EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

HC Deb 22 November 1972 vol 846 cc1459-80

11.48 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Davies)

I beg to move, That the European Communities (Designation) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

It will be for the convenience of the House to discuss also the three other Motions on the Order Paper: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Communities (European Schools) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1582), dated 23rd October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be annulled. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Communities (Enforcement of Community Judgments) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 1590), dated 23rd October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be annulled. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the European Communities (Loan Stock) (Stamp Duties) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972. No. 1589), dated 23rd October 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be annulled. I ask hon. Members to withdraw as quickly as possible, because delay will reduce the time available for discussion of the order.

Mr. Davies

The order is laid for affirmative resolution by the House, largely because the issues involved in it, the first of such orders, are of interest to the House and merit consideration by it. The order designates Ministers and Departments which are to have the power to make regulations for specified matters arising in connection with obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by the European treaties.

The need for subordinate legislation arises in two ways. First, the institutions of the Community—the Commission and, more normally, the Council—issue so-called directives which lay down objectives to be achieved by member States but do not definitely state by what means of legislation they will be achieved. This is left to the discretion of member States, and they act in accordance with their own framework of law.

The second manner in which these matters come up is that the treaties and legislative instruments issued by the Community institutions—in particular the so-called regulations—lay down rules which themselves are to operate as law in the member states. But these rules frequently need supplementation to make them wholly effective, or require incidental or consequential provisions in the national law for their satisfactory operation.

A simple illustration of the first type is a Community directive issued in 1969 on the classification of crystal glass. Subordinate legislation will be needed to introduce appropriate classification for crystal glass in this country. An illustration of the second type might be found in the 1972 regulation on the registration of hatcheries and other poultry establishments. To operate this regulation, subordinate legislation is needed to appoint Agricultural Departments as the official supervisory agencies for the enforcement of the regulation and to provide for the registration of hatcheries and breeding establishments above a certain minimum size. Although the regulation by itself creates law in this country, it could not, standing alone, be fully operative.

The House will remember that Section 2 of the European Communities Act enables provision to be made for the implementation of such Community obligations, or for dealing with matters arising out of or in relation to them, either by Her Majesty acting by means of Orders in Council or by Ministers or Departments designated in relation to any matter or for any purpose by an Order in Council, which will then enable designated Ministers or Departments to make the appropriate regulations.

Sir Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate in relation to which schedule which Secretary of State has the responsibility for dealing with matters relating to hatcheries? I do not readily identify in the schedule any of the matters in relation to which Ministers or Departments are designated which covers the no doubt important area of hatcheries.

Mr. Davies

I will help the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment because I shall be coming to that. I was raising this as an illustration of the form of regulation which would require subordinate legislation to complete the effectiveness of the regulation.

As a result of Section 2 (4) of the Act the legislative powers which can be exercised by Order in Council or conferred on designated Ministers under Section 2 (2) cover anything that can be done by statute, subject only to certain exceptions laid down in Schedule 2. But the House will recall from the proceedings on the Act that Ministers repeatedly emphasised that these powers of delegated legislation would normally be used only for those matters of a supplementary or procedural character and not, as a general practice, for matters which were of more importance and, therefore, would normally call for primary legislation.

The delegation of legislative powers is in two sections: first, in Section 2 by Her Majesty operating by Order in Council, and then, where appropriate, by the Order in Council designating Ministers to exercise these powers. This is an unusual provision. It arises from the wide and unpredictable range of matters in which subordinate legislation may be required and could not, therefore, be specified once and for all in the Act. The range of such subjects already covered by Community law, or potentially to be covered, extends over the whole field of Community activities, and, accordingly, so must the subordinate legislation which will operate under Section 2. Any attempt to set out in detail in the Act the powers to be exercised by individual Ministers would have required an exceedingly lengthy provision within the Act and would have wanted in flexibility. Indeed, as to future Community law, it would have proved wholly impracticable to do so. Equally, it would not be satisfactory that the powers of Ministers designated under the Act should be so extensive as to give them a range of action, within the subordinate legislation, of a kind which the House might feel it could not adequately surpervise.

For this reason, the two-stage delegation which has been mentioned during the debates on the Act has been devised. It serves a two-fold purpose in providing the flexibility needed to deal with the wide range of existing and future Community law and in affording hon. Members an opportunity to assess the range of powers which it is proposed to confer on Ministers and the extent to which those powers are delimited in each case. The House is given a double opportunity to scrutinise the exercise of these delegated powers: first, in this order as to the extent of those powers; and, subsequently, when the designated Ministers exercise the powers so conferred.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Do I gather from my right hon. Friend that the only powers conferred by the order to be exercised by the designated Ministers are those which will be subject to this House by way of regulation or order? Or will they automatically include effective legislation? In that case, it would appear that the second part of what he said would not apply?

Mr. Davies

Those parts of the regulations framed within the Community which operate as law within the national law and which, therefore, do not need supplementation are not covered within the order, because they are automatically transformed into the national framework of law under the provisions of the European Communities Act. The purpose is to try to ensure that the House has this dual scrutiny over matters which are related within the orders concerned and the subordinate legislation which is involved. Hon. Members were assured during the debates on the Act that there would be this double safeguard. I simply wish to draw attention to the fact that it has been provided.

Apart from a few matters which are more appropriately dealt with by Orders in Council, the order is intended to cover all the subordinate legislation which we think is necessary for the purposes of existing Community obligations or for those which we have reason to believe are highly probable to fall on us during the next 12 months. Inevitably, we cannot be sure about all the duties which may fall on member States as a result of Community legislation during that period, but we have taken account of all those matters which are now in draft or which we know to be under serious consideration and in an advanced stage of preparation.

Of course, in saying this I cannot rule out the possibility that, on the one hand, it might prove necessary to call for further designation orders during the ensuing year or, on the other hand, that certain matters for which provision is made within the schedule will not be used. However, there is no harm in that, because it would imply that there was no Community obligation which required the specific matter to be undertaken. Obviously, if there is no obligation there is no call on the delegated powers.

I have already mentioned that the powers of subordinate legislation in Section 2(2) are intended only for minor and miscellaneous matters. It will be apparent that most of the matters referred to in the schedule are described with a degree of detail which leaves little doubt that only that type of provision normally found in statutory instruments as opposed to primary legislation is intended to be covered. I will illutrate that by referring to the item in the schedule on vehicle type approval. The type of provisions there are not dissimilar to the kind that one would expect to deal with in regulations made under the Road Traffic Act, 1972, the kind of provisions which once the main principles have been laid down in the appropriate legislation can be left to subordinate legislation. That fact is to be observed in the form in which the order is drawn.

The principles which have been laid down in the treaties or the Community instruments themselves in this context create the obligation in respect of which the subsidiary legislation is authorised. The degree of detail necessarily varies from subject to subject—that will be seen in the schedule—depending on the practicability and the need for broader definition. It is not always practicable or expedient to specify the subject matter of the delegated powers with a high degree of detail. Where there is a clearly ascertainable area of Community policy and it is already apparent that implementing or supplementing provisions will frequently be needed there is no point in detailed selection of particular matters within that policy. In such a case detail would be conducive neither to the interests of Parliament nor to good administration. That is particularly true regarding the common agricultural policy of the Community. That policy is based on the agricultural provisions of the EEC Treaty, and it is well known that the term "common agricultural policy" is used without further definition in Section 6 of the Act. It operates by regulations taking direct effect and leaving little discretion as to the method of supplementation to the member States. But the range of products and the activities embraced by the policy is very great and it will require a lot of ancillary provisions for its satisfactory operation in this country. Already these will range, for instance, from the provisions for marketing eggs and registering hatcheries, to which the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) referred, to financial aid for farmers giving up their land. With so wide and varied a range of matters to be covered, it is important to get flexibility and it calls for a broad specification. In doing so, the schedule will, I hope, avoid the need for further designations in the agricultural field for some time to come.

As I mentioned earlier, we have endeavoured to make provision for anything likely to be needed in the course of this Session. But I assure the House that there will not be a flood of subordinate legislation. On present estimates it seems that under the powers conferred by the order approximately 35 instruments will be made. Three other Orders in Council under Section 2 of the Act were laid before the House on 31st October, 1972. They relate to the effect of Community decisions and judgments in the United Kingdom, immunities of the European schools and the tax treatment of loan stock issued by some European institutions.

Sir Elwyn Jones

I appreciate that the use of the description "Secretary of State" is not uncommon in instruments of this kind, but will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to identify which Secretary of State and which Department will be seized of these responsibilities? I appreciate that the term of art "Secretary of State" is a convenient generic term for certain purposes, but where these are matters which may be of importance in relation to questions and issues of responsibility it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman could identify which "Secretary of State" he has in mind. The extraordinary generality of the order on the one hand and the remarkable detailed particularity on the other is something without precedent.

Mr. Davies

I will come to that matter. However, I do not know whether what I have to say will greatly rejoice the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall certainly come to that matter, as I have to the interesting point which he raised about hatcheries, by pointing out that the very wide embrace of the common agricultural policy naturally comprehends the issue to which he referred.

There will be the three other Orders in Council, but no further Orders in Council under this section are contemplated at present. A certain number of statutory instruments will be made under specific powers contained elsewhere in the Act or under existing powers of subordinate legislation which can be exercised in connection with various treaty obligations which we are or shall be assuming. On present information, we do not expect those to exceed 100 in the course of this or next year. This is hardly a deluge, and the scale of operation thereafter will be much the same.

The House will he interested in what the Brooke Committee on Delegated Legislation said on this matter, which it studied with particular care. It bore out what I have said, that we are not going through an easy period which will he succeeded by a flood of instruments. That is not the conclusion at which one arrives. It is unlikely that there will be more than a relatively small addition to the number of instruments, approaching about 1,000 a year, which are already scrutinised by the Statutory Instruments Committee.

I come to the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. I realise that he would have liked to see a greater degree of definition, but, in some ways, the principal purpose of the order is to make precise in Parliament's mind the specific areas within which the order can be exer- cised. As to the denomination of the appropriate Ministers who will have the delegated authority to act within the powers, it is traditional to designate them as "the Secretary of State". The term "Secretary of State" has some generic and some strictly practical quality in its use. The convention is that a Secretary of State can be held to be able to exercise the duties of any other so designated, and for this purpose it is highly convenient—I do not conceal it—in handling an order of this kind that there should be such a tradition. With this kind of order it perhaps goes beyond the point of mere convenience and becomes almost essential.

There is plainly the question, of which we are all aware, of the need for some interchangeability in the execution of duties, but beyond that a number of the activities to which the schedule refers would have required the nomination of several Ministers in order to ensure their completion. The nomination of several Ministers, particularly if they had been shown as alternative, would have facilitated the identification of the Minister concerned no more than using the generic phrase "Secretary of State". Therefore, the House will I think understand why it has been found appropriate in the schedule to use this expression.

Mr. John E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

I understand my right hon. Friend's argument from the point of view of hon. Members or lawyers, but lay members of the public who will be concerned in their businesses about impending regulations may well want to know of what Government Department, as opposed to Minister, to make inquiries. Will guidance be given? Anyone buying this statutory instrument will not get value for money.

Mr. Davies

I should like to feel that he will get value for money, if not complete clarification of these problems at first reading. Normally, such a person will address himself reasonably to his sponsoring Ministry for advice, and from that Ministry he will get the indications which he needs.

The other point which is of some substance and which, because this is the first order, is worth drawing attention to is that under Section 2(2) of the Act an option was offered to the exercise of the powers granted under the designation orders, with these being dealt with through the affirmative or negative procedure. The reason for that was simply and solely the wide range of the matters concerned and the virtual impossibility of spelling out criteria which could clearly indicate which of these two could apply to appropriate cases. I think, therefore, that the Ministers exercising these powers will have regard to the undertakings given during the course of the debates on the measure itself, but I felt it right for this order to be subject to the affirmative procedure simply because it was the first of its kind.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Why should it be virtually impossible to spell out the criteria? It has been done in similar circumstances.

Mr. Davies

I understand that, but if one regards the enormous range of Community activities and the very wide range of instruments that may arise, it is possible that to spell out such criteria with any accuracy would be impossible.

Mr. Will Griffiths (Manchester, Exchange)

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that the sole reason for his choosing to adopt the affirmative procedure is that this is the first order?

Mr. Davies

It was a part of the reason, although I think that the order—not only because it is the first of its kind but because it designates the Ministers who will exercise the subordinate legislation over a very wide field—is of substantial importance to the House. But I would not say that it had to be regarded as a precedent that all such designatory orders would always be handled through the affirmative procedure. It might be that in future that procedure would not be necessary.

I very much commend the order to the House, and ask the House's approval of the proposals made. I ask it equally to take note of the fact that the undertakings given in debate on the subject have been faithfully observed.

Sir Elwyn Jones

The right hon. Gentleman has not said anything about the common agricultural policy: I am very sorry that the egg should have become rather addled in the course of events.

Mr. Davies

I would direct the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the wide-ranging provisions relating to the Ministers who may operate the orders in relation to the common agricultural policy.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney)

First giving the customary courteous welcome to the right hon. Gentleman performing in his new rôle as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I must say that I am a little surprised that the Government should have decided to continue with the day's business. It is less than half an hour since the major plank of the commitment to the European Communities, in the form of the two sets of rules relating to the free movement of labour, was sawn away and a crushing defeat inflicted upon the Government—not a marginal or tiny defeat but a defeat due to a massive and deliberate withdrawal of support by their own supporters. That being so on a major matter, I am surprised that the Minister should have thought fit to continue to present these orders of less importance.

In order to allay the right hon. Gentleman's undoubted anxieties, and to set at rest the minds of his Front Bench colleagues—and that Front Bench is well manned for the occasion—and in order that they may all give their full attention to the present subject, I may say that it is not my intention, provided that we are not unduly disturbed by any replies and interjections, to inflict any further humiliation and defeat upon them by dividing the House.

Having said that, I will return to the subject matter. We are all hoping tonight that we can enjoy a little extra indulgence from the Chair, because we are dealing with the first orders to be issued under the machinery of the European Communities Act and because one or two points need to be established between us. I am following now what the right hon. Gentleman said, before I turn to certain questions I should like to put to him.

These will relate not only to the designation order which was formally presented to us, but, I gather—with the permission of the House—to three Prayers which I am not formally to move but which can also be mentioned, as it is convenient for us to do so.

The first thing I want to get clear—and the Minister has already helped here—is on what we can expect in the weeks and months ahead. My understanding is the same as his, and the Minister's access to information is better than mine. I am glad to have it confirmed that we are not to be faced with a great mass of secondary and subsidiary orders under the European Communities Act.

That does not come as a surprise to me because one of the reasons for it, regretfully, is the wretched business of the European Communities Act, under which major legislation is transferred altogether from the House of Commons. That is a point with which, unhappily, we are all familiar. Euro-laws are not notified to this House. Nor are we going to be troubled by a great flow of orders coming through in the form of directives—speaking in the language of Community law—and thus enabling our elected Parliament, and Parliaments elsewhere in the Community, to add their own small gloss to what has already been basically agreed in Brussels.

My first question relates to what the right hon. Gentleman volunteered—but would press him harder on this—about the way in which his mind will work in deciding which of the procedures available to him he intends to use in moving future orders. We know that either he can do it by affirmative procedure or we can take an opportunity of praying against a statutory instrument. Tonight we have one affirmative order and three prayers, in my name. The Minister said that to some extent we were having this as an affirmative resolution because it is the first one, but in saying that he was doing himself less than justice. There must be some more elaborate reason.

I understand that it is difficult to give any hard and fast criteria, and that some common sense must be used, but I urge the Minister to give this matter rather more thought, if not on this occasion then on another. This involves an important matter. We are here having the first use of the Government's discretion—and the Government's use of discretion in all matters relating to the European Communities Act is of first-rate importance. It will be within the Government's discretion, whether to try to get other matters through by affirmative resolution or to seek a separate piece of legislation. The more information we can have about the Government's criteria the better.

It would also help to know whether a particular statutory instrument supplements a Community regulation under Section 2(1) or translates a directive into English law under Section 2(2). In the former case it is essential to have that basic legislation on the Table. We have just had a debate which suffered, among other defects, from the fact that the main laws affecting this country in a matter which the House was sensible enough to reject were not even on the Table.

The third point, which is a real gem, relate to the statutory instrument on the European School, which sounds a useful institution and will no doubt help to educate the children of those of our civil servants and others who are driven from this land to serve in Brussels in the years ahead. I discovered the school—again, one wants to know what one is talking about—in Vol. 5 of European Communities Treaties and Related Instruments, a batch of volumes presented to us in February of this year.

I am surprised to find it here at all in the form of a statutory instrument. I can see a case for doing that, but it is a pre-accession treaty rather than Community law, and pre-accession treaties are validated under Section 1 of the Act. Why has this not been presented to us as a separate subordinate treaty under Clause 1?

I turn now to my fourth and, perhaps, last question. I was a little disheartened to find so little information in the designation order. The jobs are described in the schedule but, in overseeing them, the Ministers who are to exercise that limited degree of responsibility that the Cornmunity obligations will allow to a Minister are not defined. It is simply left with the blanket term "Secretary of State". I understand the precedent for this, but it makes it difficult for us. Apart from the "Secretary of State", which obviously covers many of his colleagues and many functions, the only Minister specified is the Minister of Agriculture. I am a little surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not feature in this. Does he count as a Secretary of State for these purposes? If not, surely orders are in train, or may reasonably be expected soon to be so, which will require the authority of the Chancellor, or come under his banner. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that illustrious and powerful colleague of his is omitted from the list of Ministers and Departments.

Beyond my main questions, I say only two things. Obviously it would be convenient for the House and the country, which, after all, is affected by Euro-law no less than it is by English law, if the Minister would give as much information as possible about the matter involved in these statutory instruments. I had not previously heard of the European School. Perhaps I should have done. We now know a little about it, but I do not think that many people outside this Chamber know of it. They should have some explanation.

Means must be found of explaining these things to our people. Clearly we cannot always rely on the Opposition to put down a prayer. Perhaps we can, but we certainly cannot rely on Opposition prayers always being debated, which is another matter. Therefore, the Government have a special obligation to ensure that at least some explanation and opportunity for debate is provided when these orders are brought forward.

Just as the Minister did not wish to create any precedents—as he put it—by selecting a particular order for affirmative resolution and others for the negative procedure, I, too, wish to state that this is not a precedent for the Opposition tonight. The Government would be very unwise to assume that in the future we would allow a general debate to cover a number of orders rather than have them taken separately; nor would they be sensible to assume that we shall not press to a vote many matters on which we are not satisfied.

12.29 a.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question about Order No. 1582, dealing with schools. I notice that the order says, This Order may be cited as the European Communities (European Schools) Order 1972". The note below merely refers to the school in Luxembourg, but others have been set up previously. Will they come under the order? I refer in particular to the International Lycée, just outside Paris, which was previously a Ministry of Defence school. I have visited this school. When France left NATO, the main school was transferred to Brussels, but this has remained as the International Lycée.

The Italians, the French and the Germans undertook to pay a considerable sum so that primary and secondary children should have free education. Formerly the Ministry of Defence contributed £10,000, but regrettably the Government withdrew this grant. Some of my hon. Friends and I went to the Department of Education and Science to see if that Department would take over where the Ministry of Defence left off, because this is an important and excellent school. The majority of pupils are French. The next largest group of pupils is English.

An excellent committee of voluntary workers goes through the process of collecting fees and handing them to the headmaster for him to pay staff salaries. The staff do not know for how long the committee will be able to pay them or whether they will get any pensions, and they are never certain whether their pensions will be paid in full, although to date the arrangement has worked satisfactorily.

Will the term "European School" cover schools such as this? If it will, it will give great satisfaction to the committee which has carried on this good work. As I shall be meeting some of the members of the committee of the school on 4th December, I should be grateful if I could be told whether this school will come under the umbrella of the order.

Mr. Christopher Soames, who recently relinquished the post of British Ambassador to France, took a special interest in this school and can provide further information about it.

What is the French translation of "European School"? I presume that "school" is "lycée". Can we have the word "international", or will it be "European lycées" in future?

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, West)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to the umbrella nature of this designation order. It appears that it is to be used to deal with minor matters only, but it is an order made in connection with Section 2 of the European Communities Act, which deals not only with minor matters but with major and fundamental matters of Community legislation which are bound to have considerable effect in Britain in the future.

Is there scope under the order for directives of the European Commission or of the Council of Ministers to be implemented merely by virtue of the order, and regulations made thereunder—directives to enable national Governments to implement Community legislation in broad principle in their own way.

Could the order be used to make consequential changes in United Kingdom legislation, consequential upon self-enacting regulations either of the European Commission or of the Council of Ministers, or on those directives whereby we might have to pass a law to include them and also have to pass subordinate legislation to remove contradictions in existing United Kingdom legislation?

I should not have referred to the question of the European School if there had not been a protocol of 1962 referred to in the order. The original statute of the European School is dated 1957. As the House will know, the original statute merely set up a school in Luxembourg, and if that were the only object of the exercise of the order I would not be speaking on this subject. But the Protocol allows European schools to be set up on the precise—and note the word "precise"—model of the European School in Luxembourg, and it is the possibility that such a European School might be set up in the United Kingdom in future under this order that rather concerns me from an educational point of view and not from one's point of view of the Common Market as such.

If one refers to the actual wording of the statute setting up the European School, one sees that the school is modelled very much on the lines of the West European and particularly the French educational system. Very little power is given to the headmaster. There is a good deal of central control and direction. I do not want to bore the House by reading out the articles to which I, as an educationist, have an objection, but I refer the House to Articles 5, 11, 17 and 22 of the Statute of 1957.

In fact, Article 22 makes it brutally clear that the headmaster is nothing more than a sort of chief clerk in his own school, under a board of governors, an administrative board, and a number of other authorities. This goes completely counter to the English, if not the British, educational tradition and, while it is not important if this sort of educational idea—which is so contrary to our own traditions—is to apply merely in Luxembourg or elsewhere in Western Europe—where no doubt it conforms with tradition—the thought that under this order we should have set up in Britain a European School run on lines which completely contradict those of our traditional educational systems, both State and private, is something of which we ought to take note.

My other point is that in Article 5 there is a reference to the European baccalaureat and the fact that member States shall give graduates or school leavers from any European school rights of admission to their own universities. Our system of admission to universities is rather different from that which exists in the rest of Western Europe and, indeed, North America. We tend to allow our universities and institutions of higher education to select from among suitably qualified applicants those whom they wish to take, whereas generally throughout Western Europe and North America anyone who has the appropriate qualification has an absolute legal right to go to a university institution of some sort.

I wonder whether we are sowing the seeds of some potential conflict in future if we have a European School in this country, or, indeed, if school leavers graduating from the European School in Luxembourg, with their parents being moved to Britain for Common Market purposes, wish to go to university. This raises the thorny problem of entrance qualifications and the question whether universities or institutions of higher education would have their existing right to refuse admission even if candidates are suitably qualified.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

The last three interventions have stressed the importance of the schools order and have shown that this matter, which is very technical in its educational implications, needs to be debated in some way or other so that hon. Members may consider its implications. Therefore, it is a pioneer order in posing the question how best we can arrange to discuss matters which, although perhaps connected with the order, are clearly unsuited to the House for debate in the absence of a Minister from the Department of Education and Science. I do not say that it is necessarily desirable to do it in this Chamber, but I am certain that there must be a method for discussing the matter somewhere in the Palace of Westminster—perhaps in a Committee. Several important points need following through.

The strict purpose of the order is to give the existing European schools legal status under the law of this country and to make them public institutions recognised by our law. But, Britain having adhered to the statute, various obligations, powers and responsibilities flowing therefrom are laid upon Her Majesty's Government. Not only shall we, as a contracting party, be liable to make our contribution to the finances of these schools but we shall, I think, have representatives on the councils, to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) referred, and, no doubt, some English children will become pupils of these schools.

I have not had the opportunity to visit any of them yet, but I gather that the schools are peculiar in the sense that the tuition is conducted in the languages of all the contracting parties. I understand that it is part of the system that the children of one nationality receive part of their education in the language of other nationalities, and, to that extent, it is hoped that the pupils will attain a degree of bilingualism, if not trilingualism. This is somewhat specialist, and it seems to me, therefore—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has pointed this out—that these schools cannot of them. selves, simply on the basis of numbers alone, supply the necessary amount of education for British children who are likely to have their parents employed in the Community.

One issue which the order must raise in our minds, therefore, is the adequacy of the education for British children which will be provided at Brussels, in Luxembourg, or even at Strasbourg.

That question goes beyond the scope of the order but it is of immense importance, because, so far as I am aware, several existing European schools may not yet come within its scope. Perhaps they could come within it, but the salient fact is that other member countries of the Community are making substantial contributions to these schools to ensure that their language, their culture, and their children's education are adequately supported.

We therefore have to face the question whether Her Majesty's Government should consider the need, if it be a need—this is something we must discover—to support our educational principles and the British English speaking and teaching schools already established within the Community to the same degree as other member countries do. If we do not do that we shall be losing the British impetus which we hope to bring to the growth of the Community.

Reverting to the existing European schools, I should welcome an opportunity to have more information about the exact part that Britain is taking. In correspondence with the Department of Education and Science I have learned that since Britain adhered formally to the statute, and since 1st September, we have been taking a full part in the administration of these schools. An initial cadre of British teachers has been seconded to Luxembourg and to Brussels.

English language schools are in the process of being established in anticipation of the influx of United Kingdom employees who go to the European Community from 1st January, that is all within the framework of the EEC and the Community treaties. No decision has yet been taken whether, as a matter of policy, we should support some of the other British schools that may well need support in order to keep up with our Community neighbours.

I hope, therefore, that we shall have an opportunity to devise a scheme for following these matters through. They are important. I was very pleased that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) gave such an unqualified approval to the work of these schools, since they are, by definition, likely to receive support from the Government, possibly by way of a direct grant, and they are fee-charging schools. That is a remarkable conversion, upon which I congratulate the right hon. Member.

12.46 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

I had not intended to intervene in the debate and would not have done so had I not been shocked into making a short intervention by the speech by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins). He apparently fears the consequences of having on English soil schools which use foreign methods of education and which teach in foreign languages by methods other than those to which we are accustomed. I would have thought that that could only be a matter for which we would have the greatest welcome.

Many foreign schools in London have already made a great contribution to education in the capital and in this country. There is the Lycée Francais de Londres, where thousands of English children have received a first-class education and have learned to speak French fluently, so that they can use it in their professions and in their lives. They have thus been able to contribute to what I believe to be vital for the future of the EEC—the cross-fertilisation of our cultures. A German lycée is to be established, and I believe that there is already an Italian lycée. The success of the French lycée shows the successful future which may well await the European School for the Community, should it be established in our capital.

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) said about our contribution to such schools abroad. One great success of the French has been in the dissemination of their culture throughout the world, through the medium of French lycées established in all the great capitals. This is a sphere in which the British have lagged far behind. I hope that we shall make our contribution not only in the establishment of British schools abroad but also to the European School, where-ever it may be established in the Community.

I have one word to add about Statutory Instrument No. 1590 on the enforcement of Community judgments. I commend it for its simplicity and directness, and for the way in which it will enable the courts in Britain and the executive powers here to enforce judgments at the Community Court. It seems an admirable example of subordinate legislation made now that we are becoming members of the European Community.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. John Davies

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I answered some of the points raised in the debate.

The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked me which of the two procedures would normally be adopted. We appreciated the difficulties of deciding criteria. I shall be guided by the general inference of the debate on the Act, when the emphasis was given by Ministers always to err—if that is the correct word—on the side of more extensively rather than less extensively consulting the House. That will be the guideline we shall wish to use, as it would be in the treatment of any of these matters. As to the use of subordinate legislation as against primary legislation, to the extent that there was any erring at all it would be on the side of treating matters as marginally more important than less important than they merited.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible to indicate the extent to which orders of this kind were in supplementation of regulations or in implementation of directives. I entirely understand his interest, and sympathise with it. In many cases the position will be evident from the nature of the order in question. The matter will be greatly facilitated when the House decides by precisely what means it proposes to review the preparation of policies within the framework of the Community. The House will then have considerable forewarning of what takes place in that scrutiny.

Mr. Shore

I have before me one of the orders—the one on taxes—to which we did not refer earlier. It is Statutory Instrument No. 1589. It refers simply to the changes that would now be required for the non-imposition of stamp duty on certain loan stocks of the European Investment Bank, and so on. But there is no reference to the original Community regulation. That is something that could easily be set right. It would enable us to detect the original source of legislation quite easily.

Mr. Davies

I entirely sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall give careful consideration to his suggestion.

The right hon. Gentleman's third question was why the European School Statute—and the European School then dominated the rest of the debate—should not be treated as if it were a treaty under Section 1 of the Act. The answer is that the purpose of the order is strictly limited. Broadly speaking, the adoption of the statute of the European School is something that has taken place in exactly the framework to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. But there is a particular issue in relation to the school which perhaps answers a number of questions raised in the debate. It is that it is necessary, by a method of domestic legislation, to give a legal personality to the school. This is required under Article 6 of the statute, which says that the school shall, in the law of each of the contracted parties, have the status of a public institution; that it shall be endowed with the status of a legal personality to the extent requisite for the attainment of its objects. That is precisely the point to which the order refers. Therefore, broadly speaking it does not refer to the adoption of the statute itself but to the creation of a legal personality, which needs an instrument of the kind provided in the order. That is the reason for the way in which it is here presented.

The extensive discussion on the quality of the schools, and the list of the European schools—of which there are six—and of other schools, including the International Lycée, was of great interest, and I will not fail to bring the comments made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Having regard to the narrow term of the order, which relates solely to the rather technical issue to which I have referred, the consideration of the merits or demerits of the schools lies outwith the matters with which the order is concerned. I entirely understand and sympathise with the wish to have the means of discussion of the matters to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) referred, and I hope that the means will be provided for them to be discussed deeply and thoroughly on their merits, as they should be.

I hope that the House will accept the Motion for the adoption of this designation order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the European Communities (Designation) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

c1480
1. ADJOURNMENT 12 words