(1)?

Mr. Rippon

That is correct. It may be helpful to the discussion——

Mr. Jay


Mr. Rippon

I must continue. I should like to be allowed to explain, without too much interruption, the position as we undersand it. I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members have anxieties about some aspects of this matter which we must try to move.

Article 113, which applies from the end of the transitional period, provides for the negotiation of trade agreements with third countries in pursuance of the common commercial policy of the Community. Where such agreements need to be negotiated, the Commission is required to make recommendations to the Council, which then authorises the Commission to open the necessary negotiations. The Commission conducts the negotiations in consultation with a special committee appointed by the Council to assist the Commission in this task and within the framework of such directives as the Council may issue. Under the treaty the agreement has to be concluded by the Council acting on a qualified majority. I am told, however, that all agreements so far concluded have been agreed by unanimity.

I am setting this forward to indicate how the Community works. As the Leader of the Opposition used to explain, it is how the Community works in practice that really provides the greatest safeguard of all.

Article 238 provides for association agreements with a third country, with a union of States or with an international organisation. Those agreements may establish an association involving reciprocal rights and obligations, common action, and special procedures. Those agreements are concluded by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Assembly. An example given by the hon. Member for Pontypridd was the association agreement with Tunisia.

It will be of interest to the Committee to know that there are provisions for consultation with the European Parliament. When the Community concludes an association agreement under Article 238 of the treaty, consultation with the European Parliament is obligatory, and there is a special procedure for this. Even in cases where we thought that consultation was not required under the treaty, nevertheless, in practice, consultation has been taking place. Though agreements under Article 114 do not require formal consultation, in practice that is what has happened.

I can understand the anxieties which have been expressed about the fact that provision for an affirmative Order in Council in Clause 1(3) does not apply to these treaties entered into by the Community. That was the substance of the argument very fairly put forward by the hon. Member for Pontypridd.

Since our treaty obligations will call for us to be automatically bound by treaties entered into by the Communities, their binding effect for member States cannot be dependent upon action by national Parliaments. Since they will be automatically binding upon us, it follows that our law must, in advance, be such as to enable us to give effect to any rights and obligations arising for the United Kingdom under them. Thus it is necessary, as the Bill provides, for these treaties to be automatically within the definition of treaties for the purposes of the Bill without the need for any further parliamentary procedure after their conclusion.

That may seem to some right hon. and hon. Members as being in some way strange. However, it is not so strange. Looking at the list of existing Community treaties in this category, we see that many of them are of very limited interest to this country and this Parliament. For example, the commercial agreement of 14th October, 1963, with Iran is an agreement under which the Community reduces its tariffs on certain Iranian products—for example, grapes and caviar. We should bear in mind that this country can now conclude many treaties which require no legislation. For example, those treaties require no legislation which may be implemented by orders under existing powers in the Import Duties Act. That is somehing which we do ourselves now, without any concern, although of course we could, if we so wished, change cur procedures. This helps to put the matter in the right perspective.

I will not refer again to the observations of the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, on 8th May, 1967, but they could not have been clearer. It has always been understood from the beginning that there would be an area of treaty-making which would fall within the powers of the Community in the field specifically defined in the articles of the treaty.

Mr. John

I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not want to give a misleading impression of the Iranian Agreement. Articles 3 and 4 provide for the examination of the possibilities of harmonious broadening of trade with the Community and the setting up of a mixed committee to examine it. So it is a matter not merely of tariff reduction but of a trade initiative with a particular country as well.

Mr. Rippon

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman makes that point. It shows how harmless the treaty was. The idea that one should be particularly concerned about arrangements made frequently between Governments that committees should be set up to consider how they should expand trade with each other in a sense makes the point that, just as there are now many treaties which we enter into which require no legislation at all because they cover particular matters of trade and so forth which have been well understood for a long time, so these treaties of the Community in strictly limited fields are circumscribed not only by the articles of the treaty themselves but also by the procedures which the Community has established.

I know that hon. Members on both sides will recollect that the Leader of the Opposition, when Prime Minister, went out of his way time and again to explain that, whereas if one looks at certain of the provisions of the treaty literally one might have anxieties, one should look not only at the statute law but at the common law and the practice which has developed. I hope that I have explained a little of the way in which the Community, by its procedures, ensures that treaties of this kind are not entered into without anyone knowing about them.

As for the ad hoc committee, I said on Second Reading that the Government believed that there was a need for the House to have special arrangements under which it would be apprised of draft regulations and directives, and that the ad hoc committee would consider the most suitable arrangements. I did not specifically refer then to treaties, but clearly the committee would wish to consider the scope of parliamentary consideration in respect of treaties as in other matters. It is in that sort of way that we can be confident that, in practice, some of the anxieties which have been expressed will not prove too great.

11.30 p.m.

Sir Robin Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

At present the House has the Ponsonby rule, under which all treaties have to be brought to the House of Commons, with opportunity for debate within 21 days. Am I to understand from my right hon. and learned Friend that when this treaty becomes law the Ponsonby rule will still be applied, so that the House of Commons will be able to debate the treaties, as we are doing now, or is he saying that it can be done only by a committee that he intends to set up?

Mr. Rippon

The whole question of procedure in dealing with these matters will be in the terms of reference, as it were, of the ad hoc committee, so that we can consider the most appropriate procedure. For the purposes of the discussion we are having tonight about the application of Community treaties, we have to accept that the House of Commons cannot get away from the position stated as long ago as May, 1967, that there is this field, which I have defined, a limited but definite field, in which the Community has power, under the treaties, which successive Governments have said they accept together with everything that flows from them, to make these treaties.

I have tried to indicate the nature of the treaties the Community makes, the fields they cover, the reason why, in practice, there is no great ground for anxiety, the procedures which the Community adopts to control the Commission's negotiations, the degree of discussion there is within the framework of the European Parliament, the degree of public knowledge there would be of the nature of these treaties and the fact that we can consider how we can ensure by our procedures that there is an opportunity for these matters to be considered here. But once the treaty is made, we have to accept its obligation upon us.

Mr. Michael Foot

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a statement that will horrify all quarters. We shall have time tomorrow to discuss the whole question and all the implications of what he has said and what is involved in the Amendments. On one special aspect of the matter, although not the most important, I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say something now. When he puts forward some of the weight about what is to be done to protect us on his ad hoc committee and places reliance on that, does he not realise that it is a most extraordinary situation in which the House of Commons is being placed when we are told that it is the ad hoc committee, which has not even been set up and which will not have reported, presumably, whilst we are still in the Committee stage, and of the form of which we have no knowledge, which is to have some control of these matters?

Is not that an extraordinary state of affairs, especially as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already told us in almost the same breath—and as we are told in almost every breath that Ministers utter—that we have known about these matters all along, that the Government and everyone have known about them for years? Yet the proposals for the ad hoc committee, which is to play an increasing part in all the protections the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims, come only at the last minute. The more the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to the ad hoc committee in this way, the more it appears to be a face-saving arrangement, spatchcocked into the Bill in order to try to block up—if I have not mixed about six metaphors already—the holes that have become more apparent.

What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying now makes the situation far worse. He really ought to think it over. In view of this statement, the best thing he can do is to think about this again. He talks about our thinking about what is said. He should think about it himself and come before the Committee tomorrow with a considered statement on what he is now saying.

Mr. Rippon

I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather the ad hoc committee did not consider the matter. It is right that I should clear up any ambiguity in my speech on Second Reading. It is not essential that the ad hoc committee should do so, but it is not unreasonable that it should do so either. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to accept it, and certainly does not want to accept what the Leader of the Opposition said in May 1967; the hon. Gentleman used not to agree with him in those days. But he must accept that from the outset of the negotiations—and no one has ever quibbled about this—we have known, as have all the members of the Cabinet who made the application, that Article 228 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community states: Where this Treaty provides for the conclusion of agreements between the Community and one or more States or an international organisation, such agreements shall be negotiated by the Commission. It went on to say: Agreements concluded under these conditions shall be binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States. From the statement of the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, on 8th May, 1967, the position has been inescapable. I quite understand that there are many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides to whom that proposition has never been acceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirks and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) have been quite consistent about this. To be fair, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has never accepted this. On the contrary, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has accepted it at one time and certainly the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the Labour Government did so. It is no good pretending this is something which the Government have just thought up at the last minute or have in any way hidden from the House of Commons. From the outset the Labour Government and the present Government said that, subject to negotiation of the terms on the matters on which we wanted transitional or other arrangements, we accepted the treaties and all that had flowed from them.

I have said that we must also look at the position in practice, at the sort of treaties which are concluded by the Community and the way in which they can and are being scrutinised not only within the institutions of the Community, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, but how we will have plenty of time to look at them ourselves. As I said on Second Reading, the Government remain accountable to the House of Commons for their actions.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)


Mr. Jay

Is it not rather scandalous that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refuses to answer any questions put to him? If, as I understood him to say, any treaties made by the Communities with a third party are automatically and directly binding on this country, what is added to the situation by the provision in the first part of subsection (3) that if an Order in Council declares that the treaty specified in the order is regarded as one of the Community treaties, it will be conclusive? Are these words without any real effect?

Mr. Rippon

The position is that there is always room for argument as to whether particular agreements or conclusions reached legally constitute a treaty. It is for the convenience of everyone that there should be some declaratory provision. But my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made perfectly clear in his speeches the limitations on the second part of the proviso. He also made clear that the affirmative Resolution procedure could not cover Community treaties which are binding automatically, but it could cover the treaties to which the member States, including the United Kingdom, were themselves parties.

Mr. Jay

Are the words without any real effect?

Mr. Rippon

If the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will look at what I said yesterday, he will see that I have answered this question.

Sir Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

Does the process of declaration, which involves the provision of Order in Council, merely involve the laying of the order before Parliament without debate or discussion or is the process more elaborate than that? If the question was answered when I was attending the Committee of Privileges I am sorry, but I would like enlightenment on the matter.

Mr. Rippon

I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was engaged on other and important duties and so did not hear my hon. and learned Friend's answer on that point. It is simply a straightforward laying of the Order in Council.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

Dr. Gilbert

I should like first to address myself both to the interventions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and to the reply of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is the case, it is beyond me why we need not only the first part of subsection (3) but also the second part. It seems to me to be superfluous.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman introduced an interesting concept, and he was at great pains to quote frequently my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He said that we should look not just at the text of the treaties but at the common law and practice that obtains in the Common Market with respect to Community law. We are missing one extremely important document. We have most of the regulations and treaties rele- vant to Community practice, but we do not have any indication of what proportion of those various articles of law is in effect in the Community. It has been made the excuse from the Government Front Bench from time to time, though we have not heard so much of it since the Bill has been before us, that we do not need to bother too much about Community law because in the last resort we can always break that law. It is said that it does not matter very much, because when it becomes oppressive member States are only too happy to break it themselves.

If that were the sort of case on which the Government still rested—and it is very germane to the general thesis that the right hon. and learned Gentleman advanced—we should know precisely those aspects of Community law that are not being enforced now. It would be very useful to have a document that laid out the information systematically for the benefit of the Committee so that we could know exactly which parts of the treaties are being disregarded by the member States, apparently so far with impunity.

A document does exist with that information. It was referred to in the February issue of the bulletin put out in this country by the information service of the European Community. It says that the Commission has issued a report dealing with the violations of the Treaty of Rome as they have been clearly identified. The number of violations apparently amounts to 136, of which 82 are positively established and 54 are only presumed. A recent Commission report estimated that the greatest number of infringements was in the agricultural sector, followed by the common transport policy. This is an extremely significant document. This information is vital if we are to know what parts of the treaties which will play such an important part in our lives are able to be breached with impunity.

11.45 p.m.

According to the bulletin which I have quoted, every member State is in some respect in breach of its treaty obligations. It would be interesting to know precisely which aspects of these treaties the Government intend to breach in the fullness of time.

Mr. Deakins

Is not my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister's statement following his discussions with President Pompidou during the penultimate period of negotiations last summer forecast that this country and France were fully agreed on a breach of one of the major provisions of the Treaty of Rome—I cannot remember the number of the article—namely, that which allows majority voting in the Council of Ministers? They jointly put their heads together and issued a public statement before the debate in the House of Commons in October that we would disregard that provision of what we are told is a fundamental Community treaty.

Dr. Gilbert I

am much obliged to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of these matters is far more profound than my own. I hope that in due course the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will address himself to that point. It is interesting to see that the range of matters which are subject to breaches of Community obligations by member States extends over a great many other areas besides agriculture and transport policy.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

The hon. Member has twice referred to the common transport policy. What common transport policy has the Community got?

Dr. Gilbert

That is a good question. All I know is that the bulletin put out by the European Information Service refers to a common transport policy, so presumably it knows what it is talking about even if I do not, because I do not pretend to know what the common transport policy is. My source of information is the official bulletin put out by the European Information Service. If so passionate a pro-European as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) does not know anything about it——

Mr. Russell Johnston

Surely the hon. Gentleman is confusing the intention of a common policy with the actual possession of such a policy.

Dr. Gilbert

That is an interesting distinction. All I can say is that I have read in the bulletin about a breach of an intended common transport policy. I do not know how one can breach an intended policy. It says quite clearly: The greatest number of infringements were in the agricultural sector followed by the common transport policy. If someone who has followed these matters as closely as the only Liberal representative here, and we must thereby infer that he is the keenest of the keen Liberals, does not know, how should simple souls like the rest of us be expected to know?

It is not only in the agricultural sector and the intended or actual common transport policy that member States are committing breaches and are in dereliction of their duty to Community law. I understand that Belgium has still not applied a 1965 directive on the marketing of pharmaceutical products. We understand that Belgium, Luxembourg and France do not carry out directives allowing tourists to bring back certain quantities of goods free of value-added tax from partner States and France and Luxembourg have not complied with all the directives according freedom of establishment. I have no doubt that the list will be a great deal longer. This is all that is available in this summary.

Mr. Buchan

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely the basis of the Government's argument for entry? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster argued in his last speech that it did not matter what was in the Bill or the treaties—it was the practice that counted—and he went back to 1967 in arguing that point. Some of the strongest arguments over the past two years from the Dispatch Box have been that it did not matter because people ignored it anyway. Perhaps he is now trying to say that the Bill does not matter. This is the whole theory behind the Bill.

Dr. Gilbert

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That is the point I have been attempting to make. If the case of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is that the law as it will affect us is not what is laid down in statutes, regulations, directives and so on, but the common practice, we need to know exactly what that common practice is and where we can get away with breaches of it with impunity; but the Government will not say that. When pressed to say what they intend to ignore, the Government will not admit to anything. They cannot expect us to believe that they will be much purer in their behaviour than are the Six initial member States.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) challenged the federalists and said he thought they would all emerge. My view is that they will not emerge but will get further and further into hiding and will not at any time appear in their true colours.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that the effect of subsection (3), taking it with what goes before, is that for future law-making purposes we shall be dealing with questions of the Royal Prerogative, and we shall no longer have legislative power in the House of Commons over a vast range of matters. What is not clear to many hon. Members is the extent to which we shall be sacrificing our legislative rights. The whole of our Budget-making process will inexorably become subject to the provisions of Clause 1(3). I exaggerate slightly—not the whole of our Budget-making procedures, but all those which will be subordinate to the harmonisation intentions of the Community with respect to V.A.T., corporation tax, social security taxes and benefits and tariff changes. All these will eventually become subject to the subsections of Clause 1 which refer to the superiority of Community treaties over the law-making procedures of our country.

I shall not attempt to delay the Committee longer on this point tonight. I hope to catch the Chairman's eye at some more favourable time to speak on these Amendments. Some of the things that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said with his usual blandness this evening were among the most startling I have heard since I became a Member. Although that has been a short time. I have heard some very startling things.

Mr. Rippon

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. It seems to me that we have done better on this occasion than on previous occasions and it seems convenient for the Committee to consider the implications of what has been said.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Forward to