EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

HC Deb 15 March 1972 vol 833 cc669-725

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Captain W. Elliot

As I said to your predecessor, Sir Robert, I hope that because of my enforced absence upstairs on a good many occasions I shall not cover too much of the ground which has been covered already.

It seemed to me that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) raised some important points. He created some anxiety in my mind. As he said, there is no mention of defence in the Treaty of Rome, and there was no mention of it in the negotiations other than a reference to the fact that it was not discussed within the framework of the negotiations.

I assume in the first place that the effects of our entry on our existing defence treaties will be nil, and I include even those of which we are the only European country to be a member. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is the future with which we are concerned, and we have to consider the possible development of a European defence policy. Certainly this appears to be one area of policy in which any agreements would have to be unanimous within the Community.

I should like to know whether, if such a policy was decided upon, this House would have an opportunity to register its opinion on any arrangement that was considered. Indeed, I might go further and ask whether the House would have an opportunity to reject it and, if so, how.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, Europe may develop defence arrangements in the future which are quite different from those existing today. Presumably such decisions would have to be unanimous within the European Community. However, opinion in the House might be divided, on party lines or across them. A division across party lines might reject certain aspects of it; for example, the disposition of forces, the command structure, and so on.

10.15 p.m.

It is possible to visualise a European defence treaty where in certain circum- stances this country could go and Europe still survive. It will be recalled that in much the same way at one critical stage of the last war it was considered that Australia could go and the Nazis and Japanese could still be defeated. Such implications, if they were to affect this country, would have to be closely examined before any new European defence policy was decided. Shall we have the opportunity to carry out that examination in the House of Commons and, if necessary, reject it completely or part of it, and at what stage?

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East mentioned conscription and nuclear defence. As I see it, those are important parts of the whole arrangement. If we can discuss the whole thing, there is no reason why we should not discuss those items.

I should have thought that any new defence arrangement in Europe within the framework of the European Economic Community would require a new treaty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South West (Mr. Powell) is not in the Chamber. However, I do not agree that, as he seemed to imply, a more closely integrated Europe would not give this country more security. I believe that it would.

The Treaty of Rome does not refer to defence; nor do the negotiations. At some time there will have to be a debate on this matter if these developments take place. Will it be a meaningful or a hollow debate?

Mr. John Mendelson

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said he hoped to receive some replies to his questions from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope there will be a response to this request. In past debates we have had very few replies from the right hon. and learned Gentleman or from other members of the Government. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make an effort to address himself to the substantial points which have been put to him by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I do not think he can argue that on the debate so far, and particularly on the opening speech, he has replied to all these points before, which has been his habit of late in responding to debates in Committee.

I do not want to repeat any of the points made by my right hon. Friend, but merely to add a number of relevant considerations to this set of Amendments. We have to consider that the intentions of the Government and of the Prime Minister in particular in this sphere are on record. There can be no doubt about the Prime Minister's views.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his two interventions, was far too limited in merely repeating that this matter had not been discussed in the negotiations on transitional arrangements. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he would wish to make advances in nuclear arrangements with France. Indeed, he has gone beyond that in several public statements.

The Godkin lectures which the Prime Minister delivered to the University of Harvard have been republished as a booklet entitled "Edward Heath: Old World, New Horizons". The Prime Minister was talking about international affairs and not his domestic policy. The title continues, "Britain, the Common Market and the Atlantic Alliance". The booklet is published by the Oxford University Press, it is the copyright of the President and Fellows of the Harvard College, 1970, and published in the United States by Harvard University Press.

On pages 72 and 73, the origin of the references to the Prime Minister's statement on this matter, we read: Can these different national attitudes be brought together into a European defence policy? In my view, the question should be put the other way round. Can one conceive, over the long term, of a Europe growing together as we have described in an increasing number of ways and yet not trying to provide coherently for its own defence? I do not myself think it realistic to suppose that defence will be excluded indefinitely from the European experiment. Too many practical arguments point in the same direction. For example it is unlikely that after spending so much money and skill the Governments of either Britain or France will simply allow their nuclear forces to wither away and return to complete reliance on the United States deterrent. Yet the cost of keeping a nuclear deterrent credible may well before long rise to far above the resources of any individual medium power, however determined, that the idea of a European defence system will prove highly attractive to them. Similarly, we most of us recognise that the Russians and the East Europeans have a legitimate interest in ensuring that Germany does not emerge as an independent military power dominating Central Europe. I put particular emphasis on these last words: Yet if what I have just said about Germany is right we are going to have to find a better means than we have now of assuring the Germans that they are equals in Europe and the world. Here again, logic points to an eventual European defence system. I have deliberately quoted the whole of those two paragraphs because it would be unfair to the Prime Minister, particularly in his absence, to do otherwise. I hope that one of these days, particularly as we are considering policies that he has initiated, he will honours the Committee with his presence. It is well known that many members of the present Cabinet have had their ups and down over Britain joining the Community. Ministers have differing views on this subject. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, is specifically identified with the Bill, and it would be helpful if he would occasionally grace our proceedings with his presence.

Mr. Robert Adley (Bristol, North-East)rose—

Mr. Mendelson

I will not give way. Why should I, when the hon. Gentleman has just strolled into the debate?

It would have been unfair of me to have quoted only part of that passage from the Prime Minister's speech. He expects the E.E.C. to move towards being a defence organisation, though he recognises that a German problem is involved. The quotation concludes with him saying that somehow the Federal Republic of Germany must be persuaded that it is an equal in every respect.

That links up with a recent article in Le Monde in which the Prime Minister said that, while he had first germinated this idea, he had been glad to note that Herr Strauss had since supported the idea of a third nuclear European community.

Hon. Members may have been present in Westminster Hall some time ago when Herr Strauss delivered a 31-page paper at the invitation of the European Atlantic Committee. In that speech he welcomed the efforts that were being made—remember, this was before the signing of the Treaty of Accession—to get the United Kingdom into the E.E.C. He went on to say that unless Britain went in to take part in a third nuclear defence community within the E.E.C. he was not the least bit interested whether or not we joined. That is his official view, and hemade it clear before 300 people, 50 of them hon. Members.

After that statement was published, the British Prime Minister said in an article in Le Monde that he very much welcomed the support he had received from that quarter. There were other people in West Germany to whom the Prime Minister could have looked for support. He could have found many other allies, friends and co-operators. He might have made an appropriate reference to the Prime Minister of the Federal Republic. Instead, however, he particularly welcomed support for the idea of such a nuclear demand from Herr Strauss.

This matter of trying to define how in future a Government would be constitutionally circumscribed, which is the burden of this series of Amendments, in dealing with an extension of the E.E.C. in the defence field is practical politics. I accept that it is not a matter for tomorrow. It may not be a matter for the next 12 months. But it is something which the Prime Minister regards as absolutely inevitable in the long term.

We therefore have a serious duty to make certain that, as far as possible, the conditions under which any such future policies might be conceived by this or any later Government are brought fully under the legislative control of the House of Commons.

Mr. Marten

Was the hon. Gentleman at another meeting in Westminster Hall when the German Chancellor, Willy Brandt, spoke? On that occasion I asked him a direct question. I asked if Europe could speak with one voice and if, to do that, it had to have one Government. After a second's pause he replied, "Yes".

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Mendelson

Yes. I was present at that meeting. But this is not necessarily germane to the matter of a third nuclear command, because it is quite possible, to be fair to the people who have ideas about the development of a European Parliament, to which I shall come shortly, for hon. Members and people outside to hold such views and still be completely opposed to the setting up of a third nuclear command in the E.E.C. It is possible to hold these views jointly. I have never heard or seen any evidence whatsoever that Herr Brandt is moving in that direction; there is nothing on record from him. On the contrary, my understanding is that in the discussions with the Eastern European Powers in recent months he has not supported the idea of a third European nuclear command.

To return to the Amendments, what is involved seems to be the very reasonable request, as put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, supported by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), beseeching the Government to explain why they have not wished in past debates, or do not wish today, to accept any Amendments. That is the crux of the matter on the procedural aspect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East has read the record of the debates, very assiduously, as became clear from his speech.

The Government have so far argued—this may not so clearly appear in the printed record of our many hours of debate—that the Committee should accept their assurance that there will be an opportunity, at any time in the future when the Members of the House of Commons—undefined; a majority or any group of hon. Members—feel that the procedure outlined in the two halves of Clause 1(3)is not appropriate, for the House of Commons to be able to insist on a different method being used, including the legislative method. That is the Government's case.

The defect in that is that the Government are representing the House of Commons as if it had nothing to do with political power, as if it were a debating society; saying that if at any time in the future a Government had committed themselves to a big extension of the powers and functions of the E.E.C. they would then leave it to chance whether there were groups of Members of the House of Commons, however organised, who would then completely overturn the plans, intentions and the method that the Government wanted to use. That is too naive an approach to accept, either from the Chancellor of the Duchy or from the Solicitor-General. I beg them to address themselves seriously to this argument, at least on this occasion. If they feel that in some of the other debates they have been going over some of the ground once or twice, they must admit that this defence aspect has not yet arisen. On this occasion, they should address themselves seriously to the constitutional part of the argument. If they did so, they ought to arrive very quickly at the conclusion that the request for the Amendment is modest and very reasonable.

I do not quite take the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, that there is an essential age-long difference between our approach to law and that of the people of France. I part company with him in that as he expressed it today; I do not believe that to be true. He gave us a quotation from a last conversation between M. Malraux and the late General de Gaulle. I do not consider General de Gaulle the best witness to the attitude of the French people to democracy and constitutionalism. It would take much more than a quotation from the late General de Gaulle to build up an indictment and classification of the French people and their history.

In reply to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, I say that when he goes through the history of France he will find that what was known for many centuries as the French Parliament was most closely tied to French law, and he will find there is a very deep tradition there in the same direction and with the same basis as here. A characteristic of the de Gaulle flirtation, and of recent years in French politics, is the move towards authoritarian government. This is not characteristic of the French people, who gave us the revolution in 1789 and the beginnings of modern democratic government and institutions, and all the modern English societies were first founded at the end of the 18th century as societies in support of the French revolution. The right hon. Gentleman has been giving us a topsy-turvy sort of history, and I believe he was expressing a somewhat nationalistic view which does not do justice to the traditions or views of the French people in general. I must dissent from that view.

In the last 15 years General de Gaulle and the Gaullists have destroyed the powers of the French Assembly and have deliberately moved towards authoritarian Government. The important thing for our debates is that in the recent conversations between President Pompidou and the Prime Minister there has been the beginning of an understanding which is very dangerous, which bodes ill for the future of the rights of the House and for parliamentary government in this country. What are they talking about? I do not share the fears expressed, even by some of my hon. Friends, that we are now facing a very rapid move towards a European Parliament which will possess real power and which will control everything. That is not the present mood of the meetings between the Prime Minister and President Pompidou.

We know very little about what has happened in the discussions in Paris, but a realistic assessment is that there has been an understanding between the President and the Prime Minister that a strong European Parliament shall not be developed. Therefore, the danger so far implied in the debates is far more serious than has so far been revealed. It could at least be argued, if we were moving in that direction, that there might be a properly elected European Parliament developing some of the safeguards that the British Parliament has had over the years.

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has moved rather wide of the subject matter of the Amendments. I fail to notice anything in the discussion which deals with the creation of a European Parliament or of Britain joining it. He must come back to the subject of defence.

Mr. Mendelson

With respect, Sir Myer, in all the debates so far right hon. and hon. Members have been arguing that implied in the setting up of a defence organism in the European Community there is a tight system of European federal government, and that has been held to be completely in order, I assure you. If I wish to combat that argument, which has been seriously advanced, and point to the far bigger dangers involved in such a development I must be able to use in my argument the facts as they emerge from the discussions between the French President and the Prime Minister which have been quoted by so many hon. Members. I do it only to that extent, and only with that intention, not in any way to go into wider considerations.

It is a fact of life today that we have no hope whatever of looking towards—this may be of interest to some of my hon. Friends—the development of a really powerful central European Parliament within the Community which would control any defence organism which might be set up. We have no hope of that, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however reticent he may be to talk about these things today, knows it very well. One of the reasons why I want the Prime Minister to be present is that I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not dare to talk about these things in his right hon. Friend's absence. If the Prime Minister were here, both of them might feel a little easier in talking on these matters. I can understand the difficulty which the Chancellor of the Duchy may feel in the absence of his right hon. Friend. We have an authoritarian Cabinet, and one can understand that relations between its various members are not always too easy.

If we have nothing suitable written into the Bill, and if we see this trend towards a more authoritarian form of Government, the reason why the Bill is drafted as it is becomes more understandable. I am not very hopeful of our being able to persuade the Government, merely by the force of reasonable argument, to accept some of these Amendments. If the European Economic Community is to develop a defence organism, if the idea of the third nuclear command—to which the Labour Party has always been totally opposed—is to become a policy which the Prime Minister wishes to support, we shall, I believe, see that policy gradually introduced.

The Prime Minister will not wish to go through an early legislative process on all these matters. It may be much more convenient for the Government, together, perhaps, with the French Government and then later with the German and Italian Governments, to take some first steps to develop the system of a third nuclear command—it will not be born overnight—and then come to Parliament at a much later stage, with a three-day debate or a six-day debate—albeit that such debates can never be a substitute for the power of decision, as we have seen—and say, "This system has been fairly well developed. Here it is. The life of the Government is at stake, and you must back us up." That is much the more likely way in which such a development may come about. That danger, too, is another reason why the Government should accept some of the Amendments.

I come now to the discussions which will take place at Chequers in a few days. We know that when the matter of nuclear co-operation was raised briefly in Paris the two statesmen did not go into the matter in any great detail. But we know also—and this makes it very topical—that originally, when the President was coming at an earlier date, there were semi-official sources in Paris which said that on this occasion the President would find it suitable that some of these matters should be approached.

Parliament is entitled to have some information on the matter. It is entitled to know whether the Government now take the view that the time is ripe for a beginning of such discussions. We do not ask them to go into detail about conversations between the Prime Minister and the President which have not even been held, but they ought to come clean on this question. So far, the Chancellor of the Duchy has twice said—he interrupted my right hon. Friend to say it—that no such discussions have taken placein the negotiations. But do the Government now believe that the time is ripe for such discussions? That is the minimum that the people of Britain should be told.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should tell us. He intervened eagerly to deny that any such discussions had taken place. If he is eager to deny that—it is not a formal point in debating the Amendments; it is a policy statement of some importance, and he is entitled to make it—he ought to be equally concerned to tell the Committee the Government's present view about the near future and the longer-term future. He should say it in reply to this debate.

10.45 p.m.

These Amendments would go some way towards making it more difficult for the dangerous process I have described, and which I fear, to take place. One thing is certain. If there is to be one danger of war in Europe in the next 10 or 15 years it will be the danger of an association of Germany with a nuclear command on the Continent of Western Europe. I am deeply suspicious of some Conservative Members who say, "Economics does not matter. Don't worry about the price of butter. We want to join because we must re-create a powerful Europe"—they do not say "E.E.C." or "Western Europe", but "Europe"—"with a strong tendency of bitter opposition to the Socialist countries of Europe, with a strong tendency of wanting to be the dominating power all over Europe." It is no good the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) shaking his head. There are Conservative right hon. Members who hold views like those of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who has nipped into the debate and has nipped out again, who has argued for years at meetings of Western European Union that he wanted a Western European nuclear command. He has moved motions to that effect. I am deeply suspicious, and so should Parliament be, of some of the tendencies of people looking for new military power and glory as part of the E.E.C. and its future, who want to build up not just an economic community but a powerful military bloc. These are the real issues that we are discussing.

That is the background to the Amendments. People outside sometimes ask us, "Why do you spend so many hours on the details of an Amendment that seems to deal only with procedure on the face of it?" This is the answer. I have deliberately taken an additional couple of minutes to make this link between the argument on procedure and the dangerous reality behind it.

Mr. Adley

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was beginning to think he might be prepared to give way only to anti-Marketeers, and I am sure that is not the case. I am not a warmonger, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are now 27 years beyond the end of the Second World War, 27 years which might be described as nuclear years, whereas 27 years after the end of the First World War we had already gone through the Second World War? Is there not some significance in that?

Mr. Mendelson

I have not addressed myself to the argument that other hon. Members have advanced about the efficiency of the nuclear balance and the nuclear terror. That is not the subject of debate. I have addressed myself to the point that the setting up of a defence organism, which the Prime Minister in the Godkin lecture said would involve nuclear weapons, is a very dangerous development for the peace of Europe, and that the creation of such a bloc with its own nuclear weapons is something I am bitterly opposed to.

But, whatever view hon. Members may take about such a future political and defence development, the least we can ask of the Government is to accept the principle that if such a move were planned by any Government in the future the full legislative process of the House must be used. That is the burden of the argument behind the Amendments. I commend them to the Committee.

Mr. Rippon

We have had a wide ranging and extremely interesting debate on defence and the contribution by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) was of the kind we have heard before from him in defence debates. Those of us who have taken part in defence debates rather enjoyed this episode, although some of the matters raised go beyond the scope of the treaties and the Bill. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) recognised that defence matters were outside the scope of the negotiations and treaties. At the same time, I think we are all agreed, as he said, about the vital importance of defence in a European context, and I think also that many on both sides of the Committee believe that the movement towards European unity will bring closer co-operation in defence. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has been one of the foremost advocates on that point of view.

For a student of parliamentary history there has been a certain fascination about the balance of forces here tonight—a certain contrast in emphasis from that which was expressed in the debates that we had on these matters on 21st January, 1971. Then, the right hon. Gentleman put these defence questions into a true context. He said that there may be political changes on a world-wide basis and went on: The United States may reduce its commitments in Europe during the coining years and may simultaneously seek bilateral agreements with the Soviet Union. A Europe of which we are not a member could move in very dangerous directions if we are not involved in the way in which it responds to these new political factors. The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the observations of the hon. Member for Penistone on the subject of the nuclear future of Europe and pointed out how wrong it had been of the Conservative Government to believe that they could buy their way into the Common Market by offering a nuclear alliance with France, because it was clear that that was not going to happen.

The right hon. Gentleman also dealt with a point raised by the hon. Member for Penistone about Eastern Europe. There was a slight exchange between the hon. Member for Penistone and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) about the attitude of the German Chancellor, Mr. Brandt, to this matter. On the subject, the right hon. Gentleman had some wise words to say: …all the Socialist parties and trade unions inside the Common Market want faster, not slower, progress towards unity, and they all want Britain and the other applicants in the Common Market. Above all, this is true of the German Government under Chancellor Brandt, because, ever since he got into power, he has made it clear that his Ostpolitik would work only if the Common Market were enlarged. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have made eloquent and impressive speeches against entry, to consider the impact of our exclusion on our best friends in Europe as well as on our future in the world."—[Official Report, 21st January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1399–1401.] So of course, on the general matters, the position of the right hon. Gentleman has been perfectly clear for a long time. I shall deal with what is essentially a technical Amendment on drafting of the Bill, but I have no reason to deny what he said in general on the matters of European unity and European defence.

It was a little surprising to hear the right hon. Gentleman quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) with such evident approval on this occasion. It is true that circumstances change for many people, but the right hon. Gentleman was not so lyrical about my right hon. Friend on that occasion, because he said: The main problem which has worried the opponents of entry on both sides of the House has been its effect on the identity of Britain, however this is expressed—in terms of worry about freedom of action, worry about our sovereignty, worry about the Community developing supernatural powers or moving into a federation or into a political, economic and financial union. He went on to say: This worry was most eloquently expressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. Once again, he erected a glittering edifice of argument by systematic logical extrapolation from a phrase in a speech. Having dazzled us with this display of pure reason, he then appealed to the dark instincts of primaeval blood and earth. This is a style of his—beating the ideological tom-tom—with which we are all familiar, and it never fails to assemble the tribes."—[Official Report, 21st January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1395.] The right hon. Gentleman used rather harsher words then than he used tonight.

Mr. Healey

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a good speech for the debate we had in January, 1971. Sir Myer, you were quite strict with my hon. Friend who was speaking a moment ago for not addressing himself to the Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman so far has not even begun to discuss the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Rippon

I apologise for embarrassing the right hon. Gentleman. I will come back to the point and say, in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, that the only occasion on which he beat the ideological tom-tom, went back to primaeval ideas and summoned the tribes today was when he made a rather curious distinction between the Anglo-Saxons and the Latins, perhaps knowing that some people are afraid of this distinction.

Mr. Powell

Just for the record, I was quoting General de Gaulle in evidence of his view.

Mr. Rippon

I thought that my right hon. Friend was adopting General de Gaulle's view for the purposes of his argument and slightly distorting the compliment that the General was paying to the Anglo-Saxons. However that may be, I will not tease my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman any more about what they have said on past occasions.

I will bring the debate back to the technical terms of the Amendments. Amendment No. 148 seeks to define a treaty and to make the definition of the word "treaty" exhaustive rather than inclusive, as it now is. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General this afternoon dealt with the question of the way in which a treaty is defined, and I will not go into that again, except to say that to adopt an exhaustive definition of an essentially flexible term would be wrong.

The substantive debate has taken place on Amendment No. 149, which seeks to exclude any international agreement relating to defence from the definition of treaties provided for in Clause 1. It is presumably intended as a safeguard against the extension of Community treaties into the field of defence. It was put forward in that way rather than as providing an opportunity for a general debate on defence policy.

I think that the Committee will agree that the Amendment would have no effect on the implementation of the Community treaties as they now stand, none of which relates in any way to defence. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East made that perfectly clear. The Community treaties do not cover defence, and in consequence major amendments would be required to enable them to do so. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. and right hon. Members are concerned about the way in which those amendments might be made, the consequences of them, and the way in which they relate to the definition in the Bill.

With respect, I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is in error on two counts. First, as I listened to him, I felt that he was assuming that a Community defence treaty would be ancillary and therefore within Clause 1.

Mr. Healey

No. Not at all.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Rippon

That is perhaps hypothetical, but I should make clear, as the Solicitor-General said last night, that "ancillary" should be given a narrow interpretation. He dealt with that point at col. 349 of the Official Report of 14th March.

If a treaty is to be regarded as ancillary, it must be auxiliary to the purposes of the present treaties. It is inconceivable that a major defence Community treaty going outside the economic purposes of the present Community could be regarded as ancillary.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman assumed that a Community defence treaty would require a Clause 1(3) Order in Council if there were not a Bill, but the first question that would have to be asked, if there were some defence treaty or agreement, would be whether the treaty required a change in law. Most defence arrangements do not go through Parliament in the form of legislation.

The basic West European defence treaties are the North Atlantic Treaty and the Brussels Treaty of March, 1948, as amended by the protocol signed in Paris in October, 1954, together with the other 1954 protocols. The signatories of the revised Brussels Treaty were Britain and the Six.

The development of the European Communities involved no defence obligations for the signatories of the European treaties because they have no defence aspects, but it has all along been the aim of successive British Governments to increase European defence co-operation, and in recent years a good deal of progress has been made. I am the first to pay tribute to what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East contributed towards the development of the Eurogroup and co-operation on various defence projects.

We believe that the increased solidarity and coherence of Western Europe which will follow enlargement will undoubtedly have political as well as economic implications. In the longer run it should make it easier for Europe to organise common defence more effectively.

Even if one believes that, it is far from saying that we expect the enlarged Communities to develop a defence identity. If, in due course, something in the nature of a major defence arrangement were to be worked out for the Community—and I am doing no more than taking a hypothesis raised by the right hon. Gentleman—I am sure, and the Committee can be sure, that Parliament would have a proper opportunity to debate it and to examine the Government about it. That indicates the difficulty about trying to define "treaty" in a way which is exhaustive rather than inclusive. There are difficulties about that. What matters, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East used to say, is how the Community works. In practice, it has worked in sensible ways.

Mr. Mendelsonrose—

Mr. Rippon

I will say what the position is, and then I shall gladly give way. We should think what happened in relation to the past defence treaties which are the foundation of our European defence position.

The Brussels Treaty, 1948 was not—so far as I can discover—debated in Parliament before or after signature, but both the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 and the revised Brussels Treaty of 1954 were debated between signature and ratification, although neither required legislation. That is what would happen if new defence arrangements under the umbrella of the Community went wider than anything which could be regarded as ancillary.

It could not be dealt with in the simple way that some people suggest. It would be subject to the normal parliamentary procedures. It is right that, where appropriate, such defence arrangements should be the subject of general debate. They would be debated only because they are treaties of the kind which do not require changes in our domestic law, and would not normally require legislation. They would be subject to debate. They could not be amended, because treaties of that kind cannot be amended.

I give the assurance to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) that under existing procedures, with no amendment of the kind suggested, there would have to be meaningful debate in Parliament before one could conceive of changing defence arrangements in a major way.

Mr. Healey

I never suggested that the initial treaty setting up a defence community would be regarded as ancillary. I suggested that under the procedures defined in the Bill it would be open for the Government to push such a treaty through the House under the Clause 1(3)B procedure, as we have come to call it in this debate, and thereafter to extend the scope of the Community without reference to the House, on the ground that the Community, as such, collectively—and not its members—was responsible for that extension. Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has completely missed my point.

The other point I made is that if it were the intention of the Community to produce a European defence community on the lines envisaged in the early 1950s it would involve major changes in the organisation of the force. What we wanted—and have not had—from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is an assurance that in such a case he would not attempt to apply the procedures defined in this Bill, but would submit the whole matter to the normal legislative process. If he is prepared to give this assurance, why can he not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Rippon

I do not think there is any need for that assurance. Changes of that kind could not be regarded as ancillary to the purposes of the present treaties and could be dealt with not in that way but by the normal parliamentary procedures. I go further, in a sense, than an assurance, and say that as the Bill is now drafted, an amendment of that kind could not be regarded as ancillary.

The Amendment seeks to make the definition of treaties exhaustive instead of exclusive. I have been saying that it is wrong as a matter of legal drafting to draft the definition in that way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. He has had explained to him the substance of the point that he made. He cannot expect us to draft the Bill in a bad way in order to give a double assurance of that kind. To try to get a list of subjects which would be exempted in the way in which Amendments Nos. 149 and 187 seek to do would be bad drafting, and ought to be resisted.

Mr. Arthur Lewisrose—

Mr. Mendelsonrose—

The Temporary Chairman

I do not know to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving way.

Mr. Rippon

I am giving way to no one. I have finished.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to deal with the point I raised, namely, the assumption of the process of debates on treaties taking place on the basis of an affirmative Resolution. Assuming that conscription were introduced into the defence policy, will he give an assurance that the House would be able to deal with the matter legislatively, as opposed to using the affirmative Resolution procedure?

Mr. Rippon

The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has misunderstood completely what has been going on in the last two hours. It would not be a question of the affirmative Resolution procedure applying in cases of this kind. We should have the normal parliamentary processes for dealing with a defence treaty. Conscription, of course, is a matter entirely outside the range of what we have been discussing.

Mr. Michael Foot

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster concluded his remarks by seeking to soothe some of the anxieties that hon. Members have expressed during our discussions. It would be tempting to return to the earlier part of his speech, in which he enlivened our proceedings by referring to some earlier speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proved by the combination of his quotations and the second part of his speech, in which he attempted to reply to my right hon. Friend, is that if my right hon. Friend is to be contradicted he contradicts himself much better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do it. For that reason, I think that we shall wish to give further attention to the earlier part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech rather than his later remarks.

There was naturally a certain element of dissimilarity between the views of my right hon. Friend which were quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those which my right hon Friend used on a previous occasion, but, as the Committee knows, different shades of opinion are expressed by members of Governments and even by hon. Members on the back benches from time to time. It is not the way in which effective retorts are made in the House because, fundamentally, what we are discussing are the merits of the propositions them- selves. It is to those that I wish to return.

In this last bunch of debates we have ranged over many matters which we have done little more than touch upon briefly until now. We have been in some difficulty because of the mingling of Amendments dealing with various matters. I am not complaining about the selection, but it presents difficulties to the Committee when we have to deal with such mixed matters as the future provisions of the House governing defence developments following our entry into Europe, and the provisions governing the development of an economic and monetary union.

The same protections in different cases are not necessarily correct. We should have the opportunity of providing different forms of parliamentary protection for different necessities. Therefore, it would have been more satisfactory in some respects if we had been able to dissociate these questions. However, I understand the reason why they have been grouped together. Fundamentally, we are discussing not the merits of the issues themselves but the processes that will be available to the House in years to come. It is in that sense that we must examine the matter most closely.

The question that we have put constantly to the Government and to which we have had no answer, on this occasion as on previous occasions, is: why did they choose this method of restricting what the House might be able to do in future? They may argue that they are sustaining the normal procedures, or meaningful debates. We are not so much concerned about meaningful debates as we are about normal procedures, though, of course, we want to have both.

11.15 p.m.

As far as I can see, the procedures that the Government lay down in the Bill interfere with meaningful debates, in the sense that they show a preference for the style of abbreviated debates which we have had in the past under some of these procedures.

As for normal procedures, the Government are extending greatly the ways in which treaty-making can affect the business of the House of Commons. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can quote what happened in the House when we were dealing with the Brussels Treaty, or even the N.A.T.O. alliance or other treaties, does not affect the issue, because we are carrying the process of legislation by treaty-making to a far greater degree than was ever contemplated.

We have never before had a Bill presented to us which included a Schedule of the character that we have here. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could produce a Bill which showed anything comparable, it would be a much better parallel than any citation of the Brussels Treaty or any other treaty. If he could produce a Bill which not merely specified the treaties in the Schedule—which we have been seeking to discuss with the Clause—but had a comparable paragraph 7 in Part I of the Schedule, where vague reference is made to general treaties without specifying them—so that we have to look elsewhere to see what those treaties are—it would be much more impressive than the precedents that he brought before us today.

I now turn to questions on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman hardly touched in his reply and which are dealt with in the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). That Amendment deals not only with defence questions but with economic and monetary union. We have a later Amendment, which I think falls to be discussed with the next bunch, which touches on that subject. I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would recognise that this was a most urgent question.

Nobody can deny the claim that the advance towards an economic and monetary union will involve measures that will affect the life of this community in a way that may not be involved in some of the treaties of accession that we have already signed. A treaty that deals with economic and monetary union will probably be of a more far-reaching character than many of the treaties involved in these discussions.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear in a speech at the Press Club last week that he regards this matter as the next item on the agenda, if I may put it that way. He is reported in the Daily Telegraph of last Saturday as saying that the October meeting of the 10 Heads of Government of the enlarged Market would concentrate on three broad headings. 1.—Economic and monetary union and social policy. He said that that was almost the next item on the agenda. That, of course, is a major question.

How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate the matter of agreement about economic and monetary union being brought before the House of Commons for acceptance? It is no use talking to us about meaningful debates on the matter. No doubt we shall have opportunities to discuss it during proceedings on the Finance Bill this year, and presumably there will be other opportunities for discussing it. But if there is agreement eventually—the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that this is the next matter—how will it be brought before the House of Commons?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman argues that we should be perfectly satisfied with the existing procedures, but we are not content at all. A movement towards a monetary union is of major importance. It will eat up all the other aspects of monetary policy, like Aaron's rod consuming all the other serpents. On all the other questions that we have argued—devaluation, levels of national currencies and the sovereign rights of States in this area, all of which have been paramount issues of debate in the Community itself in recent months—surely we are entitled to an undertaking in the Bill that they will be dealt with in a different manner than the Clause allows.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be difficult to draw a line between the major and minor subjects. I am not saying that we do not want to include other matters, but surely the line can be drawn so that we have not the absolute assurance—we are not satisfied with the Government's assurances—but a guarantee in the Bill that any treaty dealing with economic and monetary union shall be submitted to the full legislative process of the House of Commons.

That guarantee is not given in the Bill, and if we part with it we shall have no final protection against any decision that the Government may make with the countries of Europe on major questions affecting levels of employment. These are not secondary matters, but matters on which we should have had special provision in the Bill, particularly as the Minister says that they form the next matter on the agenda.

On the question of defence, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to soothe our anxieties by saying that Parliament may be quite sure that we will discuss this matter in the proper way, and that anyway it is inconceivable that the ancillary treaties will be brought in in this way. First, there is some dispute as to what he thinks is the proper way. We think that it is by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Rippon

So long as the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not the present way of doing it.

Mr. Foot

I understand that the Minister argues that there have been treaties dealing with matters of defence which have not involved any question of an Act of Parliament. He says that the proper way has been followed in previous cases, and that therefore we need not make exceptions here. But in the Bill the Minister is proposing that such matters might be dealt with under the affirmative Resolution procedure.

These defence matters should be excluded from the methods that have been devised under the Bill. We want a provision that certain matters of exceptional importance shall be dealt with by other means—and I have described what I think are the other means applying to the economic and monetary union. For defence matters there should be other provisions.

My hon. Friends have quoted articles showing what has been in the Prime Minister's mind for some years. He has contemplated Europe developing into a new form of defence unity. That is the meaning of his statement about wanting to have a fresh nuclear arrangement in Europe. Moreover, in his speech to the Press Club the Chancellor of the Duchy spoke about the third item on the agenda being the creation of a deeper identity in the Market…a common Community viewpoint in our external relations. Part of that, no doubt, is the further development of policies on defence.

It has always been the view of the majority of the House of Commons that the development of defence policy should not necessarily go hand in hand with the development of the exact contours of this Community in Western Europe. Hon. Members hold various views about this. I cannot claim to be the strongest advocate of the American alliance in the form that some hon. Members see it, but I recognise the strength of their argument in some respects. But if one develops this new nuclear Power in Europe one will alter the whole balance between the existing nuclear Powers. Those who say that the nuclear umbrella has maintained peace in Europe since 1945—I do not share their view—should recognise that the balance of the umbrella will be upset by these provisions, resulting in more separate fingers being placed on the nuclear trigger.

Some of us think that that is dangerous, for nuclear weapons have a specific quality all their own. They can, in a sense, be wielded only by dictatorial action. They provide powers of dictatorship to those who wield them. We must therefore be careful when taking action which will spread those dictatorial powers, and if we decide to have such a nuclear defence policy in Europe, it must be debated by a means superior to a single affirmative Resolution. Certainly it must not be done in the way that the Government propose.

We say that defence should be excluded from the procedures laid down in Clause 1. If the Government wish to incorporate into the Bill some other way which will allow defence policy to be discussed by Parliament, let them do that and we will examine their suggestion, as long as it is not done by reference to the ad hoc committee.

Mr. W. Baxter

Is it not a fact that under the Treaty of Rome this Parliament and the Cabinet will be completely committed to the line of action which the representative of the Government takes in our name?

Mr. Foot

It is true that the Treaty of Rome governs, or influences, the objective of securing an economic union in Europe, but it does not say anything about military matters. The development of a political authority will influence military matters, but the Treaty of Rome does not say anything about a military union. That is one reason why defence matters should be excluded from the Bill unless they are specifically dealt with in a way that will enable the House to examine them in detail.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Some of my hon. Friends may not agree with this aspect of my views, but I none the less express them. I have never hesitated on that account before. The way in which the debate is developing, and the way in which the House is being pressed into accepting developments which were never contemplated before, leads us to emphasise these matters. On defence, on economic union and on other questions, because we are in the process of creating these common institutions we are seeking to say that we must make our interests coincide. Our interests often do not coincide. The two sides of the House have different views about foreign policy.

I do not want to see an identity of foreign policy developed between this country and, say, France on questions of attitudes to Africa, or to the developing world, or to the Middle East, unless that country's policies are altered. I fear that if we create an identity of viewpoint on external relations we shall surrender many of the attitudes that the British Government ought to be taking to foreign policy, and we shall surrender those ideas of our interests in order to help establish this institution.

It would be much wiser for the British Government—indeed, for any Government—to discover what are their common interests with other countries and then develop institutions which suit those common interests. The chief illustration is the common agricultural policy. Hardly anybody argues that that policy suits our interests but, in order to adopt the institution, we have to abandon our interests and adapt ourselves to the institution.

The same thing now applies to Parliament on a much bigger scale. Previously nobody has ever suggested that a Bill of this nature would be brought to the House to restrict the rights of Parliament for its own sake. Not even the Solicitor-General has said that the affirmative Resolution procedure which he has devised should be extended generally. He would not have suggested that at all if he could have helped it. Here again, in the case of Parliament, we are abandoning our interests in many respects. In order to adapt ourselves to this other institution we are abandoning the right to maintain the supremacy of Parliament, and the same thing applies to foreign policy and defence, particularly if what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has forecast proves to be true.

For 20 years both Front Benches have agreed that it is better to develop defence policy in Europe irrespective of the Common Market organisation, but now the interests of maintaining the defence organisation in the way that it has been built up are being abandoned by people who think that that is the best thing to do in order to adapt ourselves to the institutions. One can think of example after example.

In order to establish the institution we are shedding one advantage after another. In order to adapt ourselves to the institution we are abandoning one control after another over our economic affairs, over our foreign policy, over defence policy, over nuclear policy—over one matter after another.

Mr. Adley

May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the question about nuclear policy and the House of Commons? As I was at school at the time, perhaps he can remind the Committee of the legislation brought before the House of Commons by Mr. Attlee when, as Prime Minister, he first introduced the nuclear policy?

Mr. Foot

I gladly give the hon. Gentleman my answer. It was quite scandalous that the decision of the British Government of the day, supported, I suspect, by the Opposition of the day—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh. There are such things as discussions. Some of the developments of atomic policy were agreed to by the party opposite without consulting Parliament. But there is no concealing my view; that merely supports what I am saying otherwise. I believe in the paramount control of Parliament. Therefore, when, in 1948 or 1949, a Labour Government decided to proceed with the manufacture of the atomic weapon without presenting the question to Parliament it was a quite wrong course for them to take. Just as I protested as soon as I discovered the facts then, so I try to protest now, before we release this power. Whatever else I am inconsistent about, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) must not think that I am inconsistent about this.

All these questions should be subject to the control of the elected representatives of the people. That is what I argue for. The hon. Gentleman must not think that I am merely fabricating this case to inconvenience the Government, or anything of that sort. These questions are much too important for anything of that sort.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher

May I underline to my hon. Friend, to emphasise his point, that by the very nature of the Bill we are doing something which none of the Parliaments of the Six would ever permit? The most obvious example that I recall is the way in which the Volunteers Bill was passed through the German Parliament in order to enable the creation of the Bundeswehr. The Bill had only 69 words of its original draft left when it came out of committee and was four times longer than when it went in. They wanted to emphasise the parliamentary control of the armed forces. They did better for themselves than we are doing for ourselves with this damned Bill.

Mr. Foot

My hon. Friend's second speech was even more effective than his first. I am grateful to him for that comment.

These are not secondary matters in any sense. We seek to provide the protections in this case. The Government's answer is that we do not have to worry because there is no possibility of the hazards that we describe ever coming about; we need not have the slightest fear. They say that they would not deal with great matters such as the establishment of a treaty dealing with economic and monetary union without the fullest possibility of Parliament's being able to have its say.

On the defence question, whether or not conscription and other matters are involved, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we need not worry. He talks about meaningful debate and normal procedures, and says that we can have all the guarantees and assurances that we want. If that is so there is not the slightest reason why he should not accept the Amendments. If he accepted them, what would he have done? In certain cases he would have ensured—not absolutely; but there would be a much greater likelihood—that he would have to bring matters before Parliament and pursue them by Acts of Parliament, by legislation. At any rate he would have deprived himself of the opportunities of doing it under the Bill, under this precise procedure. He could just say "Yes".

I conclude by expressing a difference of view on some of these matters with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. When the right hon. Gentleman reaches the conclusion of his speech he always departs from the pattern that he laid down earlier. He turns to the Solicitor-General and pays a great tribute to the hon. and learned Gentleman's acumen, integrity and brilliance, and then he says that the Solicitor-General has to deal with an awkward problem because the Bill is obscure. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman is faced with an obscurity in the Bill he attributes it to the hon. and learned Gentleman's incapacity to say what he means. Whenever he is confronted with omissions in the Bill he attributes them to the hon. and learned Gentleman's diffidence and bashfulness, and whenever he is confronted with obstacles in the Bill which he thinks are so great that they will impede the whole working of Parliament he thinks that they are matters which have been carelessly inserted by one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's subordinates when he was not looking. That demonstrates the natural generosity of mind of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

I took that view a few weeks ago, but I have become more suspicious. I know that it is almost an unparliamentary expression, and is almost something that should not be allowed to be said, but I believe that the Government mean what they say in the Bill. If you care to name me, Sir Robert, for having said that I will have to take the consequences. If the hon. and learned Gentleman means what he says in the Bill the obscurities are intentional. The omissions have been made on purpose, in order to deprive future Parliaments of their rights, and the obstacles have been placed there in order to prevent future parliaments doing what past Parliaments have been able to do.

The House must decide who is right—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West or myself—in our estimates of the character of the author of the Bill. There is only one way in which the Government can prove that the right hon. Gentleman is right and that is to accept the Amendments.

The Chairman

Before I put the Question, it may help the Committee if I explain the slightly complicated procedure that we must follow. I understand that the Committee does not want to divide on Amendment No. 148 but would like to divide on Amendments Nos. 149 and 187. But I must put Amendment 148. The proper procedure will be for the Government to negative it and the Opposition to say nothing.

We will then come to the other two Amendments, upon which there can be Divisions. When that is concluded we will have reached Amendment No. 31, which has been debated and on which I promised I would call a Division.

Mr. Foot

That means that there will be three votes on Amendments Nos. 31, 149 and 187? These are the three most important Amendments.

The Chairman

Yes, but not in that order.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 149, in page 2, line 22, after 'agreement', insert 'other than one relating to defence'.—[Mr. Michael Foot.] Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 170.

Division No. 96.]	AYES	[11.45 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Maclennan, Robert
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McNamara, J. Kevin
Armstrong, Ernest	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Marten, Neil
Atkinson, Norman	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Foot, Michael	Meacher, Michael
Baxter, William	Garrett, W. E.	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Gilbert, Dr. John	Mendelson, John
Biffen, John	Golding, John	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Bishop, E. S.	Gourlay, Harry	Milne, Edward
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Body, Richard	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Booth, Albert	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Hamling, William	Murray, Ronald King
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	O'Malley, Brian
Buchan, Norman	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Orme, Stanley
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Huckfield, Leslie	Oswald, Thomas
Campbell, (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Carmichael, Neil	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pavitt, Laurie
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Hunter, Adam	Pendry, Tom
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pentland, Norman
Concannon, J. D.	Janner, Greville	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Conlan, Bernard	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Prescott, John
Crawshaw, Richard	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Rees, Meriyn (Leeds, S.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	John, Brynmor	Roper, John
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Rose, Paul B.
Davidson, Arthur	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Sandelson, Neville
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Judd, Frank	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Kaufman, Gerald	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Deakins, Eric	Kelley, Richard	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Delargy, H. J.	Kerr, Russell	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Kinnock, Neil	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dempsey, James	Lamond, James	Skinner, Dennis
Doig, Peter	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Dormand, J. D.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spearing, Nigel
Duffy, A. E. P.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Spriggs, Leslie
Dunnett, Jack	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Eadie, Alex	McBride, Neil	Strang, Gavin
English, Michael	McCartney, Hugh	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Evans, Fred	McElhone, Frank	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Ewing, Harry	Mackenzie, Gregor	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Fell, Anthony	Mackie, John	Tomney, Frank
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin	Watkins, David	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Urwin, T. W.	Wellbeloved, James	Woof, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek	Whitehead, Phillip	Mr. Donald Coleman and
Wallace, George	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)	Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Allason, James (Kemel Hempstead)	Haselhurst, Alan	Pardoe, John
Astor, John	Hastings, Stephen	Parkinson, Cecil
Atkins, Humphrey	Havers, Michael	Percival, Ian
Balniel, Lord	Hawkins, Paul	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Pink, R. Bonner
Benyon, W.	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Pounder, Rafton
Biggs-Davison, John	Holt, Miss Mary	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Blaker, Peter	Hordern, Peter	Redmond, Robert
Boscawen, Robert	Hornby, Richard	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bowden, Andrew	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Howell, David (Guildford)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bryan, Paul	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)	James, David	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Carlisle, Mark	Jessel, Toby	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Churchill, W. S.	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Jopling, Michael	Rost, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Russell, Sir Ronald
Clegg, Walter	Kershaw, Anthony	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cockeram, Eric	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Cooke, Robert	Kinsey, J. R.	Scott, Nicholas
Cooper, A. E.	Kirk, Peter	Sharples, Richard
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Cormack, Patrick	Knox, David	Skeet, T. H. H.
Costain, A. P.	Lane, David	Soref, Harold
Critchley, Julian	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Speed, Keith
Crouch, David	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Spence, John
Crowder, F. P.	Le Merchant, Spencer	Sproat, Iain
Curran, Charles	Longden, Sir Gilbert	Stanbrook, Ivor
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James	Loveridge, John	Steel, David
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	MacArthur, Ian	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Dykes, Hugh	McCrindle, R. A.	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	McLaren, Martin	Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Eyre, Reginald	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Tebbit, Norman
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Maddan, Martin	Temple, John M.
Fidler, Michael	Madel, David	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Mather, Carol	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mawby, Ray	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Fortescue, Tim	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Tilney, John
Fox, Marcus	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Ward, Dame Irene
Goodhart, Philip	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Warren, Kenneth
Gorst, John	Montgomery, Fergus	Weatherill, Bernard
Gower, Raymond	More, Jasper	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Wiggin, Jerry
Green, Alan	Morrison, Charles	Wilkinson, John
Grieve, Percy	Murton, Oscar	Woodnutt, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Neave, Airey	Worsley, Marcus
Grylls, Michael	Normanton, Tom	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Gummer, Selwyn	Nott, John
Gurden, Harold	Onslow, Cranley	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Mr. Hamish Gray

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 187, in page 2, line 22, after 'agreement', insert: 'other than one relating to economic or monetary union or defence'.—[Sir D. Walker-Smith.]

Question put, That that Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 168.

Division No. 97.]	AYES	[11.55 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Atkinson, Norman	Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regls)	Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Biffen, John
Armstrong, Ernest	Baxter, William	Bishop, E. S.
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Oswald, Thomas
Body, Richard	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Booth, Albert	Huckfield, Leslie	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Pavitt, Laurie
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pendry, Tom
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Pentland, Norman
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hunter, Adam	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Carmichael, Neil	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Prescott, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Janner, Greville	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roper, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Rose, Paul B.
Concannon, J. D.	John, Brynmor	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Conlan, Bernard	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Sandelson, Neville
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dalyell, Tam	Judd, Frank	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Davidson, Arthur	Kaufman, Gerald	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Kelley, Richard	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Kerr, Russell	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Kinnock, Neil	Skinner, Dennis
Deakins, Eric	Lamond, James	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Delargy, H. J.	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Spearing, Nigel
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Dempsey, James	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Doig, Peter	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Strang, Gavin
Dormand, J. D	McBride, Neil	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Duffy, A. E. P.	McCartney, Hugh	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Dunnett, Jack	McElhone, Frank	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Eadie, Alex	Mackenzie, Gregor	Tomney, Frank
English, Michael	Mackie, John	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
		Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Fred	Maclennan, Robert	Wainwright, Edwin
Ewing, Harry	McNamara, J. Kevin	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Fell, Anthony	Marten, Neil	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Wallace, George
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Meacher, Michael	Watkins, David
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mendelson, John	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Foot, Michael	Miller, Dr. M. S.	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Garrett, W. E.	Milne, Edward	Whitehead, Phillip
Gilbert, Dr. John	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Golding, John	Moate, Roger	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Gourlay, Harry	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Woof, Robert
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Murray, Ronald King	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	O'Malley, Brian	Mr. Donald Coleman and
Hamling, William	Orme, Stanley	Mr. Joseph Harper.
NOES
Adley, Robert	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James	Hawkins, Paul
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Dykes, Hugh	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Astor, John	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Holt, Miss Mary
Atkins, Humphrey	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hordern, Peter
Balniel, Lord	Eyre, Reginald	Hornby, Richard
Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Benyon, W.	Fidler, Michael	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Biggs-Davison, John	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Howell, David (Guildford)
Blaker, Peter	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Boscawen, Robert	Fortescue, Tim	James David
Bowden, Andrew	Fox, Marcus	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Braine, Bernard	Gibson-Watt, David	Jessel, Toby
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Bryan, Paul	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Goodhart, Philip	Jopling, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Gorst, John	Kershaw, Anthony
Carlisle, Mark	Gower, Raymond	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Churchill, W. S.	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Kinsey, J. R.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Green, Alan	Kirk, Peter
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Grieve, Percy	Knight, Mrs. Jill
Clegg, Walter	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Knox, David
Cockeram, Eric	Grylls, Michael	Lane, David
Cooke, Robert	Gummer, Selwyn	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Cooper, A. E.	Gurden, Harold	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Le Marchant, Spencer
Cormack, Patrick	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Longden, Gilbert
Costain, A. P.	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Loveridge, John
Critchley, Julian	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	MacArthur, Ian
Crouch, David	Haselhurst, Alan	McCrindle, R. A.
Crowder, F. P.	Hastings, Stephen	McLaren, Martin
Curran, Charles	Havers, Michael	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

McNair-Wilson, Michael	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Stanbrook, Ivor
Maddan, Martin	Pink, R. Bonner	Steel, David
Madel, David	Pounder, Rafton	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Mather, Carol	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mawby, Ray	Redmond, Robert	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Tebbit, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Rees, Peter (Dover)	Temple, John M.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Monks, Mrs. Connie	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Goronwy	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Montgomery, Fergus	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Tilney, John
More, Jasper	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Morrison, Charles	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Ward, Dame Irene
Murton, Oscar	Rost, Peter	Warren, Kenneth
Neave, Airey	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Weatherill, Bernard
Normanton, Tom	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Nott, John	Scott, Nicholas	Wiggin, Jerry
Onslow, Cranley	Sharples, Richard	Wilkinson, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Woodnutt, Mark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Skeet, T. H. H.	Worsley, Marcus
Page, Graham (Crosby)	Soref, Harold	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Speed, Keith
Pardoe, John	Spence, John	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Parkinson, Cecil	Sproat, Iain	Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Percival, Ian	Stainton, Keith	Mr. Hamish Gray.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 31, in page 2, line 23, at end add 'including declarations and exchanges of letters'.—[Mr. Shore.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 149. Noes, 167.

Division No. 98.]	AYES	[12.5 a.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	McNamara, J. Kevin
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Marten, Neil
Armstrong, Ernest	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Atkinson, Norman	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Meacher, Michael
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)	Foot, Michael	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Baxter, William	Garrett, W. E.	Mendelson, John
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Gilbert, Dr. John	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Biffen, John	Golding, John	Milne, Edward
Bishop, E. S.	Gourlay, Harry	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Body, Richard	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Booth, Albert	Hamling, William	Murray, Ronald King
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	O'Malley, Brian
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Orme, Stanley
Buchan, Norman	Huckfield, Leslie	Oswald, Thomas
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Carmichael, Neil	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pavitt, Laurie
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Freo
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Hunter, Adam	Pendry, Tom
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pentland, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Janner, Greville	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Concannon, J. D.	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Prescott, John
Conlan, Bernard	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jenkins, Rt. H. Roy (Stechford)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	John, Brynmor	Roper, John
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Rose, Paul B
Davidson, Arthur	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Judd, Frank	Russell, Sir Ronald
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Kaufman, Gerald	Sandelson, Neville
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Kelley, Richard	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Deakins, Eric	Kerr, Russell	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Delargy, H. J.	Kinnock, Neil	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lamond, James	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dempsey, James	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Doig, Peter	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Skinner, Dennis
Dormond, J. D.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Spearing, Nigel
Dunnett, Jack	McBride, Neil	Spriggs, Leslie
Eadie, Alex	McCartney, Hugh	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
English, Michael	McElhone, Frank	Strang, Gavin
Evans, Fred	Mackenzie, Gregor	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Ewing, Harry	Mackie, John	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Fell, Anthony	Maclennan, Robert	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Tomney, Frank	Watkins, David	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Turton, Fit. Hn. Sir Robin	Wellbeloved, James	Woof, Robert
Urwin, T. W.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)	Whitehead, Phillip	Mr. Donald Coleman and
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)	Mr. Joseph Harper.
Wallace, George
NOES
Adley, Robert	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Haselhurst, Alan	Pardoe, John
Astor, John	Hastings, Stephen	Parkinson, Cecil
Atkins, Humphrey	Havers, Michael	Percival, Ian
Balniel, Lord	Hawkins, Paul	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Pink, R. Bonner
Benyon, W.	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Pounder, Rafton
Biggs-Davison, John	Holt, Miss Mary	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Blaker, Peter	Hordern, Peter	Redmond, Robert
Boscawen, Robert	Hornby, Richard	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bowden, Andrew	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Braine, Bernard	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Howell, David (Guildford)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bryan, Paul	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	James, David	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Carlisle, Mark	Jessel, Toby	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Churchill, W. S.	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Jopling, Michael	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifte)	Kershaw, Anthony	Rost, Peter
Cockeram, Eric	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cooke, Robert	Kinsey, J. R.	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Cooper, A. E.	Kirk, Peter	Scott, Nicholas
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Sharples, Richard
Cormack, Patrick	Knox, David	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Costain, A. P.	Lane, David	Skeet, T. H. H.
Critchley, Julian	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Soref, Harold
Crouch, David	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Spence, John
Crowder, F. P.	Le Merchant, Spencer	Sproat, Iain
Curran, Charles	Longden, Gilbert	Stainton, Keith
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James	Loveridge, John	Stanbrook, Ivor
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	MacArthur, Ian	Steel, David
Dykes, Hugh	McCrindle, R. A.	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	McLaren, Martin	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Eyre, Reginald	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Tebbit, Norman
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Maddan, Martin	Temple, John M.
Fidler, Michael	Madel, David	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Mather, Carol	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mawby, Ray	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Fortescue, Tim	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Tilney, John
Fox, Marcus	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Ward, Dame Irene
Goodhart, Philip	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Warren, Kenneth
Goodhew, Victor	Montgomery, Fergus	Weatherill, Bernard
Gorst, John	More, Jasper	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Wiggin, Jerry
Gray, Hamish	Morrison, Charles	Wilkinson, John
Green, Alan	Murton, Oscar	Woodnutt, Mark
Grieve, Percy	Neave, Airey	Worsley, Marcus
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Normanton, Tom	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Grylls, Michael	Nott, John
Gummer, Selwyn	Onslow, Cranley	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gurden, Harold	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Mr. Keith Speed and
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Mr. Walter Clegg
Hall, John (Wycombe)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelly)

I beg to move Amendment No. 150, in line 23, at end add: Provided that the text of any such international agreement, protocol or annex shall have been published.

The Chairman

With this Amendment, it will be convenient for the Committee to take Amendment No. 179, in line 23, at end add: 'other than one which limits by quota imports from developing countries', Amendment No. 180, in line 23, at end add: 'other than one relating to the establishment of an economic and monetary union and a common currency' and Amendment No. 198, in line 23, at end add: 'the English text of which has been laid before each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Davies

I propose to deal only with Amendment No. 150, and I leave it to my hon. Friends to deal with the other Amendments which are to be taken with it.

The object of Amendment No. 150 is to provide that the international agreements, protocols and annexes set out in subsection (4) are published by the Government in an official, formal manner so that the provisions of the agreements can be known and can easily be accessible to those who have to obey them and to various advisers.

It will be noted that the Amendment does not include treaties which are naturally so called, but is confined to the extension of the meaning of treaties, that is to say, to international agreements and so on. On reflection, having heard the discussions on previous Amendments I feel that we should also have included in the Amendment the word "treaties". Should the Government accept the Amendment, I hope they will consider it logical to publish not only international agreements, protocols or annexes, but also treaties.

There are three reasons why we believe these agreements should be published in a formal and official manner. In the first place, it is recognised in this Committee that we are not dealing with a normal kind of treaty made between the United Kingdom and a foreign State. The meaning of the word "treaty" has been extended and now covers a much wider and much vaguer classification of international agreements.

12.15 a.m.

I was unable to be present when the Solicitor-General dealt with these matters earlier, since I was in a Standing Committee upstairs. But I heard his concluding remarks, in which he advanced the argument that an international agreement is an international agreement is an international agreement. I do not criticise the hon. and learned Gentleman for that, because the phrase is very vague. It is vague if one looks at the authorities on international law, and I am sorry that the draftsman has chosen to incorporate such a vague phrase which is capable of so many interpretations. If, for example, the British Government were to agree with the French Government on the purchase of arms, presumably that would be an international agreement. However, it would not in most people's language be a treaty.

If we look at the Vienna Convention on Treaties which this country signed and ratified on 20th April, 1970, we see that a treaty is defined as "an international agreement". In the Bill, the draftsman has stated his position clearly. For him, a treaty is not an international agreement except by the extension that he has made to it.

We seek publication first because of the vagueness of the phrase "international agreement", and I put forward the proposition that an international agreement can be either a written or an oral agreement. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that an oral agreement should not be an international agreement. Again if we look at the authorities on international law, especially at McNair on the Law of Treaties, the point is made on page 7 that normally one would not consider an oral agreement to be a treaty. He says that there is a considerable body of law to this effect, and he goes on to say that there is no reason why an international agreement, which is a wider classification than "treaty", should not in theory be conducted and concluded orally.

By extending the meaning of treaties to include international agreements, the draftsman has opened up the possibility that an oral agreement could be stated to be an international agreement. For that reason also we think it safer and more prudent to call upon the Executive to publish all these agreements in a clear and official form.

Another form of international declaration which could be an international agreement according to the authorities is a unilateral declaration made in favour of another State which is then acted upon by another State. Normally this would not be considered to be an agreement. But the authorities, especially Article 102 of the United Nations Charter, make it clear that unilateral declarations of this kind can also be designated as international agreements. For this reason, because of the vagueness of the phrase, and because so many different forms of agreements and declarations could be encompassed in the phrase "international agreement", we feel that it is safer to publish them so that people can understand what they mean.

An even more compelling reason why we seek publication is that the agreements and treaties that we are considering are not merely treaties normally entered into by the Crown in its prerogative capacity. They are not treaties to which the Crown is able to accede and that is the end of the matter. These treaties create law in this country. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has coined the phrase "prerogative legislation". One could call it treaty legislation. But these treaties are different from the normal run of treaties because a large proportion of them affect the rights and obligations of British citizenship. For that reason it is necessary that citizens and their advisers should be able to see these treaties without any difficulty.

The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), in a previous debate, sought to argue that there was no limitation on sovereignty involved in acceding to the Treaty of Rome. He used the phrase "delegation of power" of this Parliament to the Commission. I do not necessarily agree with that description, but I will use it for this purpose. If this is a delegation of power, we can argue, without stretching the point too far, that we are dealing with some special kind of delegated legislation. If we are giving the Commission power to legislate, that legislation, on the analogy of "delegation"—which I do not accept fully—means that we are looking at a kind of delegated legislation. I submit that this delegated legislation should be published officially so that the citizen can find out what his rights are. I will return to that point.

I now turn to the Bill, which I suggest is very weak. Not only is it weak on parliamentary scrutiny, but it is weak on the immensely important subject of the publication of this vast body of law in this country.

Looking at the only Clause which could deal with the matter, Clause 1(3), we find that, whatever else it does, it may provide for publicity by way of debate on affirmative Resolutions, but it does not provide for the kind of publication which we would normally expect in relation to delegated legislation of a more minor character than the legislation which will emanate from the Commission.

Taking the second part of Clause 1(3) first, I suppose that the Government could argue that that provides some opportunity for the citizen to read and understand what is going on. However, I suggest that the debate on an affirmative Resolution is not sufficient to inform the citizen about the treaties and what obligations and rights he has, because the debate merely deals with general matters.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

My hon. Friend has several times referred to international agreements. Do I take it that he is dealing with the pile of 2,500 rules, regulations, orders and edicts which we have already seen? Does he classify those as agreements? If so, is he aware that it took us over 12 months to get them? Surely we should have some time limit, because if it took us 12 months to get them there will be no point in getting them published.

Mr. Davies

I should not seek to classify all those instruments as international agreements, because many are directives and regulations which come directly from Brussels. However, a large proportion are international agreements in the sense that they are entered into between the Communities and third party States or member States.

The point which I am making is that there is such a proliferation that a lawyer, businessman or individual citizen should be able to go to particular volumes, like he does with Statutes and Statutory Instruments, to see what the Community law is on these matters.

Clause 1(3) does not provide the kind of publication which we require. All it says is that the Crown shall specify by Order in Council. I understand that "specify" means to name the particular treaty or international obligation. It merely states that an obligation or an agreement entered into on a particular date shall be a Community treaty for the purposes of the Bill. It does not, in the ordinary use of language, mean that the text of the agreement or of the treaty would be set out in that Order in Council.

The second part of Clause 1(3) deals only with United Kingdom agreements. We know that there are agreements entered into by the Comission with third party countries to which the United Kingdom is not a party. Therefore, the second part of Clause 1(3), although it provides for some publicity, is limited, first, because it specifies only the name of the treaty, and, secondly, because even then it deals only with treaties to which the United Kingdom was a party.

The first part of Clause 1(3) provides even less in the way of publicity or scrutiny machinery. It is meaningless, referring only to the situation "if" a treaty is designated by Order in Council. But these treaties are self-executing. Once the Commission issues them, they become part of our law, and the Order in Council procedure is not necessary.

The Bill provides few safeguards. Clause 3 refers to the Official Journal of the Communities. I am not sure what it is, but it must deal with a vast range of matters affecting this country and others. It is asking a lot of the citizen and his adviser to wade through that journal to find out his rights and obligations.

Apart from the Bill, we are left with the existing procedures, and there is no formal publication of treaties in this country. There is the treaty series, but it has no official recognition. Again, the Ponsonby Rules are not designed to provide a comprehensive guide to this sort of legislation. Because these treaties are delegated legislation, the Government should consider the Statutory Instruments Act, which provides for the publication of Statutory Instruments.

The Amendment is not moved out of hostility to the E.E.C. If we do join, we must try to make the thing work, because otherwise the frustrations would be enormous The Amendment tries to remove one source of frustration and enable this vast body of law to be clearly seen by the citizen.

Mr. Body

The argument of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) seems persuasive. We are bound by the Vienna Convention as it relates to treaties, and it regards a treaty as a treaty only if it is in writing. Yet, by the definition of "a treaty" which the Bill seeks to establish, oral international agreements will be treated as treaties. This is clear from our discussions.

It is painfully clear that such agreements may give rise to endless misunderstandings, and it therefore seems sensible that the Amendment should be accepted, for it would require any oral international agreement to be published, and only then, having been reduced to writing, could it come within the scope of Clause 1.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of Press reports to the effect that when our motor insurance rates are harmonised with those of the Six the cheapest policy for the smallest car will be about £100 and that millions of motorists in Britain will have their policies doubled, trebled and even quadrupled, whether or not they wish to drive on the Continent? Once this information becomes more widely known, there will be one hell of a scream from our motorists.

Mr. Body

Many people outside the House will be thankful to the hon. Gentleman for publicising that point. I understand that that is not yet a regulation but a draft directive. Obviously, our insurance rates will have to be harmonised—[Hon. Members: "Why?"]—and will cost more. I could spend all night examining the various aspects of harmonisation, but I gather that the usual channels have arranged for this to be a short debate.

Suffice to say that the fear of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is well founded. As the point he raised and others become better known, public opinion will harden still more against the Bill and the venture that is being sought by a minority in this country and by almost a minority in the House of Commons.

I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to accept that a point of substance resides in what has been said about international agreements. We should know exactly the extent to which we shall be bound by any such agreement, and the only way to ensure that is to have all agreements published, which is what the Amendment seeks to have done. For this reason it should be accepted.

Mr. Jay

I assume that the Government will accept Amendment No. 150, because I can hardly believe that, in addition to all the other absurdities and enormities of the Bill, they are proposing to make legal, with nothing more than an affirmative Order, treaties which have not been published for the benefit of the House and the country.

Therefore, since that seems to be self-evident, and since the hour is fairly late, I shall briefly say something about Amendments Nos. 179 and 180, which we are taking with Amendment No. 150. It is a pity that two subjects of such great importance have to be discussed in quite such a cramped and confined manner, and therefore I assume that we shall have to return to these vital subjects in later debates.

By Amendment No. 179 we seek to exclude from treaties affected by the Bill treaties which, by quota, would limit imports from developing countries. Anyone who believes that we have an obligation to the developing countries, and particularly to the developing Commonwealth countries, will, I am sure, regret that the much more illiberal import policies of the E.E.C. are to be inflicted upon this country.

There is no doubt that in this matter of import quotas the E.E.C. practices are far more restrictionist and illiberal than our own. At this hour of the night I shall give only two examples of that. The first, and most obvious, is textile manufactures. This country imports about 40 per cent.—if not 50 per cent.—of its textile manufactures, and very largely from the Commonwealth Asian countries. The E.E.C. imports rather less than 10 per cent.—in the case of France not more than 5 per cent.—of its textile consumption. It would strike a grievous blow at countries such as India, Pakistan, Hong Kong and Malaysia, particularly in Asia, if we were to adopt the extremely restrictionist policies of the E.E.C. in this respect.

The other example is the programme of generalised preferences which, after more than six years of debate in U.N.C.T.A.D. and elsewhere, have finally been adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom and the E.E.C. countries. The tragic fact here is that the generalised preference scheme which the United Kingdom has adopted would also be far more liberal than the programme which the E.E.C. is proposing. The E.E.C. system of generalised preferences looks very nice on the surface—like quite a number of E.E.C. practices—but when one inquires into them more thoroughly one discovers that the tariff reductions made in the interests of the developing countries apply only up to a certain quota limit, which is usually not much higher than the level of imports which the E.E.C. countries have been talking.

If we were to adopt the E.E.C. generalised preference scheme—and we have not so far been told that we are not to do so—it would be another grievous blow to the developing countries. Not merely would it be a blow to them, but it would be a curious irony that the Prime Minister, who always boasts of having launched the generalised preference scheme at Geneva in 1963, should now be the agent who is practically nullifying its effects.

Mr. Deakins

Is not the position worse than that about the E.E.C. attitude to the generalised preference scheme; namely, that the quotas which it has fixed under the generalised preference scheme have a base year of 1968, with a 5 per cent. increase a year thereafter, and yet since 1968 imports from the developing countries have been going up at the rate of 15 per cent. a year? Therefore, progressively under the E.E.C. quota scheme the developing countries will be worse off year by year, and we shall be bound by this system.

Mr. Jay

I believe that my hon. Friend's details are correct. He has put in rather longer detail the brief summary I gave when I said that owing to the choice of the base year these quotas would have an extremely restrictionist effect.

The main consequence for the developing countries of Britain entering the E.E.C. on the terms now proposed would be even more serious than that. The dominant effect is seldom mentioned in our discussions. The dominant effect would be that if we incur as a result of the whole range of consequences, which I shall not detail tonight, the enormous extra balance of payments deficit which we all know that entering the E.E.C. is bound to inflict upon us, that will seriously curtail our ability to give aid to any developing countries, in the Commonwealth or outside it. If one takes the fact—the most important single fact—of the effect I have described in the case of textiles and generalised preferences, there is no doubt that if some safeguard such as these Amendments is not adopted the effect on developing countries could be very serious indeed.

The second Amendment, Amendment No. 180, returns to the subject of monetary and currency union, which has already been touched on, somewhat illogically, perhaps, in an earlier debate this evening. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has quite rightly pointed out that it is impossible to have monetary and currency union without political unification over a very large range of vital policy. But what has not been said today and what should now be said, however briefly, is that a policy of monetary union with the other countries of Western Europe is really a policy of economic lunacy for this country. It is flying in the face of all the economic experience of the last 15 years. If there is one lesson that we should have learned over the last 20 years it is that we can have growth and full employment without balance-of-payments crises only if we have a more flexible exchange rate policy. I shall not tonight explain—though I should love to do so—just what that more flexible exchange rate policy should be, but there is no serious question in the mind of anyone who has studied and understands this problem that it must be more flexible than the policies we have followed in the past.

But the E.E.C., so far from learning all these lessons, is now moving in exactly the opposite direction. Only this week the E.E.C., which failed to agree on any extension of its so-called regional development funds, agreed with alacrity on a further narrowing of the exchange rate limits permitted between E.E.C. currencies. Therefore, if no safeguard of this kind is introduced, what we are facing, on top of all the political, constitutional damage that we have been discussing, is a policy which would, first, inflict an immense balance of payments burden on this country, and then prevent us moving our exchange rate as the only way out of that difficulty. That is the policy with which we are faced.

I have just come across a remarkable illustration of that. A book has been published entitled "The Economics of Europe", by which is meant the economics of the Common Market, thereby evidencing at once the illiteracy of some of the authors or at least the editor of the book. In the book, the one economist in this country who has advocated our entering the Common Market—though I believe he has said that he is doing it for political and not economic reasons—explains that he has to admit that our doing so now would inflict a huge balance of payment burden on this country; but he says that that does not matter very much because we should then be able to devalue. But we learned only this week from the E.E.C. that we shall not be allowed to devalue because the policy of fixed exchange rates is being introduced.

Most hon. Members can see where all this is leading. To put it briefly and bluntly, under the control of the ignorant, arrogant economic dogmatists and illiterates like the Prime Minister, who are marching like sleepwalkers along this path, we are being presented with a recipe for economic disaster and for the ultimate economic weakening of this country.

One of the agencies which will bring this damage most rapidly upon us is the new fashionable idea of monetary and currency union. I need say no more tonight, although a lot will be said later. I support the Amendments.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVING in the Chair]

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Rippon

Perhaps I should deal first with Amendment No. 150 moved by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies), which covers much the same ground as Amendment No. 198. In answer to his case, the pre-accession treaties have been published already. Future United Kingdom treaties will be published when affirmative Resolutions are sought under the Clause 1(3) Order in Council, and Parliament will have an opportunity to consider them. Any treaties concluded by the Community in its own right will be published in English in the Official Journal.

Earlier today my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General covered the question of what constitutes a treaty, and he also dealt with the provisions in the United Nations charter in Article 102 which requires publication of treaties. I suggest that the main object of both Amendments is, therefore, achieved and that the statutory provision is unnecessary, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendments will be withdrawn.

The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) spoke to two Amendments in very clear and concise terms and repeated his economic ideas which he thinks are shared by every other genuine economist in the country. Everyone understands the concern which is expressed about the effect of the enlargement of the Communities upon the trade with developing countries. We have debated this matter on numerous occasions and no doubt we shall debate it again. It is a wide subject, and we cannot cover it in a debate like this late at night.

In my experience the European Communities are as well aware as we are of the need to facilitate exports from the developing countries. This is the whole purpose of the arrangements that we have negotiated for the offer of association agreements of one sort or another and trading agreements. It is only fair to the Community to point out that it was the first to introduce the generalised preference scheme and we have followed. The developing countries themselves do not regard it as a blow. To take one example, Mauritius has hastened to take advantage of the Community's offer of association and has asked successfully for that process to be expedited so that it can join the present agreement. But the Community, like ourselves, exercises restraints under the G.A.T.T. long-term arrangements for cotton textiles. This is another matter which we have debated and about which we know the difficulties. So I do not think we could reasonably or realistically undertake in a Bill of this kind that all restrictions will be eliminated.

The right hon. Gentleman then turned to the question of economic and monetary union, which was dealt with also by his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on the last Amendment. There are a few illusions here which ought to be cleared out of the way. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked about developments which were never contemplated before. The right hon. Gentleman talked of economic and monetary union being recommended only by economic illiterates. I think it right that the Committee should recall some of the views which have been expressed over the years by representatives of both Governments, Labour and Conservative.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have noted that in an article in, Le Monde in September, 1967, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), then the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, said: On the financial front, an enlarged Community would be able to follow lines of action which…could at the end of the day lead, for example, to the creation of a common European currency in which all our currencies, including sterling, would be subsumed. We in the United Kingdom are certainly ready to bring our contribution to the closest possible European co-operation in these questions, which can only be for the good of all our peoples. That was the view of Labour's Chancellor of the Exchequer, given as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think, in fact, that he went a little further in that statement on the movement to a common currency than many people would believe immediately realistic.

But the goal has been accepted by a great many people. [Interruption.] It is the goal of the Leader of the Opposition. Quotation has been made of what I said in my speech to the Press Club last week about the goal of economic and monetary union being one which is shared by the United Kingdom Government. Not only is it shared by the Conservative Government; it was shared by the Labour Government. The Leader of the Opposition was quite specific about it. Speaking on the 1970 White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman, then Prime Minister, said: I was interested to see that in the recent talks in Brussels and since there is a very deep interest in Europe…in closer European co-operation in monetary matters. We have always made it clear that we are prepared to go along with the best of them on this question and shall be prepared to do so and to negotiate, if that is an issue in the negotiations, or afterwards if that is an issue afterwards."—[Official Report, 10th February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 1089.] Thus, we have all been perfectly clear about our pursuit of this goal. [Interruption.] I am answering the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that when we talk about economic and monetary union we are talking about developments which were never contemplated. In fact, they were contemplated. That is quite clear, although, of course, we can have our differences of opinion about what ought to be done.

One then has to examine how Parliament will consider what is suggested.

Mr. Jay

Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman can distinguish between co-operation in these matters, which might mean co-operation to introduce a flexible exchange rate system, and currency union.

Mr. Rippon

Of course. There are distinctions. I put at the far end of the scale the common currency, and the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East when he was the Labour Government's Chancellor of the Exchequer. I explained what the Leader of the Opposition said. The Prime Minister has been quoted on the matter. I have been quoted. There are now enough quotations on record to show that we all knew that developments were contemplated. Yet the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that he did not know of any developments being contemplated.

As I said, the United Kingdom looks forward to co-operating in the development of economic and monetary union as a member of the enlarged Community. But, here again, major constitutional developments in this field will almost certainly require a treaty which would have to come before Parliament. [Hon. Members: "Almost?".] It depends a great deal on the nature of the arrangement that is made. Under our present constitutional procedures there are certain matters which are required to be expressed in a treaty. There are other agreements, such as the agreement made on a short-term basis after the American proposals of 12th August, which have been debated by the House in the ordinary way and there has been no question of a treaty required. There is a great difference between arrangements made short term

and moving towards a common currency and a complete monetary union. That is why I say the distinction must be made between the major constitutional developments and ordinary international monetary agreements, which are being made all the time and are not coming before Parliament in the form of a treaty but are simply debated and discussed.

The common approach which has been referred to, which the Community finance Ministers reached last week, of course, remains subject to endorsement. Here again, under the interim arrangements which we have settled in the negotiations the Government are being consulted, but those discussions represent only a start. They do not, for example, imply a common currency reached straight away, nor the removal of the power of each country to adjust its exchange rate. Those concerned have been talking simply about margins of fluctuations. These are wide issues which we shall have to discuss in the House for many years, and in or out of the Community we already have procedures for discussing them. I hope the Amendments will not be accepted.

Mr. Michael Foot

We on this side regard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply as totally unsatisfactory. He has not dealt with the major issues raised in the debate. Although it has been a short debate, the issues raised are extremely important, and we must seek the further opportunities available for dealing with them. In the debate on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" we shall discuss many of these matters. That part of the discussion is bound to be imprecise in some respects, but we shall certainly seek to return to these maters in future debates.

I urge my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendments now to express our displeasure with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, but we intend to press all these matters again at every opportunity available to us under the Bill.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 149.

Division No. 99.]	AYES	[12.58 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Body, Richard
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Biffen, John	Booth, Albert
Armstrong, Ernest	Bishop, E. S.	Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Atkinson, Norman	Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Buchan, Norman
Butter, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Huckfield, Leslie	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Pavitt, Laurie
Carmichael, Neil	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pentland, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Prescott, John
Coleman, Donald	Hunter, Adam	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Concannon, J. D.	Janner, Greville	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br c'n&R' dnor)
Conlan, Bernard	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Roper, John
Crawshaw, Richard	John, Brynmor	Rose, Paul B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Sandelson, Neville
Dalyell, Tam	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Davidson, Arthur	Judd, Frank	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Kaufman, Gerald	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Kerr, Russell	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Kinnock, Neil	Skinner, Dennis
Deakins, Eric	Lamond, James	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Delargy, H. J.	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Spearing, Nigel
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Dempsey, James	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Doig, Peter	McCartney, Hugh	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dormand, J. D.	McElhone, Frank	Strang, Gavin
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mackenzie, Gregor	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Dunnett, Jack	Mackie, John	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Eadie, Alex	Maclennan, Robert	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
English, Michael	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Fred	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wainwright, Edwin
Ewing, Harry	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Meacher, Michael	Wallace, George
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Watkins, David
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mendelson, John	Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Foot, Michael	Milne, Edward	Whitehead, Phillip
Gilbert, Dr. John	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Golding, John	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Woof, Robert
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Murray, Ronald King	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hamling, William	O'Malley, Brian	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Orme, Stanley	Mr. Tom Pendry.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Oswald, Thomas
NOES
Adley, Robert	Gray, Hamish	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Green, Alan	Maddan, Martin
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Grieve, Percy	Madel, David
Atkins, Humphrey	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Mather, Carol
Benyon, W.	Grylis, Michael	Mawby, Ray
Biggs-Davison, John	Gummer, Selwyn	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Blaker, Peter	Gurden, Harold	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Boscawen, Robert	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Bowden, Andrew	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Braine, Bernard	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Monks, Mrs. Connie
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Montgomery, Fergus
Bryan, Paul	Haselhurst, Alan	More, Jasper
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus.N&M)	Hastings, Stephen	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Havers, Michael	Morrison, Charles
Carlisle, Mark	Hawkins, Paul	Murton, Oscar
Churchill, W. S.	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Neave, Airey
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Normanton, Tom
Clegg, Walter	Holt, Miss Mary	Nott, John
Cockeram, Eric	Hornby, Richard	Onslow, Cranley
Cooke, Robert	Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Cormack, Patrick	Howell, David (Guildford)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Costain, A. P.	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Critchley, Julian	James, David	Parkinson, Cecil
Crouch, David	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Percival, Ian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James	Jessel, Toby	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Jopling, Michael	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Kershaw, Anthony	Redmond, Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Kinsey, J. R.
Fidler, Michael	Kirk, Peter	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Knox, David	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Fortescue, Tim	Lane, David	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Fox, Marcus	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Gibson-Watt, David	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Le Marchant, Spencer	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Goodhart, Philip	Longden, Gilbert	Rost, Peter
Goodhew, Victor	Loveridge, John	Russell, Sir Ronald
Gorst, John	McCrindle, R. A.	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Scott, Nicholas	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Sharples, Richard	Tebbit, Norman	Wiggin, Jerry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Temple, John M.	Wilkinson, John
Skeet, T. H. H.	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)	Woodnutt, Mark
Soref, Harold	Tilney, John	Worsley, Marcus
Spence, John	Trafford, Dr. Anthony	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Sproat, Iain	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Stainton, Keith	Ward, Dame Irene	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Stanbrook, Ivor	Warren Kenneth	Mr. Keith Speed and
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)	Weatherill, Bernard	Mr. Reginald Eyre
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 180, in page 2, line 23, at end add: 'other than one relating to the establishment of an economic and monetary union and a common currency'.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

Division No. 100.]	AYES	[1.7 a.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Foot, Michael	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Gilbert, Dr. John	Murray, Ronald King
Armstrong, Ernest	Golding, John	O'Malley, Brian
Atkinson, Norman	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Orme, Stanley
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Oswald, Thomas
Biffen, John	Hamilng, William	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bishop, E. S.	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Pavitt, Laurie
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Body, Richard	Huckfield, Leslie	Pentland, Norman
Booth, Albert	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Prescott, John
Buchan, Norman	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hunter, Adam	Roper, John
Carmichael, Neil	Janner, Greville	Rose, Paul B.
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	John, Brynmor	Sandelson, Neville
Coleman, Donald	Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Concannon, J. D.	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Conlan, Bernard	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Crawshaw, Richard	Judd, Frank	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Kaufman, Gerald	Skinner, Dennis
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Kerr, Russell	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Dalyell, Tam	Kinnock, Neil	Spearing, Nigel
Davidson, Arthur	Lamond, James	Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Strang, Gavin
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Deakins, Eric	McCartney, Hugh	Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
Delargy, H. J.	McElhone, Frank	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Mackenzie, Gregor	Urwin, T. W.
Dempsey, James	Mackie, John	Wainwright, Edwin
Doig, Peter	Maclennan, Robert	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Dormand, J. D.	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Wallace, George
Duffy, A. E. P.	McNamara, J. Kevin	Watkins, David
Dunnett, Jack	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Wellbeloved, James
Eadie, Alex	Meacher, Michael	White, James (Glasgow, pollok)
English, Michael	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Whitehead, Phillip
Evans, Fred	Mendelson, John	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Ewing, Harry	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Woof, Robert
Fell, Anthony	Milne, Edward
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Moate, Roger	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Mr. Tom Pendry.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

NOES
Adley, Robert	Brinton, Sir Tatton	Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Bryan, Paul	Cormack, Patrick
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)	Costain, A. P.
Atkins, Humphrey	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Critchley, Julian
Benyon, W.	Carlisle, Mark	Crouch, David
Biggs-Davison, John	Churchill, W. S.	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Blaker, Peter	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Boscawen, Robert	Clegg, Walter	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bowden, Andrew	Cockeram, Eric	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Cooke, Robert	Eyre, Reginald

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 149.

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Kirk, Peter	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Fidler, Michael	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Knox, David	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Flelcher-Cooke, Charles	Lane, David	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Fortescue, Tim	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Fox, Marcus	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Gibson-Watt, David	Le Marchant, Spencer	Rost, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Longden, Sir Gilbert	Russell, Sir Ronald
Goodhart, Philip	Loveridge, John	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Goodhew, Victor	McCrindle, R. A.	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Gorst, John	Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)	Scott, Nicholas
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Sharples, Richard
Gray, Hamish	Maddan, Martin	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Green, Alan	Madel, David	Skeet, T. H. H.
Grieve, Percy	Mather, Carol	Soref, Harold
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Mawby, Ray	Spence, John
Grylls, Michael	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Sproat, Iain
Gummer, Selwyn	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stainton, Keith
Gurden, Harold	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)		Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Montgomery, Fergus	Tebbit, Norman
Haselhurst, Alan	More, Jasper	Temple, John M.
Hastings, Stephen	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Havers, Michael	Morrison, Charles	Tilney, John
Hawkins, Paul	Murton, Oscar	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Neave, Airey	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Normanton, Tom	Ward, Dame Irene
Holt, Miss Mary	Nott, John	Warren, Kenneth
Hornby, Richard	Onslow, Cranley	Weatherill, Bernard
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Wiggin, Jerry
Howell, David (Guildford)	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Wilkinson, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Woodnutt, Mark
James, David	Parkinson, Cecil	Worsley, Marcus
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Percival, Ian	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Jessel, Toby	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Jopling, Michael	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Kershaw, Anthony	Redmond, Robert	Mr. Keith Speed and
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Kinsey, J. R.	Rees, Peter (Dover)

Question accordingly negatived.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

c725
1. ADJOURNMENT 13 words