EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

HC Deb 14 March 1972 vol 833 cc429-95

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTONin the Chair.]

Mr. Denkins

Before the Division, I was speaking on Amendment No. 83 and pointing out that The Hague Agreement of December, 1969, was in the important category of treaties which could not possibly be dealt with in the House of Commons under the affirmative Resolution procedure. I wish to allude to three provisions in The Hague Agreement before I go to the treaty which establishes economic and monetary union.

First, the Ministers and Heads of State agreed that they should achieve progress in political unification. It is not good enough for any Minister to come to the House of Commons, as have the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and say that such progress will depend on the will and spirit of the members, that we shall play our part, and so on. Once we have put our shoulders to the wheel it may be debatable whether the form of political unification will be a federation or a confederation, but there can be no denying the fact that the more the Community moves towards political unification the greater will be the derogation of the rights and powers of the House of Commons.

Another point which emerged from The Hague Agreement, which has not been mentioned before in the House, is that the Heads of State agreed that the problem of direct elections would continue to be studied by the Council of Ministers. This relates to the direct elec- tions of individual member States to the European Parliament. Can anybody say that that issue is not important enough to warrant treatment as a Bill to be presented and put through all its stages?

10.15 p.m.

Then we have the matter of direct elections from the people of this country to a foreign body—in other words, to the European Parliament and the Communities. Surely that alone, apart from the other matters that I have mentioned, would be sufficient in itself to prove my point that here we are dealing with a class of super treaties which cannot possibly be dealt with in future by the affirmative Resolution procedure, because not only would there be insufficient time for debate or amendment; the issue would be far too important to be dealt with in that way.

Finally, the Ministers and Heads of State reaffirmed their desire to promote the development of the Community into an economic and monetary union. This brings me to my main point, which is the treaty of 22nd March, 1971, known as the Resolution of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of Member States, published in Volume 5 of the European Communities Treaties, which deals with the initial stages towards an economic and monetary union.

I do not seek to argue for or against an economic and monetary union. I seek merely to show that the issues which arise from the treaty are of such crucial importance to the future of this country and of the House of Commons that they should be considered as part of a Bill and should have been if we had been members of the Community at that time.

Although we cannot lock this stable door on the initial stages to economic and monetary union, I hope to show briefly why we should make sure in future, if and when this issue arises again in the form of a Community treaty to which this country is a co-signatory, have the right to consider it as we would the Bill that we are now discussing.

If I may, I will quote briefly from that treaty. All members of the Community made it clear that they wanted to see an economic and monetary union and that they were also aware of the full consequences for the economic policies of each member State of progress towards such a union. If that is not an important matter, I do not know what is. They talk about a single monetary union. They talk about the elimination of margins of exchange rate fluctuation. They talk about the irrevocable fixing of relations of parity. They talk about these conditions being indispensable to the creation of a single currency. Surely these are vital issues to the future of this country. If they arose in a future treaty under part B of subsection (3), how could they possibly be dealt with adequately by the affirmative Resolution procedure that the Government suggest?

There is a great deal in that agreement, and I will not bore the Committee with the details. Hon. Members who are interested can read it for themselves. There are, however, references to budgetary and fiscal policies in member countries. It says: The principles defined"— that is, for economic and monetary union— shall be applied to the following matters: budgetary and fiscal policies as related to the policy of stability and growth. It must not be forgotten that we are talking about the budgetary policy in each individual member State and not in the Community as a whole. They talk of …the margins within which the essential elements of all the public budget should be located. Does not that imply for the future, if and when we become members of the Community, that the major outlines of budgetary policy in this country will have to be harmonised with those of the rest of the Community? What is more, if we find ourselves the odd man out, it will be difficult for us, to start with, to pretend that this is a matter of major significance and that therefore the Luxembourg disagreement whereby France stood out against the rest on matters of vital national interests should apply in this case.

Again, I shall not repeat what hon. Members can read for themselves. But there is no question that the path on which the Community is now set is to move towards the co-ordination not only of short-term but of medium-term economic policies, and there are references in this treaty to obligatory prior consultation. Here again is a power which we shall be giving up—admittedly an Executive power, but it affects the House of Commons as well—that we should decide our own budgetary policy. That will no longer be possible. Furthermore, it is not only the loss of legislative and Executive power from the House of Commons, but the granting of such power to an outside body which also has great significance for the future of this country.

The Council says that it has agreed to lay down the broad outlines of economic policy at Community level and the quantitative guidelines for the essential element of public budgets. That means that the Council will be taking upon itself, no doubt guided and advised by the Commission, the decision about the level of public spending in each country within certain limits. They will not put the screws on straight away. No doubt we shall be told that we can expand public expenditure between, say, 2 and 3 per cent. in a particular year. That is the margin of discretion which the House of Commons and the Government will be allowed. It is indeed very generous of them, but it compares unfavourably with the freedom which we now have to decide our own economic policy across the Floor of the House.

There is also a reference in the treaty to value-added tax. I am not saying anything new here. However, I should like to draw attention to the fact that there is a distinct reference in this treaty to proposals concerning the alignment of rates of value-added tax. That is not a matter which so far we have been told would be an inevitable consequence of joining the Common Market and accepting the treaty leading to economic and monetary union. However, it is a fact that one of the powers of the House of Commons, the power of taxation, is in any event to be amended next week by the introduction of value-added tax which we are obviously bringing in mainly, if not wholly, as a result of our desire to enter the Community.

It is not only the form, but the rates, of taxation which will be affected by this provision in the treaty. I submit that whether we agree with taking away from the House of Commons the power of decision of both rates and forms of indirect taxation, it is at least a matter worthy of considerable discussion in this Chamber in future, and not merely in the short time which may be allowed to right hon. and hon. Members on the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)

The hon. Gentleman has several times stressed his objection to the procedure of approval by affirmative Resolution, coupling it with references to the short time that is allowed for debate. Does he appreciate that, in dealing with such important topics it is open to Parliament, through the ad hoc committee or the Select Committee on Procedure to make recommendations for considerably longer time to be allowed through the same process of the affirmative Resolution? Therefore, his objections are rather specious.

Mr. Deakins

I take the point. However, we are considering a Bill which, if it becomes an Act, will, so to speak, bind all future Governments. Therefore, it might be open to a future Government to say "We have had the recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure that five days should be given for a debate on, say, a common currency, but we are short of parliamentary time and we think that it should be dealt with in one or two days". In any event, whatever time may be given, it is the form in which these things are presented to the House which is the important aspect which we should be considering. At the moment we have an opportunity to amend any Bill which is presented to us and, if necessary, to reject particular parts. It is that facility, that right, that power, which will be denied to us under the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Spearing

Will my hon. Friend make one point clear, because it is important in relation to what he has said about budgetary policy? If, for instance, there were a move for harmonisation of budgetary policies towards, say, the National Health Service, which is funded as to 80 per cent., would we not be able to discuss the implications of that? Are the Government proposing that we are not to be allowed to discuss something to which we have already agreed in principle by signing the Treaty, and that, in addition, we are not even to be allowed to find out the implications? Will my hon. Friend comment on the implications of what he has suggested?

Mr. Deakins

My hon. Friend raises an important point which I am sure he will wish to develop if he has an opportunity to speak in the debate. If he does not, I am sure that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will wish to discuss it.

I explained on Second Reading that harmonisation is a process that feeds on itself. The more harmonisation that is achieved, the more is desired. Once the civil servants and federalists in Europe and in the House of Commons have the bit between their teeth, there is no telling where the process will end.

We must, therefore, even now consider what checks we shall have on the future ability of the Government to harmonise our laws—our taxation laws and aspects of the social services, and so on—with members of the Community without Parliament having sufficient power to amend, reject in part and fully discuss those issues, which cannot be the case under the affirmative Resolution procedure.

We are constantly told that under this procedure our power is to reject or approve. A future Government may use their majority to ensure that the House of Commons approves, even if a substantial proportion of hon. Members feels that there has not been adequate time for discussion. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made this point adequately.

Imagine what would have been the position if this Measure had been on the Statute Book by now and we had signed the Treaty of Accession. Under Clause l(3)(b) that treaty would have been brought before us simply in the form of an affirmative Resolution. It cannot be denied that our debates on the treaty these past few weeks have been vitally important. Is it suggested that this discussion could have occurred simply on an affirmative Resolution?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) pointed out recently, it is uncertain from the working of this subsection whether we shall have power to talk about the substance of the Treaty. The wording might be interpreted merely to mean that we should have the right to say just whether or not it should be one of the Community's treaties.

I support what has been said on both sides of the Committee about the need to ensure adequate parliamentary control. A short discussion is no good. A lengthy discussion is advantageous when considering important future treaties, but discussion of itself is of no avail if, at the end of the day, we simply have the right to reject or approve with no right to amend or reject in part, as distinct from rejecting completely.

What is being suggested is some restriction on the future treaty-making powers of the Government, and we mean any future Government. After all, this country has never before entered into a type of treaty like the Hague Agreement and the agreement covering economic and monetary affairs. One would have thought that these matters require far more than the exercise of prerogative legislation. It is vital that the House of Commons is able to discuss treaties and agreements of this kind in the way that we discuss Government Bills and Instruments.

Many hon. Members have been here for a lot longer than I have. However, I am sure that I echo their view when I say that we are jealous not only of the rights of the House of Commons but the rights of the citizen. We want to ensure that our constituents feel that their representatives in Parliament can have a proper effect on measures that are introduced on their behalf, whether they emanate from the British Government or another part of Europe.

If we are to be faced in the future with Community treaties to which Britain is a party or co-signatory, which would come before Parliament under Part B of subsection (3), it would be disgraceful if any future Government allowed them to go through under the affirmative Resolution procedure, because we could find ourselves discussing ineffectually, on a sort of consultative basis, the whole future existence and power of this Chamber.

In those circumstances, therefore, I hope that not only shall we support the Amendments but, in particular, we shall have an opportunity of voting not only on Amendment No. 28 but also on the very important Amendment No. 83.

10.30 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

We have had a wide-ranging debate on these Amendments, which has covered a lot of ground. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) has spoken eloquently about the Hague Declaration of 1969. It will be within the Committee's recollection that it was that historic declaration which paved the way for and encouraged the renewal of the Labour Government's application for the United Kingdom to join the European Communities. Many of the matters discussed in that declaration opened up prospects for the future that we shall have to face step by step, being willing and, as has been said by many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as by my right hon. and hon. Friends, ready to go as far and as fast as the best of them.

Naturally enough, too, we have ranged again over the general question of the degree of surrender of sovereignty which is justified in the circumstances of our accession. I have always believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was right when he said: The whole history of political progress is a history of gradual abandonment of national sovereignty. That, at any rate, has been a tenet for a long time of the internationalists of the party opposite.

An Hon. Member

Rubbish.

Mr. Rippon

The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) says that that is rubbish, but it is his Leader's statement.

Mr. Shore

I did not say "rubbish". That remark, taken out of context, is a half truth. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I, and the rest of us, have lived through a period in which 1,000 million people have achieved the great prize of self-government in our lifetime. That is progress.

Mr. Rippon

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made that observation. It was the end of the quotation from him I was about to refer to, on 25th February, 1970, not so very long ago. Those were the days when he was expressing things rather differently. But he made the point that: The whole history of political progress is a history of gradual abandonment of national sovereignty. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, referring back to a speech he had made in August, 1961, said: I said then that we abrogated national sovereignty to a degree when we joined the United Nations. I said then that some people would talk about world government in one breath and then start drooling about the need to preserve national sovereignty in the next. I went on to say: 'The question is not whether sovereignty remains absolute or not, but in what way one is prepared to sacrifice sovereignty, to whom and for what purpose…whether any proposed surrender of sovereignty will advance our progress to the kind of world that we want to see'."—[Official Report, 25th February, 1970; Vol. 796, c. 1326.] This is the essence of the difference of opinion between the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). It is essentially the decision that every member of the Committee has to take or has had to take in all our discussions, as to whether the degree to which we are surrendering our national sovereignty in order to enter the Communities is justified by what we hope to achieve, and whether the transfer—what the Leader of the Opposition used to call a limited transfer—of sovereignty is for the good of Britain, Europe and mankind.

It is that question which largely determines the position of each hon. Member on the matter. It is right we should have devoted time to a consideration of the matter. The right hon. Member for Stepney opened his speech with a discussion of the nature of the treaties which are entered into by the Community acting on its own or with other member States. It is important we get these distinctions as clear as possible, although, covering the whole range of treaties made by the Community over a period of years, it is not always easy to get an absolutely clear strand of thought which will put each of them into a simple category. I stated the position accurately on 7th March in the Official Report from column 1394, and I dealt there with the Articles of the treaty under which the various treaties were made. Article 113 deals largely with commercial treaties and Article 238 with the sort of treaties for which unanimity was required.

The right hon. Member for Stepney pointed out that some seemed to be under one and some seemed to be under another, and he asked for clarification about which sort of treaties were concluded under which of these Articles. The 10 volumes of Community treaties with which we are concerned include seven association agreements. I think these were the treaties with which he was primarily concerned. They are with Tunisia, Morocco, Greece, Malta and Turkey, together with the Yaoundéand Arusha agreements. Those with Tunisia, Morocco and Malta were concluded by the Community acting alone, and the other four were concluded by the Community acting together with member States, including the Yaoundé and Arusha agreements.

Most of the trade agreements under Article 113 were concluded by the Community acting alone. This is not invariable and the agreement with the Lebanon was concluded generally with the member States.

I do not think there is any clear distinction of principle in the practice which the Community has followed. Agreements of association are made under Article 238 because of the principle of unanimity but whether or not member States enter into a treaty together with the Community depends upon the particular circumstances of each case, and we certainly cannot judge precisely what future cases will be. I agree that there may be circumstances in which what might be classified as a trade agreement might be of greater significance than an association agreement. But once we are within the Community we will be forming our own judgments about these matters and on important agreements expressing our views as to how they can best be dealt with.

Mr. Powell

If my right hon. and learned Friend is leaving that can he clear up the final point raised with him by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore)? Are all the seven association agreements which he has mentioned made under Article 238 and is it the case, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said, that in all of them there would have been an interposition of the United Kingdom parliamentary process? This is a crucial point.

Mr. Rippon

Where a treaty is entered into by the Community alone, whether it is under Article 113 or under Article 238, it is binding upon us without further procedures. When the treaty is entered into with the member States such as in the case of the Yaoundé and Arusha agreements, this is made under an affirmative Resolution by Order in Council.

Mr. Powell

In that case, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was not accurate when he said that in the case of agreements made under Article 238 there would be the interposition of the United Kingdom parliamentary process. I am not trying to get at my hon. and learned Friend. I just believe that my right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that that statement was not correct.

Mr. Rippon

I am not sure whether I have it completely in context. I think I know what my hon. and learned Friend was driving at in that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has paid a proper tribute to my hon. and learned Friend for the fact that he has given very full and detailed explanations to the Committee. As I remember it, he was talking about Article 238 treaties requiring unanimity and being normal ones to which the member States would adhere, also drawing the distinction between the treaty with Greece, which was an association treaty under Article 238, which the member States were associated with, and the treaty with Spain, which was an Article 113 agreement entered into by the Community without member States. I hope there is no confusion. I think that what I have stated now to be the position is right.

Sir Robin Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

The remark by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was made in answer to an intervention by me. I had drawn attention to the possibility of a Caribbean Sugar Agreement and asked whether Parliament would have any opportunity of passing judgment on such a new agreement after 1974. My hon. and learned Friend said: I have made it plain that under Article 238 there would be the interposition of United Kingdom parliamentary process."—[Official Report, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1547.] My right hon. and learned Friend has just said that there would not be interposition of the parliamentary process. This is vital to the whole Caribbean. I hope he will reconsider the matter and at a later stage give us a clear definition of what will happen.

Mr. Rippon

With respect to my right hon. Friend, I did not say there would be no parliamentary process. I explained how there are two Articles under which the Community can enter into treaties—Article 113 and Article 238. Some are entered into by the Community acting alone; some are entered into by the Community with member States. There is no clear distinction of principle between the two. The important thing about Article 238is that it requires unanimity. The other important distinction is that although sometimes trade agreements are more important than association agreements and sometimes vice versa, an agreement of the importance of, for example, the Yaoundé or Arusha agreements under Article 238 has been entered into with the concurrence of member States.

I cannot conceive of circumstances in which an agreement on future sugar arrangements in the context of the association arrangements would not be an agreement entered into by member States. That, I think, would be the view of any United Kingdom Government of either Party as being the right and proper procedure. It depends a little on whether the countries which have been offered association choose to have neither the Yaoundé- nor the Arusha-type association but choose instead to have a straight trade agreement. If they left the negotiations to a straight trade agreement, although we could monitor them, it might be a treaty entered into by the Community alone—but not necessarily.

Mr. Shore

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a point about the distinction between Article 238 agreements and Article 113 agreements. In so far as there is a distinction between them, it certainly is not based, as we had previously thought, upon the difference between the Community signing one lot of agreements and the member States attaching their signature to the Article 238 agreements. We are told now that it is vaguer than that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then said that the real distinction between the two kinds of treaties is that the Article 238 agreement required unanimity. Would I be right in assuming that trade treaties under Article 113 do not need unanimity? If they do not, surely that invalidates what the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself told the Committee only seven days ago?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Rippon

Then we have to look, as I have explained very often to the right hon. Gentleman, at the treaty to which we are adhering, at the statute law as it were. As the Leader of the Opposition used to tell us so often, we have to look at the practice which has developed under it. Then we get the question of unanimity and what is sometimes called the Luxembourg Agreement or, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) said, the Luxembourg disagreement.

These are matters which we have gone over on many occasions, I thought it right to try to clarify the particular point made by the right hon. Member for Stepney. If we look at what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in the context of the particular treaties he was discussing and his reference to the fact that normally the Community is dealing on its own with commercial agreements, we see the matter in proper perspective.

Mr. Jay rose—

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

On a point of order. As it is evident that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is at loggerheads with the interpretation put on this matter by the Solicitor-General, is it not appropriate that we should adjourn the debate to permit the two of them to discuss this question further?

The Temporary Chairman

No, I would not accept a Motion to that effect at this stage.

Mr. Jay

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman, far from clarifying this matter, has confused the Committee still further than at any time so far today, can he clear up this point? As a country on becoming a member of the Community loses its power to make separate commercial agreements because the Community has a common commercial policy and makes agreements on its own, is it not a fact that the agreement mentioned in connection with the sugar industry and agreements made with New Zealand, would have to be made by the Community and that they would therefore come under the second and not the first part of subsection (3)?

Mr. Rippon

The answer is, not necessarily, because the Community may regard an agreement of that kind as one to which member States might be a party. That is a view which any United Kingdom Government would take.

Turning to Amendments Nos. 28, 2 and 83, the purpose of Amendment No. 28, by which all future treaties, including those concluded by the Community acting alone would require an affirmative Resolution before they were brought within the definition of the Bill, has already been discussed by the Committee when we were dealing with Amendment No. 96. I think I made it clear when dealing with that Amendment, as reported in col. 1393 of the Official Report for 7th March, and the Solicitor-General also dealt with that. So there is no new point of substance which has been raised by Amendment No. 28 which we have not already dealt with. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) justified his Amendment No.83, which has also been discussed in substance already, on the ground that it was the most far-reaching of the three Amendments we are discussing. He said it had been referred to before but not everyone was here at the time. We are getting to the stage when there is a certain amount of repetition on the ground that what was said before has not been heard by everyone, but my right hon. Friend has raised an important point.

Amendment No. 83 would strike out altogether the provision that future treaties entered into by the United Kingdom would be brought within the definition of the Bill by being specified in an affirmative Resolution Order in Council. Such treaties if the Amendment were adopted would need an Act of Parliament if they required a change in the United Kingdom law.

My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General dealt with this matter at some length, and he has been quoted at some length by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and his speech was referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen. My right hon. and learned Friend read out the first part of what my hon. and learned Friend said: My hon. Friend, perhaps too generously but not, I think, unintentionally, referred to my encomium of the affirmative order procedures there set out and sought to reduce it to something of no significance. I cannot accept that that is a true view to take of the matter. He referred to the necessity for any change, be it great or small, in the scope of the existing treaties being subjected to the full legislative procedures of the House of Commons. My hon. and learned Friend went on to say—and this bit my right hon. Friend left out: That is not either necessary or wise."—[Official Report, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1550.] He then went on to explain, I hope to the satisfaction of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen, why he thought it was not necessary or wise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the House of Commons was best at saying "Yea" or "Nay", and there is a wide range of matters in these treaties where that is the best way in which the House of Commons can express its views. As has been explained right from our debate on 20th January treaties can be accepted or rejected but they cannot be amended by the House of Commons.

I take my right hon. Friend's point about the possibility of having a formula to distinguish between a host of minor matters which it would not be appropriate to deal with by Act of Parliament and major matters which perhaps should be dealt with by Act of Parliament. There are, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said, a number of possibilities, because the procedure of the House of Commons is very flexible, and the ad hoc committee when it is set up can consider how these procedures can be adapted. We hope that the Opposition will soon make a response to that proposal. It is put forward to enable us to find a formula to determine how best to deal with these matters. I do not think it is possible to distinguish it in an Act of Parliament. As my hon. and learned Friend suggested, a safeguard is built in whereby if the House does not feel that the Order in Council procedure is satisfactory it can oppose it on that ground and force the Government to introduce legislation.

In terms of the power which my right hon. Friend is always referring to that is the way in which these matters should perhaps in the last resort be determined, but since the Bill does not in any way preclude the Government or Parliament from dealing with a particular matter by Act of Parliament, this is something which can properly be considered by an ad hoc committee or the House of Commons at any time in determining its procedures, but cannot be formulated with any degree of precision in an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Powell

My right hon. and learned Friend overlooks the point that if the Bill goes through in its present form it will be within the power of an Administration at any point of time always to proceed by Resolution. What he calls the safeguard of being able to throw it out is a safeguard which depends upon a majority voting against the Government, whereas the safeguard of legislation is very much more extensive and flexible and gives powers of persuasion and influence to various minorities in the House. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend sees this fundamental distinction.

Mr. Rippon

I see the point my right hon. Friend is driving at. He will appreciate that the normal procedure of treaties is that they are accepted or rejected. Parliament has no more control than that. We deal with a whole range of treaties—for example, dealing with import duties and the like—by order. There is no such great constitutional innovation here as many hon. Members have suggested. My right hon. Friend has presumably found the difficulty that it is impossible to determine between the host of minor matters which can be dealt with by orders in council and the small number of major matters, involving changes in our law, which should be dealt with properly by Act of Parliament. But it should not be beyond the wit of either this or any future Parliament to determine that in their own way. The Government have to carry these things through the House of Commons on an "Aye" or "No" procedure.

The only new point of substance in this group of Amendments is contained in Amendment No. 2. It is a new suggestion that an Order in Council should be required for the pre-accession treaties into which we shall enter on terms already settled. Where the terms of the treaties are settled and available to Parliament, the enactment of the Bill will itself constitute the authority for them and there is no need for further procedure. In those cases where the terms are not already settled, there will be either an affirmative Resolution Order in Council or separate legislation under the Bill as drafted. A number of matters still remain to be settled in detail and if these future agreements or arrangements yet to be settled involve any change in United Kingdom law, then, of course they are caught by the second part of subsection (3).

Mr. Fell

My right hon. and learned Friend has said that it should not be beyond the wit of the present Parliament or a future Parliament to devise a method of putting these things before Parliament, through legislation. If he thinks it might be done now, why not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Rippon

What we have suggested through the usual channels is an ad hoc committee—not a permanent committee—to consider how we can deal with matters of procedure for some of these matters. I do not think that we could write into Act of Parliament methods of procedure which might vary from time to time.

During the negotiations, the United Kingdom agreed to accede to a number of agreements already concluded which were within the framework of the Communities, as is recorded in Articles 3 and 4 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession. In most cases, the exact terms on which we shall accede to the agreements have been settled in the negotiations. Sometimes that has involved amendments to the existing treaties, which is what happened to the E.E.C. Treaty itself, and in other cases it has been agreed that we shall accede to the agreement in question without the need for an amendment. In all these cases, the terms on which we shall accede are already settled and our accession to the agreement and indeed our obligation to accede to them is a commitment which we have undertaken in the treaty itself.

A different procedure applies to existing Community treaties or agreements to which we have not acceded and where we have still to settle terms. Where there are to be further negotiations to settle the terms upon which our accession to the treaties will take place, such a treaty—being a treaty to which we shall accede after 22nd January, 1972, but not on terms settled on or before that date—remains within the requirements of Clause 1(3) requiring that, unless there is to be a separate Bill, there has to be an affirmative Resolution Order in Council.

Therefore, I suggest that the new point of substance put forward in Amendment No. 2 is not necessary because in so far as the terms of our accession to treaties entered into before 22nd January, 1972,have still to be settled in further negotiations, then the affirmative order procedure will be necessary.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Dell (Birkenhead)

If the right hon and learned Gentleman is saying that in each of the agreements referred to in Amendment No. 2 the terms have been settled because otherwise it would be necessary to proceed through the affirmative Resolution procedure, instead of describing these agreements in general why cannot he say exactly what they are?

Mr. Rippon

The pre-accession treaties, the terms of which we have settled, include the Treaty of Accession which is covered by the Bill. There are a number of other treaties or agreements, for example Article 200 conventions, where we have not finally settled the terms on which we will accede to those agreements. In those cases there will have to be further negotiations, but in every such case there will have to be an affirmative Resolution Order in Council. This is why I suggest that Amendments Nos. 28 and 83 should be rejected, I advise that Amendment No. 2 should also be rejected, because it is not necessary.

Mr. S. C. Silkin (Deptford)

The difficulty is that we do not know what the term "settled" means. Does the term mean that matters will be settled over coffee and cognac, or what? Since the phrase is so loose, perhaps we may be told what the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes it to mean.

Mr. Rippon

Where in the negotiations we did not settle the terms on which we would accede, in other words where we still have matters to negotiate, in every case of that kind an affirmative Resolution Order in Council will be required.

Mr. Ronald King Murray

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster dealt scathingly with the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that, because of the absence of certain Members of the Committee, it was necessary to canvass some matters. The Committee's difficulties tonight have been due to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General is absent when the Chancellor of the Duchy is present, and vice versa. If they were to be both present on the Treasury Bench at the same time, we might learn what the Government take this Bill to mean.

I am sure we all enjoy the contributions of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, otherwise known as the guru of Wolverhampton, but his rôle tonight has been more Socratic, and a gentle irony was involved in what he was saying. One thing is crystal clear. It is that once subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 have been enacted, it will not be so easy to do the Houdini-type wriggles which seem to be in such favour on the Treasury Bench at present. This involves fall-back strategies and emergency exits by the Government to extricate themselves from the difficulties in which they have been placed by the provisions of the Bill.

After all, if we are going to rely on normal parliamentary procedure as a fallback, let us be sure that it is there to fall back upon. If one looks at the wording of the Bill one will note that it is not, because the second part of subsection (3), or of part B as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) would have it, is specific and definite in its terms.

It says—and I am paraphrasing: "A Treaty entered into by Prerogative, after 22nd January, 1972, shall not be regarded as a Community treaty unless it is specified by an Order in Council."

It cannot be so specified unless it is approved in draft by Resolution of each House of Parliament. So, even if Parliament says "No", what does one fall back upon? Nothing, because unless Parliament is prepared to amend the European Communities Act as it would then be, and particularly the offending subsection (3), there would be no normal procedure of Parliament on which to fall back.

That is the point the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) made with great force. If there is something to be done to make clear what these vague and tortuous provisions do, let it be done now, while the Bill is in Committee. Do not leave it until later. There may be no later, no second occasion, not merely because of the pressure of business or because of the temptations of power, but because of the legality of what has been done. It is difficult to undo. It needs parliamentary time, too.

The Amendments put before us are reasonable and are necessary to preserve maximum parliamentary control. It is control that matters, not appraisal, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was telling us at Column 1397, on 7th March, last. Appraisal is no good. That is just knowledge. Consultation is no good. It has to be control and that means control by this House—legislative control.

It is true that there is a quotation from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about gradual sacrifice of sovereignty. Whether all agree with that or do not, it is one matter gradually to sacrifice sovereignty in a rational and strategic way, and another to run madly into a sacrifice of sovereignty unnecessarily. I would ask whether the Government have satisfied the Committee that they are not sacrificing too much, too quickly, and without need.

It would not be too bad if the necessary connection which the Solicitor-General seems to assume between subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 existed. If that necessary connection existed, or the obnoxious passage from line 5 to line 8 of page 2 were necessarily qualified by the procedure in subsection 3, it would be different. There is no such connection and it would have to be forged by Amendments. There are no other Amendments by which we can do it, except these.

The sense of the Committee in the debate has clearly been that if these Amendments are not to be accepted by the Government, some others will have to be brought out at a later stage to justify the undertaking which the Government have given in many contradictory statements to us about the meanings of these provisions.

Prerogative legislation was spoken of. Of course, this Bill involves some paradoxical stage of that kind, but it is important to notice when considering the pipeline connecting London to Brussels, that something will be imposed on us from the Brussels end. Something will be pushed up to this end and something will be sucked up. It will be a two-way traffic.

When one considers that, one realises the prerogative that is legislating is not that of the Crown of this country but that of Brussels. But the prerogative does not stop there. It is not just a pushing down of foreign Community law into this country. It is a sucking up of powers from this House and this country, and some of what is being sucked up is the power to negotiate and conclude treaties. The self-executing Community legislation comes down the pipeline, and the power to negotiate and conclude international treaties is sucked up towards Brussels. This is being delegated from this House.

If one looks at the Articles we have discussed in this debate, Articles 113, 114, 228, 236 and 238, clearly we are delegating to the Commission the power to negotiate treaties which will bind us in ever wider, deeper and more intricate relationships with legal persons of whose existence we do not know at the moment. This will go on automatically once the Bill is enacted. We are delegating a tremendous power to the Commission to negotiate international arrangements. We are delegating our power to conclude such treaties to the Council of Ministers.

In the case of Article 238 treaties, we have the protection of unanimity, but we do not in the case of Article 114.

Dr. John Gilbert (Dudley)

As the distinction between 238 and 114 treaties is such an important one, the first being dependent on unanimity rules and the second on qualified majority, can my hon. and learned Friend say whether the decision as to which Article of the Treaty of Rome a treaty shall be negotiated under in itself requires unanimity?

Mr. Murray

That is an interesting point, and I will not seek to answer it now. That is probably a difficulty which would be answered blandly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who would tell us that the Community does not work in that way. He would say that it works in a pragmatic way to achieve the best results for its members.

There is nothing in any of these provisions to require that this country should short-circuit its present parliamentary procedures and constitutional protections. There is nothing to require us to have this short-circuiting procedure provided in subsection (3). If the spirit of the Amendments under discussion were given effect to, one could say that the best thing to do would be to take out these short-circuit methods of trying to speed up business in connection with Community treaties.

It would be better to leave our present parliamentary protections. If we did that, Clause 1 would mean what it says. It would be the Short Title and the interpreting Clause, instead of surreptitiously and unnecessarily entrenching on the real and important protections of Parliament.

The Government have failed to make out their case in this debate as in previous debates on these provisions in Clause 1. One cannot help suspecting the concepts of the Community have already taken their grip of this Committee. In the case of the Government, they are past praying for. They are sold to the concepts of the Community. It is because of this inroad, this sinister shadow of Community ideas, that the debate has moved over to praise of consultation rather than to matters such as deliberation and legislation.

If the Government had had their way, this Bill would have been passed by the consultative debates in this House before the treaty was even published, without anything more than a formal Second Reading. Literally, that is what the Government recommended on the pro- cedural debates at the beginning of the Committee stage.

Then there is the continental concept of self-enacting law. This suggests the self-enacting Bill, which I suspect is what we have today. It is a formal Second Reading, and the Committee stage is consultative only, with no Amendments. We have managed to stop that, because we have some Amendments which we are debating now. However, it does not help when we are told that the Amendments are really old hat, cold cabbage, or cauld kale het up, as we say in Scotland. It does not help when it is clear that the subjects which we are debating are of vital importance and the Government's position on these provisions changes from day to day. However, we have managed to force a Committee stage on them with some genuine debates on some genuine Amendments which matter to the Committee.

The Government are represented this evening by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is holding out his hands willingly for the handcuffs of self-executing Community law and self-administering Community treaty-making, hoping that the coffee and cognac will not be knocked out of his hands in the process.

I suggest that the Amendments which have been moved are necessary if the Government are to honour what they have said they intend to do under the provisions of Clause 1. They are also necessary to extricate the Treasury Bench from the contradictions into which its occupants have fallen. These contradictions are real. Right hon. and hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate know how deep they run. They must be clarified. I thought that there was much force in the suggestion of one of my hon. Friends that the Committee should adjourn until these contradictions are cleared up.

Finally, I suggest that tonight we have been dealing with substantial new points, even though they may have been in the guise of Amendments which do not seem so original. You will be aware, Sir Robert, that there were some problems about getting debatable Amendments which were in order. Therefore, it is hardly fair to blame those who have tabled Amendments for the fact that they may be uninteresting to look at. The fact is that they have furthered real and genuine debates, because they have raised new points, and they have revealed that the Government are standing on shifting sand which may turn out to be sinking sand.

Several Hon. Members rose—

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 216, Noes 196.

Division No. 88.]	AYES	[11.18 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Hall-Davis. A. G. F.	Murton, Oscar
Astor, John	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Atkins, Humphrey	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Neave, Airey
Awdry, Daniel	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Normanton, Tom
Balniel, Lord	Haselhurst, Alan	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Havers, Michael	Osborn, John
Benyon, W.	Hay, John	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Heseltine, Michael	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hicks, Robert	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Higgins, Terence L.	Parkinson, Cecil
Boscawen, Robert	Hiley, Joseph	Pounder, Rafton
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bowden, Andrew	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Bray, Ronald	Holland, Philip	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Holt, Miss Mary	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hordern, Peter	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hornby, Richard	Raison, Timothy
Bryan, Paul	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Buck, Antony	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Carlisle, Mark	Howell, David (Guildford)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Channon, Paul	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Chapman, Sydney	Hunt, John	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	James, David	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Churchill, W. S.	Jessel, Toby	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Jopling, Michael	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Clegg, Walter	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cockeram, Eric	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rost, Peter
Cooke, Robert	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Russell, Sir Ronald
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Kershaw, Anthony	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Costain, A. P.	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Sharples, Richard
Critchley, Julian	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Shaw, Michael (Sc 'b' gh & Whitby)
Crouch, David	Kinsey, J. R.	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Curran, Charles	Kirk, Peter	Simeons, Charles
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Knox, David	Skeet, T. H. H.
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Lane, David	Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L' mington)
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Speed, Keith
Dean, Paul	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Spence, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Le Merchant, Spencer	Sproat, Iain
Dykes, Hugh	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Stainton, Keith
Eden, Sir John	Lloyd, Ian (P' tsm' th, Langstone)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Longden, Sir Gilbert	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Loveridge, John	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Elliott, R. W. (N 'c' tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Luce, R. N.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Emery, Peter	MacArthur, Ian	Stokes, John
Eyre, Reginald	McCrindle, R. A.	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Farr, John	McLaren, Martin	Taylor, Edward M. (G' gow, Cathcart)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	McMaster, Stanley	Tebbit, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Temple, John M.
Fortescue, Tim	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Fox, Marcus	Madel, David	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Fry, Peter	Marten, Neil	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David	Mather, Carol	Tilney, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Maude, Angus	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Trew, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Tugendhat, Christopher
Goodhart, Philip	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Goodhew, Victor	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Gower, Raymond	Miscampbell, Norman	Waddington, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Gray, Hamish	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Green, Alan	Moate, Roger	Ward, Dame Irene
Grieve, Percy	Money, Ernle	Warren, Kenneth
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Grylls, Michael	Monro, Hector	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Gummer, Selwyn	Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, Jerry	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wilkinson, John	Woodnutt, Mark	Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Paul Hawkin
Winterton, Nicholas	Younger, Hn. George
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
NOES
Abse, Leo	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Ogden, Eric
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	O'Halloran, Michael
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Hamling, William	O'Malley, Brian
Armstrong, Ernest	Hardy, Peter	Orme, Stanley
Atkinson, Norman	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Oswald, Thomas
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Heffer, Eric S.	Paget, R. T.
Barnett. Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Hooson, Emlyn	Palmer, Arthur
Baxter, William	Horam, John	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pardoe, John
Bennett, James (Glasgow Bridgeton)	Huckfield, Leslie	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Bidwell, Sydney	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pavitt, Laurie
Bishop, E. S.	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Hunter, Adam	Pendry, Tom
Booth, Albert	Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)	Pentland, Norman
Bradley, Tom	Janner, Greville	Perry, Ernest G.
Brown, Hugh D. (G' gow, Provan)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Buchan, Norman	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Prescott, John
Buchanan, Richard (G' gowf Sp' burn)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Price, William (Rugby)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Probert, Arthur
Cant, R. B.	John, Brynmor	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Carmichael, Neil	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Carter, Ray (Birmingh' m, Northfield)	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Jonas, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br 'c' n & R' dnor)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Roper, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Rose, Paul B
Cohen, Stanley	Judd, Frank	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Coleman, Donald	Kaufman, Gerald	Sandelson, Neville
Concannon, J. D.	Kelley, Richard	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Conlan, Bernard	Kerr, Russell	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Kinnock, Neil	Short, Mrs. Renée (W' hampton, N. E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Lambie, David	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Lamond, James	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dalyell, Tam	Latham, Arthur	Sillars, James
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Leadbitter, Ted	Silverman, Julius
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Leonard, Dick	Skinner, Dennis
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Small, William
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Spearing, Nigel
Deakins, Eric	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Dempsey, James	Lomas, Kenneth	Stallard, A. W.
Doig, Peter	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Steel, David
Dormand, J D.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Strang, Gavin
Driberg, Tom	McBride, Neil	Swain, Thomas
Duffy, A. E. P	McCartney, Hugh	Taverne, Dick
Eadie, Alex	McElhone, Frank	Thompson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Edwards William (Merioneth)	McGuire, Michael	Tinn, James
Ellis, Tom	Mackie, John	Tuck, Raphael
English, Michael	Maclennan, Robert	Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Fred	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Varley, Eric G.
Ewing, Harry	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Wainwright, Edwin
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Marks, Kenneth	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)	Marquand, David	Watkins, David
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	Marsden, F.	Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	White, James (Glasgow Pollok)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Meacher, Michael	Whitehead Phillip
Foley, Maurice	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Roben	Whitlock, William
Foot, Michael	Mendelson, John	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Ford, Ben	Millan, Bruce	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Forrester, John	Molloy, William	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Freeson, Reginald	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Woof, Robert
Gilbert, Dr. John	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Moyle, Roland	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. John Golding.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Murray, Ronald King
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Oakes Gordon

Question put accordingly,

That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 202, Noes 216.

Division No. 89.]	AYES	[11.28 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Ogden, Eric
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	O' Halloran, Michael
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Hamling, William	O'Malley, Brian
Armstrong, Ernest	Hardy, Peter	Orme, Stanley
Atkinson, Norman	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Oswald, Thomas
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Heffer, Eric S.	Paget, R. T.
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Hooson, Emlyn	Palmer, Arthur
Baxter, William	Horam, John	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Huckfield, Leslie	Pavitt, Laurie
Bidwell, Sydney	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Biffen, John	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Pendry, Tom
Bishop, E. S.	Hunter, Adam	Pentland, Norman
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Perry, Ernest G.
Booth, Albert	Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Bradley, Tom	Janner, Greville	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Brown, Hugh D. (G' gow, Provan)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Prescott, John
Buchan, Norman	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Price, William (Rugby)
Buchanan, Richard (G' gow, Sp' burn)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Probert, Arthur
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cant, R. B.	John, Brynmor	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Carmichael, Neil	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanion)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br 'c' n & R dnor)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Roper, John
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Rose, Paul B.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Judd, Frank	Ross, Rt. Hn, William (Kilmarnock)
Cohen, Stanley	Kaufman, Gerald	Sandelson, Neville
Coleman, Donald	Kelley, Richard	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Concannon, J. D.	Kerr, Russell	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Conlan, Bernard	Kinnock, Neil	Short, Mrs. Renée (W' hampton, N. E.)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Lambie, David	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Lamond, James	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Latham, Arthur	Sillars, James
Dalyell, Tam	Leadbitter, Ted	Silverman, Julius
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Leonard, Dick	Skinner, Dennis
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Small, William
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Spearing, Nigel
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Deakins, Eric	Lomas, Kenneth	Stainton, Keith
Dempsey, James	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Stallard, A. W.
Doig, Peter	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dormand, J. D.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Strang, Gavin
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	McBride, Neil	Swain, Thomas
Driberg, Tom	McCartney, Hugh	Taverne, Dick
Duffy, A. E. P.	McElhone, Frank	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G (Dundee, E.)
Eadie, Alex	McGuire, Michael	Tinn, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Mackie, John	Tuck, Raphael
Ellis, Tom	Maclennan, Robert	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
English, Michael	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Fred	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Varley, Eric G.
Ewing, Henry	Marks, Kenneth	Wainwright, Edwin
Fell, Anthony	Marquand, David	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Marsden, F.	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Watkins, David
Fltt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	Marten, Neil	Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Meacher, Michael	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Whitehead, Phillip
Foley, Maurice	Mendelson, John	Whitlock, William
Foot, Michael	Millan, Bruce	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Ford, Ben	Moate, Roger	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Forrester, John	Molloy, William	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Freeson, Reginald	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Woof, Robert
Gilbert, Dr. John	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Moyle, Roland	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. John Golding
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Murray, Ronald King
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Oakes, Gordon

NOES
Adley, Robert	Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Balniel, Lord	Boscawen, Robert
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Bossom, Sir Clive
Astor, John	Benyon, W.	Bowden, Andrew
Atkins, Humphrey	Berry, Hn. Anthony	Bray, Ronald
Awdry, Daniel	Biggs-Davison, John	Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Pardoe, John
Bryan, Paul	Holland, Philip	Parkinson, Cecil
Buck, Antony	Holt, Miss Mary	Pounder, Rafton
Carlisle, Mark	Hordern, Peter	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Channon, Paul	Hornby, Richard	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Chapman, Sydney	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Chrisstopher	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Churchill, W. S.	Howell, David (Guildford)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Raison, Timothy
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hunt, John	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Clegg, Walter	James, David	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Cockeram, Eric	Jessel, Toby	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Cooke, Robert	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Costain, A. P.	Jopling, Michael	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Critchley, Julian	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Crouch, David	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Curran, Charles	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Kershaw, Anthony	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Rost, Peter
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Dean, Paul	Kinsey, J. R.	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Kirk, Peter	Sharples, Richard
Dykes, Hugh	Knox, David	Shaw, Michael (Sc 'b' gh & Whitby)
Eden, Sir John	Lane, David	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Simeons, Charles
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Skeet, T. H. H.
Elliott, R. W. (N 'c' tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Le Marchant, Spencer	Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L' mington)
Emery, Peter	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Speed, Keith
Eyre, Reginald	Lloyd, Ian (P 'tsm' th, Langstone)	Spence, John
Farr, John	Longden, Gilbert	Sproat, Iain
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Loveridge, John	Stanbrook, Ivor
Fidler, Michael	Luce, R. N.	Steel, David
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	MacArthur, Ian	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McCrindle, R. A.	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Fortescue, Tim	McLaren, Martin	Stoddart-Scolt, Col. Sir M.
Fox, Marcus	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Stokes, John
Fry, Peter	McMaster, Stanley	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Gibson-Watt, David	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Tebbit, Norman
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	Temple, John M.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J.B.	Madel, David	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Goodhart, Philip	Mather, Carol	Thomas, John Stradiing (Monmouth)
Goodhew, Victor	Maude, Angus	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Gower, Raymond	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Tilney, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gray, Hamish	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Trew, Peter
Green, Alan	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Tugendhat, Christopher
Grieve, Percy	Miscampbell, Norman	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Waddington, David
Grylls, Michael	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Gummer, Selwyn	Money, Ernle	Ward, Dame Irene
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Warren, Kenneth
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Monro, Hector	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Montgomery, Fergus	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Wiggin, Jerry
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Wilkinson, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Murton, Oscar	Winterton, Nicholas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan	Neave, Airey	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Havers, Michael	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Woodnutt, Mark
Hay, John	Normanton, Tom	Younger, Hn. George
Heseltine, Michael	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Hicks, Robert	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Higgins, Terence L.	Osborn, John	Mr. Bernard Weather hill and Mr. Paul Hawkins
Hiley, Joseph	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
	Page, Graham (Crosby)

Question accordingly negatived.

[Mr. JOHN BREWIS in the Chair]

Mr. Powell

I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 2, leave out lines 18 to 20.

Mr. Peter Archer

On a point of order. Do I understand that you are not proposing to allow a Division on Amendment No. 2, Mr. Brewis?

The Temporary Chairman

Amendment No. 2 has not been selected.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Archer

(seated and covered): While I do not question your selection. Mr. Brewis, may I invite you to reconsider your decision whether to permit a Division on Amendment No. 2? The Amendment was selected for discussion and the point at issue is quite different from the other Amendments in the group. It is a matter on which there is clearly a division of view in the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman

I am sorry. I would have liked to call the Amendment but it was not selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means and I cannot comply with the hon. and learned Member's request.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 202, Noes 213.

Division No. 90.]	AYES	[11.30 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	O'Halloran, Michael
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	O'Malley, Brian
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Hamling, William	Orme, Stanley
Armstrong, Ernest	Hardy, Peter	Oswald, Thomas
Atkinson, Norman	Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)	Paget, R. T.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Heffer, Eric S.	Palmer, Arthur
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Hooson, Emlyn	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Baxter, William	Horam, John	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pavitt, Laurie
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Huckfield, Leslie	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Bidwell, Sydney	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pendry, Tom
Biffen, John	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Pentland, Norman
Bishop, E. S.	Hunter, Adam	Perry, Ernest G.
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Booth, Albert	Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Brown, Hugh D. (G' gow, Provan)	Janner, Greville	Prescott, John
Buchan, Norman	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Price, William (Rugby)
Buchanan, Richard (G' gow, Sp' burn)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Probert, Arthur
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cant, R. B.	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Carmichael, Neil	John, Brynmor	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh' m, Northfield)	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br 'c' n & R' dnor)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Roper, John
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Rose, Paul B.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Jones, A. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cohen, Stanley	Judd, Frank	Russell, Sir Ronald
Coleman, Donald	Kaufman, Gerald	Sandelson, Neville
Concannon, J. D.	Kelley, Richard	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Conlan, Bernard	Kerr, Russell	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Kinnock, Neil	Short, Mrs. Renée (W' hampton, N. E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Lambie, David	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Lamond, James	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dalyell, Tam	Latham, Arthur	Sillars, James
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Leadbitter, Ted	Silverman, Julius
Davies lfor (Gower)	Leonard, Dick	Skinner, Dennis
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Small, William
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)	Spearing, Nigel
Deakins, Eric	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Dempsey, James	Lomas, Kenneth	Stainton, Keith
Doig, Peter	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Stallard, A. W.
Dormand, J. D.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Strang, Gavin
Driberg, Tom	McBride, Neil	Swain, Thomas
Duffy, A. E. P	McCartney, Hugh	Taverne, Dick
Eadie, Alex	McElhone, Frank	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Mackie, John	Tinn, James
Ellis, Tom	Maclennan, Robert	Tuck, Raphael
English, Michael	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Evans, Fred	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Urwin, T. W.
Ewing, Henry	Marks, Kenneth	Varley, Eric G.
Fell, Anthony	Marquand, David	Wainwright, Edwin
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Marsden, F.	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Ladywood)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	Marten, Neil	Watkins, David
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Meacher, Michael	Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Foley, Maurice	Mendelson, John	Whitehead, Phillip
Foot, Michael	Millan, Bruce	Whitlock, William
Ford, Ben	Moate, Roger	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Forrester, John	Molloy, William	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Freeson, Reginald	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gilbert, Dr. John	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Woof, Robert
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Moyle, Roland
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Murray, Ronald King	Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. John Golding.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald
	Oakes, Gordon
	Ogden, Eric
NOES
Adley, Robert	Hall-Davies, A. G. F.	Normanton, Tom
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Astor, John	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Osborn, John
Atkins, Humphrey	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Awdry, Daniel	Haselhurst, Alan	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Havers, Michael	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Balniel, Lord	Hawkins, Paul	Pardoe, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Hay, John	Parkinson, Cecil
Benyon, W.	Heseltine, Michael	Pounder, Rafton
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hicks, Robert	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Biggs-Davison, John	Higgins, Terence L.	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Hiley, Joseph	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Boscawen, Robert	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bowden, Andrew	Holland, Philip	Raison, Timothy
Bray, Ronald	Holt, Miss Mary	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Hordern, Peter	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hornby, Richard	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Bryan, Paul	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Buck, Antony	Howell, David (Guildford)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Carlisle, Mark	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Channon, Paul	Hunt, John	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Chapman, Sydney	James, David	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Jessel, Toby	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Churchill, W. S.	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Rost, Peter
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Jopling, Michael	Sharples, Richard
Clegg, Walter	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Shaw, Michael (Sc 'b' gh & Whitby)
Cockeram, Eric	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Cooke, Robert	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Simeons, Charles
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Kershaw, Anthony	Skeet, T. H. H.
Costain, A. P.	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L' mington)
Critchley, Julian	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Speed, Keith
Crouch, David	Kinsey, J. R.	Spence, John
Curran, Charles	Kirk, Peter	Sproat, Iain
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Knox, David	Stanbrook, Ivor
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Lane, David	Steel, David
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Dean, Paul	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Le Marchant, Spencer	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Dykes, Hugh	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Stokes, John
Eden, Sir John	Lloyd, Ian (P 'tsm' th, Langstone)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Longden, Gilbert	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Loveridge, John	Tebbit, Norman
Elliott, R. W. (N 'c' tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Luce, R. N.	Temple, John M.
Emery, Peter	MacArthur, Ian	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Eyre, Reginald	McCrindle, R. A.	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Farr, John	McLaren, Martin	Tilney, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Fidler, Michael	McMaster, Stanley	Trew, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Tugendhat, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke Charles	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Fortescue, Tim	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	Waddington, David
Fox, Marcus	Madel, David	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Gibson-Watt, David	Mather, Carol	Ward, Dame Irene
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Maude, Angus	Warren, Kenneth
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Weatherill, Bernard
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Goodhart, Philip	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Goodhew, Victor	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Wiggin, Jerry
Gower, Raymond	Miscampbell, Norman	Wilkinson, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Winterton, Nicholas
Gray, Hamish	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Green, Alan	Money, Ernle	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grieve, Percy	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Woodnutt, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Monro, Hector	Younger, Hn. George
Grylls, Michael	Montgomery, Fergus
Gummer, Selwyn	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Mr. Oscar Murton and
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Neave, Airey	Mr. John Stradling Thomas
	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

11.45 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman

The next Amendment selected is No. 3, with which the following Amendments may be discussed: No. 175, in page 2, line 20, at end insert: (4) Any Community treaty within the meaning of this section, other than the pre-accession and accession treaties, shall be referred in draft or immediately after publication to a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Community Treaties for scrutiny and report, and until such report has been considered and approved by Parliament, the procedure provided in subsection (3) above shall not be followed. No. 177, in line 20, at end insert: (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3) hereof where any treaty is required under Article 228 of the European Economic Community Treaty to be considered by the Assembly then it shall be debated by each House of Parliament before such consideration.

Mr. Dell

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 18, after second 'unless' insert: before such treaty has been entered into. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when speaking to the last Amendment, said that there were issues in this debate which came up again and again because certain hon. Members had not been present during part of the earlier debates. I have to confess that, through no fault of mine and despite the importance of this legislation, I have been present during very little of the debate because I have had other duties elsewhere in the House. Therefore, if the right hon and learned Gentleman finds that I raise matters which have already been raised, that is the reason. One can read what has been said in past sittings of the Committee, but one cannot know what has been said relevant to the Amendment during the proceedings of the Committee today. Apparently things have been said today which throw further light on Clause 1(3),

I begin by stating the position as I understand it and will then indicate the way in which the Amendment is intended to change that position. We have within Clause 1(3) what has come to be called part A and part B. Part A deals with self-enacting Community treaties which are to be specified in Orders in Council which will be conclusive for that purpose. Part B deals with treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party and Orders in Council in that case will specify but will not be able to specify without benefit of the affirmative procedure. To that the Solicitor-General has added the point that if a treaty is of such importance that the affirmative procedure would not be appropriate, it is the Government's intention that that treaty should be dealt with by means of an Act of Parliament.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) asked whether in practice the Government would use the Act of Parliament procedure where the affirmative procedure was available. One object of my Amendment is to ensure that that decision is made at an early stage of the consideration of a treaty that it is proposed to enter into so that at an earlier stage than is provided within the Bill as it stands Parliament shall have a voice in that question.

The Amendment is intended to ensure first that before the United Kingdom Government have committed themselves to a treaty which may significantly extend United Kingdom commitments within the Communities, Parliament shall have an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. In other words, the signature of such Community treaties would not be simply a prerogative act but an act of the Government taken with parliamentary approval because of the importance or potential importance of the treaty.

Secondly, the Amendment would force the Government to decide before such a treaty was entered into whether it required an Act of Parliament and not simply the affirmative procedure. It would be necessary for the Government before the treaty had been entered into to override part B of Clause 1(3) as it would be amended by the Act of Parliament giving approval to the treaty. In other words, the Amendment attempts to force the Government to make the vital distinction between what is trivial and can appropriately be dealt with by affirmative procedure and what can be seen to be important at an early stage and will require to be dealt with by Act of Parliament.

The Amendment is also related to the essential question of the relations between Parliament and the Executive when the United Kingdom is a member of the Community. Even now the Government have far too great a power over Parliament, and this power will be increased by our entry into the Community unless special provision is made to avoid that result. Parliament has too little control over the Executive and it will have less control over the Executive when we are in the Community unless provision is made to secure parliamentary control.

The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said in an earlier debate that he accepted, as I accept, that some sacrifice of parliamentary control was an essential cost of entry into the Community. That is part of the calculation of the cost against the benefit that one has to make in considering the question of entry. There is no reason why we should make any unnecessary sacrifices of parliamentary control.

One might ask what is the greater constitutional issue raised by entry. Is it the problem of national sovereignty, which has many times been debated, or is it the problem of parliamentary control over the Executive? I believe that the main question currently raised by entry is that of parliamentary control over the Executive. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, probably truly, that the affirmative procedure gives little power because the Government, with their majority, will force their measures through. It is a fundamental fact about the House of Commons that Governments with majorities force measures through now, and unless proper provision is made it will become easier for them to force measures through when we are in the Community.

One has to consider the question of the sacrifices of national sovereignty in the context of entry. One may decide, as I have, that such sacrifices are justifiable if the benefits are commensurate, as I hope they will turn out to be. I do not in principle object to self-enacting provisions. Indeed it seems to me that if one is to enter into a body like the E.E.C. it is sensible to have them because otherwise minor questions will hold up progress quite unnecessarily, perhaps not in the United Kingdom Parliament but perhaps elsewhere, although I have occasionally seen, in my experience in the House, trivial questions holding up the progress of Government legislation by deliberate intent of the Opposition. So even under our system there is the possibility of trivial questions holding up progress.

As I say, I do not object to the principle of self-enacting legislation. It is clear that these self-enacting treaties will be accepted and obeyed in this country only because Parliament, through enabling legislation, has said that they should be. Self-enacting decisions raise the question of national sovereignty, just as commercial treaties signed by the Community on our behalf raise the question of national sovereignty. But the real questions of national sovereignty are for the future and are not raised in substantial degree now. There are many ways in which the Community can develop. Federalism is one way, for example. Equally the Community could continue as an association of sovereign States. These I regard still as open questions and I do not consider that by my vote on 28th October I committed myself on them.

The immediate problem which membership raises is the question of the relations between Parliament and the Executive. The institutions of the Community do not provide, nor, as I see it, in the foreseeable future will they provide, adequate mechanisms of democratic control. Therefore it is the relations between Parliament and the Executive which are decisive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) earlier today divided those in favour of entry into those he called authoritarians and those he called democrats. I understood him to mean by the latter those who supported the idea of an elected European Parliament. I suggest that there is a third group—those who, like myself and those who have put their names to the Amendment, think that one of the essential elements in entry, and an essential element even if we were not going to enter, is the problem of parliamentary control over the Executive. Membership could greatly strengthen the Executive and weaken Parliament. For these reasons it is doubly necessary that care should be taken of the issue of the power of Parliament over the Executive.

12 midnight

My criticism of the Bill is that the Government have not directed themselves to dealing with this issue. We should not for the purposes of entry make unnecessary sacrifices of parliamentary power. The Government should have been sensitive enough to realise that this essential factor should have been taken account of in legislation.

Mr. Deakins

There could not be a draft Order in Council under part B of subsection (3), even if the Amendment went through, until a provisional Community treaty were virtually ready for signature. Under the existing subsection (3) B, even without the Amendment Parliament could debate the draft Order in Council once the treaty were signed. This Amendment provides for our debating the matter before the treaty is signed. What possible advantage is there in debating a treaty which has been agreed but not signed under a draft order? There would be no right to amend the draft order.

Mr. Dell

I tried to indicate earlier two purposes which the Amendment seeks to achieve. The first is to bring forward the affirmative procedure if it is appropriate to an earlier stage. The second is to force the Government at an earlier stage to decide whether an Act of Parliament is necessary. Acceptance of this Amendment would mean that the Government would be compelled to introduce an Act of Parliament to override Clause 1(3).

I feel that the Government's last-minute thoughts about an ad hoc committee will be inadequate to deal with the problem. The protection needs to be incorporated in legislation. Amendment No. 3 is only one possible Amendment for this type of legislation. Nevertheless, it indicates the type of Amendment which the Bill needs to strengthen the position of Parliament.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Although I do not propose to take up very much of the time of the Committee, I feel it would be churlish of me not to preface my few remarks with a warm welcome to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). At this witching hour of mid-night on the sixth day of the Committee's proceedings, we now see more pro-Marketeer Opposition Members than we have seen in the whole of these proceedings. When I look at the right hon. Gentleman I feel like echoing what Disraeli said about Peel, and I am sure with equal sincerity: The theme, the occasion, the speaker—what a felicitous combination. I welcome those pro-Marketeers here. If we go on like this for another few weeks or months we may have the pleasure of seeing the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) at our proceedings, always assuming that he can spare the House of Commons a few moments from his tours of the favoured watering places whence he brings down the tablets of stone. So far, I am afraid, the activity of pro-Marketeer Opposition Members in these proceedings has been to scurry, a little furtively perhaps—I do not want to be unkind—through the Division Lobby.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

My right hon. Friend is not present, but the constituency from which he set out on his tour of watering places is represented on this occasion.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Then he is present by proxy.

Mr. John Roper (Farnworth)

The Manchester Ship Canal has been graced with many names on many occasions but has never been known as a watering place.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Perhaps I should have said it was a watery place instead of a watering place.

The hon. Gentlemen to whom I venture to refer are constantly devaluing the vote of 28th October and making it more clear that it is just as much a fallacy to say that entry commands the full-hearted consent of Parliament as it is to say that it commands the full-hearted consent of the people.

We are concerned in this Amendment with part B as we call it of Clause 1(3), which is important because it is the only effective part of the subsection, the other being evidential only. It is important that part B bites as effectively as possible and gives a genuine measure of parliamentary control for future treaties. These treaties are entered into by prerogative act and, once entered into for the purposes of Clause 2(1), they can spawn in illimitable profusion, self-executing regulations which, contrary to all our practices and precedents, bind the people of this country without the intervention of Parliament and the courts.

The important element in the efficacy of parliamentary control is the element of time to which the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is directed—the time at which this single solitary control can be exercised. The principle is clear—the earlier that control can be applied in the process of treaty-making, the more efficacious it is likely to be. If the thing is to be nipped at all, it is most likely to be nipped if it is nipped now, in the bud as it were. The Bill as drafted is silent as to the time at which or within which parliamentary control is to be exercised.

There are three theoretical possibilities, that control be exercised before the signing of a treaty; between signature and ratification; or, as a theoretical possibility, that it be exercised after ratification. We can speedily dismiss the last possibility in that, on ratification, parliamentary control of a treaty passes, although in the ordinary way Parliament still retains control of the consequential provisions in domestic law. Our effective choice is therefore between the first two, between ensuring that parliamentary control is exercised either before signature or between signature and ratification.

The drafting of the subsection as it stands leaves the options open, and that seems to be undesirable. I think that the parliamentary control should be exercised before signing, so far as it is possible, otherwise commitments, implied commitments and quasi-commitments will be invoked by Governments to limit or inhibit the reality of any parliamentary control at all. These commitments would be invoked by Governments if the approval of the draft Order in Council were allowed, by the wording of subsection (3), to be postponed until after the signing of the treaty.

I refer to Governments in the plural because in all these matters we are looking ahead to posterity. Governments, of whichever party, will be subject to these same temptations which beset Executives in power, wherever they are seated. Governments certainly will pray in aid the position as stated in Oppenheim's International Law, page 910 of the 8th Edition of which states: These obligations do not impair the right of States to refuse ratification to a treaty signed by them…But they prevent Governments from signing a treaty and subsequently conducting themselves as if they had no concern with it, or as if their signature were a mere act of authentication. In the article which I had the privilege of writing for The Times in January on these matters, I used the homely analogy of a contract and conveyance in the purchase of a house. The contract does not pass the freehold, but it establishes a certain situation on which is difficult to go back. Therefore, if Governments are allowed to postpone parliamentary control until after signature, undoubtedly they will invoke these commitments and implied commitments as a reason for Parliament having to leave well alone.

The conclusion which I draw from this is that it is vital that the safeguard of Part B of subsection (3), such as it is—and it is the only one—be introduced before the obligations to which Oppenheim refers arise: that is to say, before signing. I apprehend that this is what the Amendment is intended to do.

Of course, it would have been better as a matter of drafting if the right hon. Gentleman had used the words "before signing" instead of "before entered into". I appreciate that the words "entered into" are used in subsection (3), but they are ambiguous and they are not used uniformly in the Bill. In Schedule 1 the word "signed" is used in paragraphs 1 to 6 and the words "entered into" are used in paragraph 7. Oppenheim does not use the words "entered into" He uses the word "concluded".

Oppenheim says: There are two views as to whether a treaty is concluded on signing or whether it is only concluded after ratification. He comes down in favour of the former. That being so, it is probably safe to assume that the Amendment in its present form would meet the desired object of imposing the liability of seeking approval before signature of a treaty; that is to say, when it is ready but has not been formally signed and executed, which is the most effective moment for imposing some degree of parliamentary control.

It would have been better for clarity and certainty to have substituted the word "signed" for "entered into". In any event, the Amendment is to some extent a second best because the more radical Amendments which we have been denied would have made unnecessary this Amendment and would have substituted full legislative control which is the only effective control that we can have. But I think that some such measure as this is a better safeguard than none. Certainly it is better than that which is in the Bill at present.

12.15 a.m.

Sir Alfred, you and I have been Members of the House of Commons for some time, though not as long as my right hon. Friend the Father of the House. In all those years we have lived in the tradition that it is not for private Members to get right all the niceties and nuances of drafting. It is for them to establish a principle and for Ministers, with all the resources at their command of officials and parliamnetary draftsmen and so on, to assume the obligation of putting these things right. So let us not worry too much about drafting. These things are put right by Ministers in the tradition of the House. We know when they are put right by Ministers. They are put right on Report. No doubt the Government are keenly anxious to have a full and active Report stage on this momentously important and unique piece of legislation.

If it is not to be put right on Report, there is a still further opportunity in the other place. After all, the Government will have some duty and responsibility when this Measure reaches the other place to improve it. It will give them a much needed chance to expiate their offence of giving such unrepresentative support to the principle of entry. What do we see? The farther we get from the grass roots, the stronger the support for entry into the Community. It is stronger in the board room than on the shop floor. It is stronger in the hereditary Chamber than in the elected Chamber.

Therefore, let my right hon. and learned Friend get up and assure us that he will not take any semantic or technical points on drafting but will set them right on Report, to which he looks forward with a keen and zestful relish, or in the other place. This will be judged by the principle and the principle alone. I say that the principle is clear, that it is an improvement and that it deserves support.

Mr. Michael Foot

The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in the latter part of his speech almost seemed to be tempting me to join him in an attack upon another place, which would bring back happy memories of distant battles. However, I do not propose to follow him in that course. It might not suit the new-found respectability with which I have to approach this question.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman also gave a somewhat qualified welcome to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) in moving the Amendment. My welcome is not qualified in any sense whatsoever. I think that it is admirable that my right hon. Friend should have moved his Amendment. He moved it as effectively as we would expect. I very much hope that the whole Committee will accept this modest Amendment, even though some improvements might be made in the wording.

Indeed, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and many others will join in listening to the debates which we shall be having on the Bill at some later time, because if all right hon. and hon. Members listened to the debates which we have been having on the rights of Parliament I believe that the nature of the Bill would be altered, and altered by a union in some degree of those who are in favour of entry into the European Economic Community and those who are opposed. I do not say that in any sense of mockery. That is the fact and it is what some of us have been trying to say. When my right hon. Friend emphasised the reasons why he wished to see an Amendment on these lines, he was fortifying what many hon. Members on this side have been saying since we started these discussions.

Although Amendment No. 3 is modest and would have been superfluous if some of our earlier Amendments had been accepted, it is valuable partly for the reason underlined by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is the question of timing. It is clear that if we have learned nothing else, we have learned that we must strike at exactly the moment when the Government think it is possible to make any sort of change. If we strike one second too late, they say, "You have passed the time for ever when such a change could have been made." Such provision as the Government have made for retaining the power of the House of Commons is inadequate and the Amendment would help to keep at least some of our power.

With Amendment No. 3 we are discussing Amendments Nos. 175 and 177. It is not necessarily convenient for us to discuss them together but we must accept these matters when they come from the Chair. The two being discussed with No. 3 were tabled by the Opposition following our earlier debates, the rulings given by the Chair and our discovery that many matters which we wished to have discussed might not be discussed as part of our examination of Clause 1. Amendment No. 177 therefore reads: Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3) hereof where any treaty is required under Article 228 of the European Economic Community Treaty to be considered by the Assembly then it shall be debated by each House of Parliament before such consideration. Although it is not a drastic Amendment it would ensure that if certain matters are to be discussed at the European Assembly, those matters must also be discussed, at least to some extent, in this assembly.

More important is Amendment No. 175, which has been provoked by the important discussions we had on the Government's proposal to establish an ad hoc committee. We must consider the origin of this suggestion from the Government because the proposed ad hoc committee has undergone a transformation. Some of us remain suspicious about this proposal and the Amendment would ensure that we discussed the way in which this proposed ad hoc committee might operate.

I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to this too, although it is still a matter for debate how we are to consider the operation of the ad hoc committee, and it is still a matter for consideration by the Committee of what the Government have been saying and why they have been making these various proposals—not exactly contradictory proposals—about what the ad hoc committee might be.

Sir Robin Turton

Surely the hon. Gentleman is referring not to the ad hoc committee, but to the Select Committee. The ad hoc committee will have to decide whether there should be a Select Committee like this or what the procedure would be.

Mr. Foot

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he is saying. Our proposal does not refer directly to the ad hoc committee but to the kind of committee which might be—I do not say for certain would be—the outcome of the proposals or discussions of the ad hoc committee.

What the Government have suggested to the House of Commons is that there shall be an ad hoc committee of the House, consisting of Members from different parties and from both Houses, which would discuss the question of what it should recommend to the House of Commons and to the Government about the operation of such a Select Committee as this. That is the kind of terms of reference which the ad hoc committee will have, although the Government's own terms of reference for the ad hoc committee have varied with each reference to it by the Minister. The Amendment is designed to clear up the ambiguities and doubts about what the Government are proposing.

I say in passing that we on this side would think it wrong to have an ad hoc committee of this nature if it were to be composed of Members from both Houses. We think that that is not the right way to do it. We are considering the protections which the House of Commons wishes to establish and we think it would be wrong that this should be settled by a committee which takes into account the position of both Houses, which is a different matter altogether. That is one qualification which we have about the ad hoc committee, although it is not the primary one.

What we are primarily concerned about is the way in which the Government have been using this idea of the ad hoc committee to deal with all the awkward problems that may have arisen in our debates. Indeed, under the Government's recommendations the ad hoc committee would be dealing with the very matters with which we should be dealing under the provisions of our Amendment.

The first reference to this ad hoc committee proposal was made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the Second Reading debate. He made the announcement in rather a strange guise. He said: As I was saying, in addition to the traditional procedures the Government believe that there is a need for the House"—

Mr. Rippon indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot

The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. What we have been discussing is how he has been doing away with all the traditional procedures. We have been fighting for the retention of these procedures. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has marched into the Lobby about six times in order to do away with traditional procedures. The most important traditional procedure is the Act of Parliament, and about half an hour ago the right hon. and learned Gentleman walked into the Lobby to remove that traditional procedure.

It is rather interesting to recall that on Second Reading the right hon. and learned Gentleman said: As I was saying, in addition to the traditional procedures the Government believe that there is a need for the House to have special arrangements, under which it would be appraised of draft regulations and directives before they go to the Council of Ministers for decision. These arrangements should cover the instruments which will be directly applicable and the non-direct instruments."—[Official Report, 15th February, 1972; Vol 831, c. 275.] Those are the two kinds of regulations that come from the Community.

The Government's first proposal was that the ad hoc committee should consider how those instruments should be examined by a body to be set up by the House

12.30 a.m.

A little later in the proceedings, when the Government got into difficulty about the treaties and we were discussing the treaties under the Clause, and the Leader of the House raised the point about the Ponsonby Rules and whether they would be interfered with, the right hon. and learned Gentleman eagerly said again that that was another matter for the ad hoc committee, which could look into the question of what powers and rights about the treaties were being taken away from the House of Commons.

Today we were discussing the most important Amendments of all. Amendments for which we believe there is no substitute—those which have demanded that we should retain the traditional procedure of Acts of Parliament to deal with great matters. The right hon. and learned Gentleman got into complications on that subject. No one could deny the complications or the fact that he was in great difficulties. In some of our previous debates the Leader of the House has said "Please do not ask me too strictly about some of these matters; ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster." The Chancellor of the Duchy has said "Please do not press me too strongly; ask the Solicitor-General."

No one will do that after today because the Solicitor-General has retired hurt and has not been seen for some time. I do not suppose he will return for a few weeks. We shall rely entirely on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has confessed that without consulting his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General he can never be certain about what he is saying. But now he says that the very question whether Acts of Parliament should be invoked and the circumstances in which they should be invoked should also be referred for consideration to the ad hoc committee.

It is difficult to imagine a more important procedural question—if one can call it such—that the House of Commons could examine than the question of the circumstances in which we are to do away with the normal processes of Acts of Parliament, Acts that should be dealing, as some of us believe, with such questions as monetary union, which may affect the level of employment and the most important matters in the land, matters that affect the coal and steel industries or taxation, the supreme questions of our politics. What we have been considering today is whether it is proper that on matters affecting such major questions as that, we should sweep away the whole business of having such extraordinary obstacles as Acts of Parliament to get through.

The Government got into a great muddle because the Solicitor-General, with his back against the wall a few days ago, said that he understood the case for Acts of Parliament and that there must be circumstances in which we should be able to insist that we have them, even in dealing with some of the propositions that come from the Community. But the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saw the difficulties about that, because he knew that that would be a very difficult thing to marry with what he had said before—not that consistency is his primary virtue, as we have noticed. But he realised the difficulties and was not prepared to say "We are not proposing even to consider the idea of incorporating the proposals by insisting upon Acts of Parliament in the Bill." So he said that we should turn to the ad hoc committee.

At the end of discussions on such major matters as this, dealing with proposals for removing, in great matters, the major protection that the House of Commons has—that major matters affecting the people shall be dealt with only by Acts of Parliament—when the Government are proposing to reduce the range in which the Acts can operate on a scale never conceived in British history, and when a Minister is up against the ropes on the subject, it is pathetic when he to the ad hoc committee I thought of a few days ago", an ad hoc committee says "Perhaps we shall refer the matter which was not supposed originally to have anything to do with Acts of Parliament.

It was never proposed originally that the ad hoc committee should deal with the questions of when we would be able to use the weapon of an Act of Parliament to deal with Community legislation. It was put forward originally to examine how and when we would be able to examine regulations and directives. That is a quite different matter. It was that we should be able to examine treaties which, although not totally different, are of a different character from the matter we were debating this evening.

If the Government's proposal for an ad hoc committee to deal with all this vast range of matters is to be accepted, the committee will deal with dozens of the matters we are supposed to be discussing on the Bill. According to the Government the ad hoc committee can deal with huge chunks of the Bill. This is said by a Government which, since we started to debate these matters, have introduced the idea of the ad hoc committee and which all along have been arguing that everyone knows the procedures that are required to take us into Europe. They have argued that everyone knows how it is to be done, all the procedures, the pitfalls and the set-backs. When some of us said that things would be different when we came up against the Bill, and that when faced with reality the House of Commons would begin to think differently, the Government denied it. They brushed us aside as people who did not understand these matters.

Every time the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has had to resort to saying that a certain matter must be referred to the ad hoc committee, he has condemned his behaviour on the Bill. All these matters should be dealt with in the Bill itself. Our Amendment only ensures that we should debate the matter now. If it is accepted by the Government it would need to be the subject of detailed examination on Report.

Ours is not a derisory case or something which should be scorned. It is that it is not appropriate to deal with major matters of this kind by pushing them off to a committee which may only be able to report after the Bill becomes law. Once the Bill leaves the House of Commons our protections will have gone and we must see that they are written in now. I invite hon. Members, irrespective of party, to recognise that the Bill represents one of the most serious occasions in the history of the House of Commons. If we do not insist on protecting in the Bill the rights of Parliament and the rights of the people, the responsibility will be ours for betraying the institutions of this country.

Do not let us forget that it is the history of Parliament which gives its distinctive strand to the history of the British people. It is the history of Parliament and the relationship between Parliament and the people which runs throughout our history more than that of any other people, and we are debating whether we have the determination, courage, intelligence, persistence and stamina to insist on our rights in the Bill.

Mr. Rippon

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has made an impassioned repetition of the case he has presented to the Committee throughout our proceedings. He believes in that case, but is wrong to mislead the country into believing that if the Bill is passed all the defences are down and all parliamentary rights have been undermined. One thing is certain, that the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament in these matters is preserved, and that Governments and Ministers remain responsible to the House for what they do not only in relation to national legislation but in relation to their actions when we are members of the Community.

But I will deal first with the relatively narrow point raised by Amendment No. 3. It would require the draft of an Order in Council specifying a treaty as being within the definition of the Communities' treaties to be approved by Parliament before the treaty is entered into. Of course—and I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made this clear—the Clause as it stands ensures that the affirmative Resolutions are obtained before a treaty is binding upon us. I think he would have liked to see the the words "before signature", but we debated on 20th January the difficulties that would arise if we were tempted to legislate for treaties to be approved before signature. That would not be in accordance with our normal constitutional practice and would be pointless in the absence of an agreed text. I say "in accordance with our normal constitutional practice" because there is a limited class of treaties where the treaty obligation arises out of resolutions passed in conference, and therefore the terms of the treaty are known in advance, but normally the text of treaties is not known or discussed before signature.

As it is, the Clause makes it perfectly clear that the affirmative Resolutions must be obtained before the treaty is binding on us. That, I hope, goes at least some way towards meeting an anxiety expressed by the hon. Members who have supported the Amendment. What needs to be understood by the Committee is that the Bill as it stands preserves the present constitutional practice. That is not the sort of deduction readily drawn from the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. But the Bill preserves the present constitutional practice whereby, although it is the prerogative of the Crown to enter into treaties, changes in the law of the United Kingdom can be made only with the authority of Parliament.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the terms of the treaty are known before signature. Does he really mean that?

Mr. Rippon

I am sorry if I misled the hon. and learned Gentleman in any way. It would have been more accurate to say that the text of the treaty is not normally known before signature. That is what we discussed on 20th January. There is a class of treaties which arise out of conference resolutions where the terms and the text are known before signature, but normally the prerogative of the Crown is exercised by the signature of the treaty, and thereafter certain parliamentary procedures arise between signature and ratification.

In this case we should be concerned with the necessity to bring forward the affirmative Resolutions, so the treaty would not be binding upon us until the procedure had been carried out. I was explaining, obviously to the surprise of some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, that what is in the Bill is not the savage departure from our constitutional practice that those who listened to the hon. Mem- for Ebbw Vale might have thought.

12.45 a.m.

Now I think I should turn to Amendments Nos. 175 and 177, which are also concerned with the stage before action is taken under subsection (3). The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale dealt with the object of these Amendments. Plainly, the object is to write into the Bill the sort of procedural arrangements which might come out of the ad hoc committee. The hon. Member had something to say about the proposed ad hoc committee. There must be a clear distinction made between legislative provisions with legal consequences, which are for the Bill, and Parliament's internal procedures, which may be for the ad hoc committee initially but are later for standing orders and resolutions. The two should be kept separate. Certainly the Government have not claimed that the provisions in the Bill are substantially dependent upon the ad hoc committee's considerations. The Government justify the provisions in the Bill on their merits and procedural arrangements of the kind proposed are not suitable for statutory enactment.

I must deal briefly with the misunderstandings, not to say misrepresentations which have arisen out of the proposal for an ad hoc committee. I think I am entitled to point out that we are still awaiting the comments of the Opposition on the proposals which were conveyed to them through the usual channels about three weeks ago. We have been criticised for referring to the ad hoc committee, which has not yet been set up, but the fact that it has not been set up is not because of any delay on the part of the Government. I do not criticise the Opposition in any way on this. They want to know the terms of reference. What I said on Second Reading was not intended to be the final word on the matter. These things should be discussed, but while they are being considered I should have thought that the hon. Member could have avoided the rather captious sniping he has enjoyed so much.

It is important that there should be a distinction between what goes into legislation and what is for procedural arrangements—a distinction between what is in the Bill and what is for the ad hoc committee. That distinction goes to the root of the Government's objections to this Amendment because it proposes to embody in legislation what is not suitable for legislation. I hope that the Committee will accept that that is so. It would not be in the interests of Parliament itself to depart from accepted arrangements for determining parliamentary procedure and to make such procedural provisions in statutes which themselves could be amended by a Bill. I should have thought that many hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the Committee would accept that parliamentary procedures need to be much more flexible, especially in the developing situation after we become members of the Community.

I should hope that all these matters will be gone into by the ad hoc committee and nothing that I say tonight should be taken as commenting in any way on the substance of the proposals in the Amendment. Certainly the ad hoc committee will want to look at what is practical and appropriate in this area, but it would not be suitable for enactment. I hope that the Amendments will not be proceeded with.

Mr. Foot

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that the question of which matters should properly be dealt with by Act of Parliament and which should not should be referred to an ad hoc committee of this kind?

Mr. Rippon

I said that certain matters are suitable to be dealt with by Act of Parliament and other matters of procedure are suitable for the ad hoc committee, and we should draw the distinction clearly. The Amendments seek to put into statutory form what we think should be dealt with by procedure. The procedure should be more flexible than the hon. Gentleman suggests, because I am sure that he would not wish to tie future Parliaments in their method of handling these matters.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he answer one other question? He has said that the terms of agreements are unknown when the agreements are signed. Does he mean by that that we sign blank cheques for the Community to fill in and then expect the House of Commons to accept those blank cheques as part of our law?

Mr. Rippon

I am sorry if I have misled the hon. and learned Gentleman. The terms are not publicly known Obviously they are known to the people who are signing the treaty. We discussed this matter on 20th January and explained the circumstances in which the Crown in exercise of its Prerogative signed a treaty which was subsequently published. There was a good deal of criticism of the Government for proposing to sign the treaty before it had been published and considered by Parliament, but I think the House was satisfied that the proper procedure was for the treaty to be signed, the text subsequently made available and the process of ratification gone through in the normal constitutional way. That is what we are doing now and we are suggesting that we should follow our normal constitutional procedures.

Mr. S. C. Silkin rose—

The Temporary Chairman

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has sat down. Mr. Deakins.

Mr. Silkin

On a point of order. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate by nodding that he was giving way to me.

The Temporary Chairman

That is not my impression. The hon. and learned Gentleman may speak if he wishes to.

Mr. Deakins

I merely want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, before he sits down, one question which must be worrying several members of the Committee, namely, the function of the ad hoc committee in relation to the procedure in subsection (3)B. In the course of the last five minutes the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said two contradictory things. He first implied that the ad hoc committee would be able to consider whether or not a particular Community treaty warranted legislation or could go through under the procedure of the second part of subsection (3). A moment later he took that back and seemed to imply that the task of deciding whether or not legislation was appropriate was a matter for the Government of the day. Those views cannot both be right. Before the debate closes will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say which is the Government's view?

Mr. Powell

Without unduly delaying the Committee if it desires to be gone, I should like to second the welcome which my right hon. and learned Friend extended to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), and to do so not only just as warmly but if anything more seriously than did my right hon. and learned Friend.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

That would be difficult.

Mr. Powell

There was a certain avuncular jocularity about my right hon. and learned Friend's welcome which I shall not be able to equal—

Mr. S. C. Silkin

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes seriously to welcome my right hon. Friend, will he refer to him as the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Powell

I apologise to my fellow Privy Councillor; I am sorry that I addressed him incorrectly. I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech marked a phase in these debates and that what he said was a portent for the future which my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench would do well to mark, because he struck a note which is going to reverberate more and more loudly through these debates until it is listened to and produces its effect.

One thing in particular the right hon. Gentleman said which I think was remarkably profound. He referred to the possible development of the Community as an association of sovereign States and expressed the view that as far as he was concerned that was still an open question. He also declared that for him and for many of his hon. Friends who share his general view of the Community, parliamentary control over the Executive was a matter of paramount importance. I believe we do wrong if we simply divide hon. Members into pro-Marketeers and anti-Marketeers—for Europe, against Europe; those who are alleged to want to turn their backs upon Europe, and those who are alleged to want to rush into the embrace of some European community.

It is not so, even now; and as these debates continue, such a caricature will become even more ludicrous. There is far more similarity, there are far more points of contact, between the pro-Marketeers and the anti-Marketeers, as they are commonly called, than would be imagined from the popular, popularised descriptions of our debates. There is something of a European even in those who are most stoutly opposed to the Bill; and even amongst those who are most European in the technical sense there is a potential sympathy—which will become an overt sympathy—for the objectives most at the heart of those who are opposing it.

I do not believe that, as the weeks and the months go by, it will prove that there is no way out for this House or for the Government from the impasse in which we appear at present to find ourselves; and I believe that Amendments like this one point the way along which that—I will not use the word "reconciliation"—I will say "escape" is eventually going to be found. In a matter of this kind, which all hon. Members recognise to be of profound historical importance, it is not the way of this House that one point of view should overbear and crush the other point of view, nor are we really contending for that kind of a prize in these debates.

I have not a great deal of sympathy, I must admit, although I understand their purpose, with the two subsidiary Amendments, No. 177 and No. 175. My lack of sympathy arises from the fact that I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend in saying that the procedure of the House and legislation are distinct matters, and that I do not believe, although I know these Amendments were drafted with a dialectical objective, that we can seriously legislate for when and what each House of Parliament shall debate—I do not believe that is a subject for legislation—nor do I believe legislation ought to lay down the function of Select Committees of this House or both Houses.

1.0 a.m.

It was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead who went to the heart of the matter in his demand that before the Government commit themselves, whatever this House will do shall first be done. This means that we are recognising the treaties, instruments, etc. in the context of a European Community as different things from the treaties to which the books on international law, the Ponsonby rule and all the rest refer. Indeed they are. It is the beginning of wisdom to realise that one cannot treat these instruments, these successive planned advances towards the political, economic and monetary union of Western Europe, as treaties. They are political matters in which this House and Parliament and public opinion must be involved in a way that in regard to an ordinary treaty, however important, it has not been customary or necessary that it should be involved.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead, whatever may be the difficulties in his Amendment, has expressed the heart of the matter, namely that unless this House and Parliament keep control of the Executive before the Executive commits itself in the development of the Community and in the management of the Community's affairs, we shall have sacrificed that parliamentary control over the Executive which is the object that links together those of us who appear to be most divided.

I shall vote tonight in support of the right hon. Gentleman; and I shall do so believing that this Amendment is the first sign and glimmering of an understanding which will gradually grow as these proceedings continue and which will even- tually banish the grotesque alternative, with which so many of us seem now to find ourselves faced, between the loss of what we had held dear in the relations of this country with Europe and the loss of the sovereignty and authority of this House to which we are equally devoted.

Mr. Molloy

In earlier discussions I pointed out that even those who were in favour of Britain's entry into the Common Market would, having examined what was involved in this Bill, find themselves not merely in disagreement with the Bill but having to make a dramatic reappraisal of their position and to examine the doubts which they may have held for a number of years. This fact was demonstrated in this debate, and it may be further demonstrated in future. This is a very good thing and I applaud it.

I found most disturbing the irresponsible reply of the Chancellor of the Duchy to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). When it suited him the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that the ad hoc committee was merely a small matter and would deal only with things which were not of real importance. Then a little later, again when it suited him, he elevated the ad hoc committee to a body of dramatic importance to which one could entrust future legislation to be dealt with in the House. This point which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has treated so lightly this evening—the effects of what will happen, the status of the ad hoc committee—is a matter of vital importance and we should discuss it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a responsibility, when he replies to the important points from this side of the Committee or the other, to ensure that the essence of his reply is based on what has been said, not on making cheap remarks about the manner in which they have been said. He has said, and we all agree, that this is a fundamental issue and one of the greatest, perhaps, that we have discussed.

If that is so, the right hon and learned Gentleman should treat those points in a much more serious manner, like that in which they are presented. They are presented in a manner to command respect, and that is the responsibility of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in answering the serious arguments put from all parts of the Committee.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 185.

Division No. 91.]	AYES	[1.06 a.m.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Ogden, Eric
Armstrong Ernest	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	O' Halloran, Michael
Atkinson, Norman	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	O'Malley, Brian
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Hamling, William	Orme, Stanley
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Hardy, Peter	Oswald, Thomas
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Paget, R. T.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Heffer, Eric S.	Palmer, Arthur
Bidwell, Sydney	Huckfield, Leslie	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Biffen, John	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pavitt, Laurie
Bishop, E. S.	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Hunter, Adam	Pendry, Tom
Booth, Albert	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pentland, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G' gow, Provan)	Janner, Greville	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Buchan, Norman	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Prescott, John
Buchanan, Richard (G' gow, Sp' burn)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechtord)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Cant, R. B.	John, Brynmor	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br 'c' n & R' dnor)
Carmichael, Neil	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Roper, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rose, Paul B.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Judd, Frank	Sandelson, Neville
Cohen, Stanley	Kaufman, Gerald	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Coleman, Donald	Kerr, Russell	Short, Mrs. Renée (Whampton, N. E.)
Concannon, J. D.	Kinnock, Neil	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Conlan, Bernard	Lambie, David	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Lamond, James	Sillars, James
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Leadbitter, Ted	Skinner, Dennis
Dalyell, Tam	Lestor, Miss Joan	Small, William
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Spearing, Nigel
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lomas, Kenneth	Stainton, Keith
Davis, Terry, Bromsgrove)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stallard, A. W.
Deakins, Eric	McCartney, Hugh	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dempsey, James	McElhone, Frank	Strang, Gavin
Dormand, J. D.	McGuire, Michael	Swain, Thomas
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Mackie, John	Taverne, Dick
Duffy, A. E. P.	Maclennan, Robert	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Eadie, Alex	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Tinn, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Tuck, Raphael
Ellis, Tom	Marks, Kenneth	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
English, Michael	Marquand, David	Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Fred	Marsden, F.	Varley, Eric G.
Ewing, Harry	Marten, Neil	Wainwright, Edwin
Farr, John	Meacher, Michael	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fell, Anthony	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mendelson, John	Watkins, David
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Millan, Bruce	Wellbeloved, James
Foley, Maurice	Moate, Roger	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Foot, Michael	Molloy, William	Whithead, Phillip
Ford, Ben	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Whitlock, William
Forrester, John	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Freeson, Reginald	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Gilbert, Dr. John	Moyle, Roland	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Murray, Ronald King	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Oakes, Gordon	Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. John Holding.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Bray Ronald	Cooke, Robert
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Cooper, A. E.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Corfield, R. Hn. Frederick
Astor, John	Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Costain, A. P.
Atkins, Humphrey	Bryan, Paul	Critchley, Julian
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Buck, Antony	Crouch, David
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Carlisle, Mark	Curran, Charles
Benyon, W.	Channon, Paul	Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Chapman, Sydney	d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Biggs-Davison John	Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Churchill, W. S.	Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Boscawen, Robert	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Eden, Sir John
Bossom, Sir Clive	Clegg, Walter	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bowden, Andrew	Cockeram, Eric	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Emery, Peter	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Eyre, Reginald	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Kinsey, J. R.	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Fidler, Michael	Kirk, Peter	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Knox, David	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Lane, David	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Fortescue, Tim	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Fox, Marcus	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Rost, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David	Le Marchant, Spencer	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Sharples, Richard
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Lloyd, Ian (P 'tsm' th, Langstone)	Shaw, Michael (Sc 'b' gh & Whitby)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Longden, Gilbert	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Goodhart, Philip	MacArthur, Ian	Simeons, Charles
Goodhew, Victor	McCrindle, R. A.	Skeet, T. H. H.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	McLaren, Martin	Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L' mington)
Gray, Hamish	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Speed, Keith
Green, Alan	McMaster, Stanley	Spence, John
Grieve, Percy	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)	Sproat, Iain
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Stanbrook, Ivor
Grylls, Michael	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Gummer, Selwyn	Madel, David	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Mather, Carol	Stokes, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maude, Angus	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Tebbit, Norman
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Harrison, Co. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Haselhurst, Alan	Miscampbell, Norman	Tiley, John
Havers, Michael	Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Hawkins, Paul	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Trew, Peter
Hay, John	Money, Ernle	Tugendhat, Christopher
Heseltine, Michael	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Hicks, Robert	Monro, Hector	Waddington, David
Higgins, Terence L.	Montgomery, Fergus	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Ward, Dame Irene
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Warren, Kenneth
Holland, Philip	Neave, Airey	Weatherill, Bernard
Hordern, Peter	Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hornby, Richard	Normanton, Tom	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Wiggin, Jerry
Howell, David (Guildford)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Wilkinson, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Osborn, John	Winterton, Nicholas
Hunt, John	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
James, David	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jessel, Toby	Parkinson, Cecil	Woodnutt, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Younger, Hn. George
Jopling, Michael	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Mr. Oscar Murton and Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Raison, Timothy

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 175, in page 2, line 20, at end insert:

(4) Any Community treaty within the meaning of this section, other than the pre-accession and accession treaties, shall be referred in draft or immediately after publication to a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Community Treaties for scrutiny and report, and until such report has been considered and

approved by Parliament, the procedure provided in subsection (3) above shall not be followed.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 158, Noes 189.

Division No. 92.]	AYES	[1.16 a.m.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Cant, R. B.	Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Armstrong, Ernest	Carmichael, Neil	Deakins, Eric
Atkinson, Norman	Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Dempsey, James
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Dormand, J. D.
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Duffy, A. E. P.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Cohen, Stanley	Eadle, Alex
Bidwell, Sydney	Coleman, Donald	Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Biffen, John	Concannon, J. D.	Ellis, Tom
Bishop, E. S.	Conlan, Bernard	English, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Evans, Fred
Booth, Albert	Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Ewing, Henry
Brown, Hugh D. (G' gow, Provan)	Dalyell, Tam	Fietcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Buchan, Norman	Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Buchanan, Richard (G' gow, Sp' burn)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Foley, Maurice
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Foot, Michael
Ford, Ben	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br 'c' n & R dnor)
Forrester, John	McCartney, Hugh	Roper, John
Freeson, Reginald	McElhone, Frank	Rose, Paul B.
Gilbert, Dr. John	McGuire, Michael	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Mackie, John	Sandelson, Neville
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Maclennan, Robert	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W' hampton, N. E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Marks, Kenneth	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Marquand, David	Sillars, James
Hamling, William	Marsden, F.	Skinner, Dennis
Hardy, Peter	Meacher, Michael	Small, William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Spearing, Nigel
Heffer, Eric S.	Mendelson, John	Spriggs, Leslie
Huckfield, Leslie	Millan, Bruce	Stallard, A. W.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Molloy, William	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Strang, Gavin
Hunter, Adam	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Swain, Thomas
Janner, Greville	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Taverne, Dick
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Moyle, Roland	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Tinn, James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechtord)	Murray, Ronald King	Tuck, Raphael
John, Brynmor	Oakes, Gordon	Urwin, T. W.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Ogden, Eric	Varley, Eric G.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	O'Halloran, Michael	Wainwright, Edwin
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	O'Malley, Brian	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Orme, Stanley	Watkins, David
Judd, Frank	Oswald, Thomas	Wellbeloved, James
Kaufman, Gerald	Paget, R. T.	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Kerr, Russell	Palmer, Arthur	Whitehead, Phillip
Kinnock, Neil	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Whitlock, William
Lambie, David	Pavitt, Laurie	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Lamond, James	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Leadbitter, Ted	Pendry, Tom	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Lestor, Miss Joan	Pentland, Norman
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Prescott, John	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Lomas, Kenneth	Rhodes, Geoffrey	Mr. John Golding.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hunt, John
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Emery, Peter	James, David
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Eyre, Reginald	Jessel, Toby
Astor, John	Farr, John	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Atkins, Humphrey	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Jopling, Michael
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Fidler, Michael	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Benyon, W.	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Fortescue, Tim	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Biggs-Davison, John	Fox, Marcus	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Gibson-Watt, David	Kinsey, A. R.
Boscawen, Robert	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Kirk, Peter
Bossom, Sir Clive	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Knox, David
Bowden, Andrew	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Lane, David
Bray, Ronald	Goodhart, Philip	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Goodhew, Victor	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Le Marchant, Spencer
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Gray, Hamish	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bryan, Paul	Green, Alan	Lloyd, Ian (P 'tsm' th, Langstone)
Buck, Antony	Grieve, Percy	Longden, Sir Gilbert
Carlisle, Mark	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	MacArthur, Ian
Channon, Paul	Grylls, Michael	McCrindle, R. A.
Chapman, Sydney	Gummer, Selwyn	McLaren, Martin
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Churchill, W. S.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	McMaster, Stanley
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Clegg, Walter	Hannam, John (Exeter)	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Cockeram, Eric	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Cooke, Robert	Haselhurst, Alan	Madel, David
Cooper, A. E.	Havers, Michael	Mather, Carol
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Hawkins, Paul	Maude, Angus
Costain, A. P.	Hay, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Critchley, Julian	Heseltine, Michael	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Crouch, David	Hicks, Robert	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Curran, Charles	Higgins, Terence L.	Miscampbell, Norman
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Mitchell, Lt-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire. W)
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James	Holland, Philip	Money, Ernle
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Hordern, Peter	Monks, Mrs. Connie
Dykes, Hugh	Hornby, Richard	Monro, Hector
Eden, Sir John	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Montgomery, Fergus
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Howell, David (Guildford)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
		Neave, Airey

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Trew, Peter
Normanton, Tom	Sharples, Richard	Tugendhat, Christopher
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Shaw, Michael (Sc 'b' gh & Whitby)	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Shelton, William (Clapham)	Waddington, David
Osborn, John	Simeons, Charles	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Skeet, T. H. H.	Ward, Dame Irene
Page, Graham (Crosby)	Smith, Dudley (W 'wick & L' mington)	Warren, Kenneth
Parkinson, Cecil	Speed, Keith	Weatherill, Bernard
Price, David (Eastleigh)	Spence, John	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Proudfool, Wilfred	Sproat, Iain	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Stainton, Keith	Wiggin, Jerry
Quennell, Miss J. M.	Stanbrook, Ivor	Wilkinson, John
Raison, Timothy	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)	Winterton, Nicholas
Rees, Peter (Dover)	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Stokes, John	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Woodnutt, Mark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Tebbit, Norman	Younger, Hn. George
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)	TEELERS FOR THE NOES:
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Tilney, John	Mr. Oscar Murton and Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Rost, Peter	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald

Question accordingly negatived.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.