Commons Sitting of 19 December 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Dumbarton Burgh Order Confirmation Act 1974.

2. Scottish Transport Group (Oban Quay) Order Confirmation Act 1974.

3. Crouch Harbour Act 1974.

4. Port of Tyne (North Shields Fish Harbour) Act 1974.

5. River Wear Barrage Act 1974.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Walcot Educational Trust
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether officials of his Department have met recently the Governors of the Walcot Educational Trust.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): No, Sir.
    Mr. Grylls: Is the hon. Lady aware that if she or her officials meet the Governors of the Walcot Educational Trust the Governors will say that they do not wish to see the valuable social work done by the Lady Margaret Hall Settlement jeopardised by its being turned into a bail hostel, which they think would be entirely unsuitable? As the trust is the landlord, will the hon. Lady consult it before a final decision is taken, and undertake not to take such a decision
    1786
    unless she is satisfied that all the legal obstacles have been removed?
    Dr. Summerskill: We have advised the settlement that its solicitors should clarify the situation with the trust's solicitors. They will be doing that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not approve use of the premises as a bail hostel unless we are satisfied that there is no legal impediment.
    Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that behind the Question lies a campaign to create a snob preserve in Lambeth for the benefit of Tory MPs living in that area?
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot say that I was not aware of that, but it is not the primary consideration in the mind of the Home Office.

    Internal Intelligence
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with police-military co-operation in the area of internal intelligence gathering.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): No such co-operation exists in England and Wales, although members of the Armed Services, like other people, will naturally pass on to the police such information relevant to the prevention and detection of crimes as comes into their possession.
    Mr. Townsend: In the event of the IRA's stepping up its bombing campaign, will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind about the possibility of allowing military intelligence personnel to play a part in the intelligence-gathering process in Britain?
    Mr. Jenkins: I try to keep an open mind on many questions, but the position in Northern Ireland is exceptional—justified in the circumstances, but one that we would not wish to see automatically extended to this country. The police are responsible for the prevention and detection of crime. The Armed Services have no function in that respect in Great Britain at present, except those functions which rest upon ordinary citizens. Unless circumstances were to develop in a way which I greatly hope they will not, comparable with those in Northern Ireland,

    1787
    we would not wish to see the military exercising a function that it did not normally exercise in civilised and relatively peaceful societies.

    Shrewsbury Pickets
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the release of the two imprisoned building workers' pickets before Christmas.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the exercise of clemency in regard to the two Shrewsbury pickets, Desmond Warren and Eric Tomlinson, in time to ensure they are set free and at home with their families by Christmas.
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given recent consideration to the representations made on behalf of Mr. Warren and Mr. Tomlinson against their continued imprisonment, and the possibility of recommending a free pardon, or the use of the Official Solicitor on the grounds of precedent.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he proposes to make to the request to him by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party that he should recommend the use of the Queen's Prerogative of mercy for Mr. Eric Tomlinson and Mr. Dennis Warren, who were convicted last year of conspiring to intimidate workers on building sites.
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he proposes with regard to Mr. Des Warren and Mr. Eric Tomlinson; and if he will make a statement
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will respond to the request from the Labour Party and the TUC to release the Shrewsbury pickets.
    Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now decided on his response to requests to recommend the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy in the cases of Mr. Eric Tomlinson and Mr. Dennis Warren who
    1788
    were convicted in December 1973 of conspiring to intimidate workers on building sites at Shrewsbury and Telford.
    Mrs. Colquhounasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to release the Shrewsbury pickets.
    Miss Richardsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to release the Shrewsbury pickets.
    Mrs. Wiseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to release the Shrewsbury pickets.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now prepared to exercise the prerogative of mercy in relation to the Shrewsbury pickets, Mr. Warren and Mr. Tomlinson, on the lines expressed to him by the General Secretary of the TUC and the Labour Party conference.
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the exercise of clemency in the cases of the two Shrewsbury pickets, Desmond Warren and Eric Tomlinson, in time for these men to be with their families for Christmas.
    Mr. Loydenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will exercise his power to recommend mercy to pardon Messrs. Tomlinson and Warren, at present held in prison at Shrewsbury.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir. The law and facts of this case were fully argued before the Court of Appeal and a judicial decision has been reached upon the merits of the sentences. I cannot usurp the functions of the courts and no new considerations have been put before me on which I could properly advise interference with the sentences by the exercise of the Prerogative.
    Mr. Allaun: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the sentences were excessive, as no charges of violence were sustained? Secondly, is not the case unique, in that never before in British

    1789
    legal history has the law of conspiracy been applied to an industrial dispute, in sharp contrast with what happened to the Welsh farmers recently, who were guilty of violence and in respect of whom no such charge was brought?
    Mr. Jenkins: On the first point, I would not presume—and I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend would not wish me to presume—to make personal judgments about sentences. I am sure that my hon. Friend or I or anyone else could, if we looked around, find sentences some of which we thought excessive and some of which we thought were more lenient than they should be. That would not be difficult, and the whole of the time of the House could be occupied in discussing such matters. These are matters for the courts.
    On the second part of the question, I am not fully aware of the history of the use of this law. I do not think that my hon. Friend's comparison with the Welsh farmers is relevant because no significant prosecutions have been brought, and prosecutions are not a matter for me; they are a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, subject in his special capacity to the Attorney-General in major cases, and to the police in minor cases. I can, however, tell my hon. Friend, as I have indicated previously, that I am not wholly satisfied with the present position on the law of conspiracy and I am considering it urgently in relation to the work of the Law Commission on the matter. There are complications, and it will not be practicable for a change to be made in this Session of Parliament, though conceivably it may be in the next Session of Parliament. But that change would not bear directly upon the charges or convictions in this case.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the Home Secretary accept the congratulations of almost the whole House on upholding the rule of law—[Interruption.] At least he will receive the congratulations of the whole of the House, with the exception of one section which is well known to the Government Chief Whip. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any proposals he may subsequently bring forward for the amendment of the 1875 Act will not be applied retrospectively? Will he also confirm that what is at issue in this case was described by the court as a vicious
    1790
    intimidation of fellow workers? Does he not agree that conspiracy must, of itself, aggravate any criminal offence which occurs in the first instance?
    Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member asked a large number of supplementary questions. I do not look for congratulations from any part of the House in the discharge of what is always a difficult duty as to how one should or should not exercise the Royal Prerogative. I have indicated that in my view changes in the law of conspiracy might be appropriate in the future. They would not be retrospective. I do not believe in retrospectiive legislation. As for the merits of this case, it would be quite inappropriate for me, as Home Secretary, to pronounce upon them.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend take note that the plaudits from the Opposition to his initial monosyllabic answer—
    Mr. Tomlinson: And from this side.
    Mr. Flannery:—are not totally unexpected? Outside this House a large number of people think that it was not the pickets who intimidated anybody but the establishment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must take this Question quietly. I hope to call a great many hon. Members to put supplementary questions. If this sort of row goes on, I shall move on quickly to the next Question.
    Mr. Flannery: The view is held outside the House that it is not the pickets who have intimidated anybody in any conspiracy but that picketing is in grave danger and that anybody who plans an honourable demonstration or an honourable picket will feel intimidated against doing so by the gaoling in such a Draconian manner of these two pickets. Will my right hon. Friend make a serious attempt—as he is duly paid to do—to see that these men are freed and sent home to their wives and families by Christmas?
    Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend must surely be aware that I have already answered the last part of the question. On the other parts of the question, there is clearly a difference of view on my side of the House, which I accept and which has been expressed. I make two points

    1791
    arising from what my hon. Friend said. First, it would be a great mistake if he or any other of my hon. Friends were to assume, as a starting point, that in this situation Mr. Warren and Mr. Tomlinson were behaving as good trade unionists would normally behave. Secondly, my hon. Friend's view seems to be based on the fact that what is or is not guilt, or what is or is not an appropriate sentence, should be debated between him and me or some other hon. Member and me on the Floor of the House.
    I do not believe that to be in accordance with the correct practice, and whatever some people outside may think, on this as on many other issues which we have to deal with here, I believe that the great majority of the people believe in the rule of law.
    Mr. Spriggs: I am not asking my right hon. Friend to rejudge this case. My question relates to the cause of the affray and the fact that in this industry, which is one of the most fragmented in the country, things have been seriously at fault from the point of view of danger and filth. It is one of the most accident-prone industries in the world. The cause of bad industrial relations has existed for many years and no action has been taken by any Government to remove that cause. Will my right hon. Friend take a look at the bad industrial relations and consider why the real guilty parties—the faceless men on the Conservative benches who were in office at the time of the affray, and the bad employers—were not in the box to be judged at the same time?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that in this industry—perhaps particularly in this industry—and in some others we would all wish to see an improvement in industrial relations. We would certainly not wish to endorse the record of the Conservative Party on the subject. There is no dispute between my hon. Friends and me on that. That fact, however—and actions to deal with the "lump" have been proposed—does not alter the fact that in individual cases it must be the rôle of the courts and not of the executive to judge what has happened.
    Mr. Carlisle: I fully appreciate the unwillingness of the Home Secretary to comment on individual cases. However, does he not think it would be helpful to make clear to certain people in the House
    1792
    and outside that these men were convicted not of unlawful picketing but of terrorising and intimidating fellow workmen by what I think was described in the courts as "a display of wanton violence".
    Mr. Jenkins: These men were convicted of three offences, one of which was quashed on a technical ground on appeal. The other two, one of which was for conspiracy, were upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is much better that in replying to these questions I should endeavour to give the facts in as neutral a manner as possible. I do not propose to rejudge, and I do not wish to put myself in the position of rejudging, issues which have been before the courts. That means two things. First, I am not willing to put myself into conflict with the courts on individual cases. Secondly, I do not think it appropriate to use the Floor of the House to make pronouncements which might be prejudicial to the interests of the two people concerned.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend undertake an investigation into the conduct of the police, since they were present throughout the whole of the picketing which we have heard about today? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the war-time coalition Government released three miners imprisoned under the notorious Order 1305 in almost identical circumstances? Does my right hon. Friend accept that any violence in the building industry is due to the appalling lack of safety standards, often brought about by the use of the "lump", against which these UCATT members were organising a strike?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I would not propose to introduce an inquiry into the police in matters which happened two years ago. If complaints had been made they would have fallen to be investigated under the Section 49 procedure which, as the House probably knows, I do not regard as totally satisfactory and which we are, with the agreement of the whole House, endeavouring to reform. We have to apply the law as it stands at present.
    I do not regard the precedent which my hon. Friend has cited from the wartime years, or other precedents which have been cited to me, as being relevant to this case. Nor can I regard—and this appeared to be the implication of the third part of his question—the many

    1793
    unsatisfactory features in this industry, which I deplore but which exist, as they exist in many other industries, as being an excuse for acts which are found to be violent and are dealt with as such by the courts.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side of the House are concerned about the length of the sentences and welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will ensure that there is a review of the law on conspiracy, but that many Members on these benches as well as on the benches opposite would view with grave dismay any attempt by himself to intervene with the due process of law, especially when no new evidence was available between the time of the hearing in the Court of Appeal and any action proposed to him?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his forthright statement. In my view, review of the sentences is a matter for the Parole Board to which the Lord Chief Justice, in his judgment in the Court of Appeal, specifically commended consideration of the matter. This is in accordance with the due process of law, and this is how I think we should proceed.
    Mr. Evelyn King: However compassionate one may wish to be, does not the weakness of the questions lie in the suggestion that the men should be released because they are trade unionists? Are not all men equal before the law? Is it not a fact that, whether a man is a stockbroker or a trade unionist, it is repugnant to the concept of English law that any privilege should be accorded to a particular class of person?
    Mr. Jenkins: With respect to the hon. Member, I think that he must have prepared that question before today's exchanges, because although, as he and the House are aware, I have not agreed with every nuance of some of my hon. Friends, I have not heard any of them say that these men should be treated specially because they are trade unionists and for no other reason. The arguments which I have not been able to accept have been much more specifically directed than that.
    Mrs. Colquhoun: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is because many of us feel that the case of the Shrewsbury
    1794
    pickets is a travesty of British justice that we continue to press him on this issue? We very much regret his decision not to intervene. Is there anything further we can do to make him change his mind?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I am not against political campaigns; I have engaged in many of them myself. But I must tell my hon. Friend—and this will cause no surprise—that in my view there would be no worse basis for changing—which I have no intention of doing—a decision on a matter of this sort than in response to a political campaign.

    Radio Transmission (North Northumberland)
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is Government policy that the recommendation about radio transmission to North Northumberland made in paragraph 106 of the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting Coverage should await implementation until after the Annan Committee has reported.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): This recommendation does not call for submission to the Annan Committee. Implementation depends on the priority accorded to it in relation to other claims on the BBC's resources.
    Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the very ambiguous statement of his hon. Friend on 21st November. Will he recognise and represent to the BBC that my constituents have been deprived of all local and regional news on radio for nearly two years and that, just as the recommendation of the Crawford Committee was seen as a priority by the committee, so it must be seen by the Government and the BBC?
    Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman refers to his constituents in general. I understand that about 4,000 people out of 28,000 people in the area are affected. However, I take his point, and I think that the BBC takes it. It is, however, a matter for the BBC and for the allocation of resources within the BBC. I cannot pretend that in present straitened circumstances it will feel that it is a very high priority.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the straitened circumstances of the BBC. Will he draw to the attention of the BBC the fact that it can save a considerable sum of money by not spending about £635 on sending to each Member of the House a copy of its annual report, plus, as far as I can calculate, over £150 in postage?
    Mr. Lyon: I am sure that that matter will be noted by the BBC.

    Hackney Carriages (Maxwell Stamp Report)
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the Maxwell Stamp Report on hackney carriages.
    Dr. Summerskill: Two of the committee's recommendations, on compellable hirings at Heathrow and more stringent control over signs carried on unlicensed vehicles, have already been implemented. We are now considering, following extensive consultations, what further action can be taken.
    Mr. Finsberg: I thank the hon. Lady for her reply, which shows a slight advance on similar replies given in the last four years. However, will she assure the House that her Department will give no more contracts for hire to mini-cars, which are the subject of serious allegations in the Maxwell Stamp Report?
    Dr. Summerskill: This is one of the important and slightly controversial aspects of the Maxwell Stamp Report which involved discussions with the Commissioner of Police, the trade, the Greater London Council and other Government Departments. I assure the hon. Gentleman that discussions are taking place. I have already had discussions with the Transport Committee of the GLC.
    Mr. Lane: Is the hon. Lady satisfied that the GLC, in particular, is dealing with this matter with the necessary urgency?
    Dr. Summerskill: The GLC is not very willing to take on policy responsibility unless the police continue with the licensing work. It was, however, pointed out that in the Government's view licensing and policy control were linked
    1796
    and should remain so. We are trying to find a practical solution to the deadlock.

    Terrorists (Exclusion Orders)
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give figures and other possible details on the numbers of persons excluded from Great Britain since the passing of the anti-terrorist Act.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have signed 10 exclusion orders, three of which are against persons who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and who are therefore excluded from the United Kingdom. Notice of the making of an order has been served on five of the 10 people. Two have been removed to the Irish Republic. Three have made representations. I have reconsidered the cases of two of these three, and I have decided not to revoke the exclusion orders I made. Both are being removed to Northern Ireland this afternoon. The case of the third is still under consideration. Of the other five people against whom exclusion orders have been made, three are understood to be outside the United Kingdom and two have been charged with murder. The orders made against these last two have therefore been revoked.
    Mr. Bidwell: Will my right hon. Friend accept—I am sure he does—that those of us who have been concerned over the years with the question of civil liberties will want to know from time to time how the Act is working? It has six months to run. At the end of that six months the House will have to consider whether it should renew the Act. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to inform the House periodically of the working of the Act? As there is no appeal machinery in being—he rejected that idea during the debates on the Bill— what extra assistance, which he hinted at, is being contemplated?
    Mr. Jenkins: On the main part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the House will review the Act—and I would wish it to do so—if and when an order has to be laid for its renewal in six months, when we shall be able to consider the matter with an open mind in accordance with developments.
    My hon. Friend's question about reporting from time to time on how the Act

    1797
    is working is appropriate from the point of view of giving a report of that sort. No doubt I shall be required to give reports from time to time, and I shall be glad to do so.
    I have explained to the House why I did not think a judicial appeal procedure was appropriate in these circumstances, and the House accepted by a substantial majority what I said. I also told the House that I would appoint a panel of advisers. I have appointed two of them, and their names have been announced.
    Mr. Finsberg: As one of my constituents is the subject of an order, will the Home Secretary say roughly how long he expects the intervals to be between the time when notice is served on a person, the time when he sees the adjudicator and the time when the final decision is taken?
    Mr. Jenkins: I hope that these intervals will be as short as possible. There is no desire to hold a person in custody in these circumstances. I told the House that of the three cases concerned I have been able to reach a decision upon two, and hope to reach a decision upon the third in the reasonably near future. I would not wish to put an exact number of days upon it, but I do not think that anyone will suggest that it is an unduly long-drawn-out procedure, in view of the report which I have been able to give the House.
    Mr. Corbett: Has my right hon. Friend seen the extremely disturbing report in today's issue of The Guardian alleging physical assault by warders upon six persons held in Winson Green on suspected acts of terrorism in Birmingham? Will he announce immediate steps to investigate these disturbing allegations, preferably in public and independently?
    Mr. Jenkins: I saw the report in The Guardian today. An investigation of the incident is already being conducted by an assistant chief constable of another authority, and I shall await the report. As my hon. Friend knows, in present circumstances fully independent inquiries, as opposed to inquiries by an independent force, can be held only under Section 32, and only two have been held. That is very unusual procedure. I shall of course consider the matter urgently when I receive the report from the police, but
    1798
    I do not want to give the impression that I think it would be here appropriate to have a Section 32 inquiry or a public inquiry of that sort.

    Police (West Drayton)
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the establishment of the police in the West Drayton area; to what extent it is under strength; and what steps he is taking to remedy the situation.
    Dr. Summerskill: On 1st December the Metropolitan Police establishment in the West Drayton area was 134, and the deficiency was 52. Police pay in London has recently been substantially increased, and recruitment publicity is being maintained at a high level.
    Mr. Shersby: Is the hon. Lady aware that the establishment of the Metropolitan Police in the London borough of Hillingdon as a whole was 240 under strength as at 1st December? Will she, therefore, consider the desirability of supplementing the force by the recruitment of special constables if that is possible? Is the hon. Lady further aware that my constituents in the West Drayton area have been sorely tried by many acts of petty crime in recent months for which no person has so far been apprehended? Does the hon. Lady know that the West Drayton Cricket Club has suffered three burglaries, for which no person has been apprehended? Will she take urgent action to make sure that there are more police constables on the beat in this area, so that my constituents can see that the Home Office is doing something about what to them is an important local matter?
    Dr. Summerskill: As I said in the debate on the police, everything possible is being done to recruit more police. Fortunately, it was possible to agree an increased London allowance of £275 with effect from 1st April last, in addition to recent national pay increases. It is not yet possible to estimate the total effect on recruitment that this might have. As I say, publicity is being maintained at a high level to recruit more police.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Metropolitan Police is more acutely below establishment than is any other police force in the country? In the

    1799
    London borough of Ealing it is sometimes necessary for pedestrian crossings outside schools on major roads to be controlled by police officers but the police, reluctantly, cannot accept the responsibility because they have insufficient men. There has also been an increase in the number of accidents. Will my hon. Friend take this into account in her endeavours to increase the establishment of the Metropolitan Police?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers. Special efforts are being made to recruit more traffic wardens, women police and cadets into the Metropolitan force.

    Immigration
    Mr. Dodsworthasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider a review of the regulations governing entry into the United Kingdom by Commonwealth citizens from Australia and New Zealand in order to facilitate access.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: No, Sir. Our policy is not to discriminate in relation to the admission of Commonwealth citizens on grounds of race, colour, religion or country of origin.
    Mr. Dodsworth: Is the Minister aware that his decision will be received with great regret by non-patriates who have had the opportunity over the years of spending an extended working holiday of 18 or 24 months in this country? Although that opportunity is freely available to first generation Australians and New Zealanders, it is not available to third and fourth generation Australians and New Zealanders. Will the hon. Gentleman consider making reciprocal arrangements, so that people will feel welcome in what they regard as their mother country?
    Mr. Lyon: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he says, but I will look at this. I think that the working holiday concession is available to any Commonwealth citizen irrespective of whether he is first, second, third or fourth generation. So far this year we have allowed 135,000 people in from Australia and refused only 14. From New Zealand we have allowed in 31,000 and refused
    1800
    only three. I doubt whether there is any real reason for complaint.
    Mrs. Hayman: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by many hon. Members as a reiteration of the Government's policy of non-discrimination between black and white members of the Commonwealth? Many of us are disturbed about the way in which the immigration laws are operated against the black citizens of the Commonwealth. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in any further concessions no special preference will be given to Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else in the white Commonwealth?
    Mr. Lyon: I thought I made clear that no special concession is made to one part of the Commonwealth as distinct from any other part. As long as I have anything to do with the matter that will remain the position. We are quite clear that there should be no discrimination in the individual cases which come before us.
    Mr. Lane: The Minister confirmed that the Government are carrying on the previous Government's policy in this respect, in which we support him. While he is rightly concerned with the efficiency of the entry arrangements for people entitled to come here, whether from Australia, New Zealand, the Indian subcontinent, or anywhere else, will he assure the House that the Government will give equal attention to improving the arrangements for keeping out people who are not entitled to come here from any source?
    Mr. Lyon: We are continually improving our methods of dealing with illegal immigration. Only last week we announced a change in the regulations concerning the filling in of application forms when people arrive in this country. The changes are designed to increase our checks against illegal immigration. In those circumstances, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has much to complain of.

    Mr. Edward Hodgson (Arrest)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order an official police inquiry into the arrest of Mr. Edward Hodgson

    1801
    at South Moor, Stanley, County Durham, on 3rd February 1974.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. I understand that the Chief Constable of Durham has already made inquiries into this matter and, in the absence of any formal complaint from Mr. Hodgson, is satisfied that no further action is necessary.
    Mr. Watkins: Notwithstanding the views of the chief constable, is my hon. Friend aware that my constituent was arrested for an alleged assault on a youth whom he found with a group of others vandalising his property and who proved to be the son of a police officer? Is my hon. Friend also aware that when the case came up at Durham Crown Court the judge directed the jury to dismiss the case immediately after the presentation of the police evidence, without even awaiting cross-examination?
    Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend considers that the case requires further investigation and will transmit Mr. Hodgson's complaint through the Home Office, I shall be glad to ask the chief constable for a report.

    Hoax Telephone Calls
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to increase severely the penalties for persons hampering the activities of the police, fire services and other services by malicious or hoax phone calls.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I keep these matters under continuing review, but the powers of the courts are already sufficient. The circumstances of each case will determine what offence may have been committed; but where, for example, there is a threat to destroy or damage property, it will be punishable on conviction on indictment under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with up to 10 years' imprisonment.
    Miss Fookes: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the penalties, is he equally satisfied with the proportion of hoaxers who are caught and punished?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am never satisfied with the proportion of people who commit any offence and who are caught. We endeavour to improve the situation the whole time. Where such people are
    1802
    brought before the courts, it is a matter for the courts to decide the penalty. This cuts both ways, as the hon. Lady will know, having listened to earlier exchanges. I am satisfied that the maximum penalties are heavy enough, and if the courts choose to exercise them they can do so.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are no better ways than those which are at present used to catch people who tie up industry with hoax bomb scares and do vast damage to our economy?
    Mr. Jenkins: If I knew of any better ways, I would advise the police on how to use them. I am sure that the police are doing what they can to deal with the problem—a problem which should not be thought of as funny because of the word "hoax". It can be grave and damaging for the people of this country.

    Terrorism (Interrogation of Suspects)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given any guidance to police authorities about methods of interrogation of those convicted of or suspected of having committed acts of terrorism.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Chief officers of police are well aware that the recent legislation in no way affects methods of interrogation, but I have arranged for the police to be reminded of this fact.
    Mr. Gow: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of those suspected of terrorism have in their possession information which, if available to the security forces, might save the lives of innocent civilians or of the security forces? Will he look again at the recommendations of the majority of the Parker Committee, in paragraphs 35 to 42?
    Mr. Jenkins: I shall look again at any reports on this matter, but what I have endeavoured to do in the past few weeks, in difficult circumstances, is to give the police additional powers—powers which they have used most effectively. I have done nothing which has not been justified by the situation, and I have sought to preserve the rights of individuals to the greatest extent possible. I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement a few moments ago and his earlier statements on the anti-terrorist legislation are most welcome? When he has demanded extra powers from this House and has obtained them, he has not failed to underline the basic rights of the citizen, and that attitude has been welcomed. When one bears in mind the unfortunate publicity following events in Belfast, one realises that my right hon. Friend's attitude is most constructive and helpful in dealing with these terrible problems.
    Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. It is important to preserve a balance. Therefore, I have given certain additional powers to the police, but not related to interrogation. It is appropriate to remind my hon. Friend that the rules on interrogation still apply.

    Licensing Laws (Erroll Report)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to implement the recommendations of the Erroll Committee on liquor licensing.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to similar Questions from a number of hon. Members on 9th December.—[Vol. 883, c. 37.]
    Mr. Lipton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the 324-page Erroll Report was presented to Parliament two years ago? Since the whole of our licensing system is in a sad state of disarray, will she say when something will be done about the situation?
    Dr. Summerskill: The House debated the report on 19th October last year. A number of its recommendations, particularly those concerning young people and an extension of the licensing hours, were controversial. The Government need more time to consider the report.

    IRA (Television Appearances)
    Mr. Norman Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his talks with the broadcasting authorities concerning the appearance of members of the IRA on television.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The broadcasting authorities have said they will take into account the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act as an important new consideration in shaping their policies in this sensitive area.
    Mr. Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the broadcasting organisations that whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation before the advent of the anti-terrorist legislation, now that the IRA is proscribed in this country there will be no justification for allowing its members to explain their policies on television?
    Mr. Jenkins: We debated this subject in the early hours of the morning on the anti-terrorist legislation and heard a powerful speech from the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). I gave my views, which have since been conveyed to the broadcasting authorities. I do not think that any real difficulty remains. We all want to see responsibility without censorship.

    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Ql. Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has now taken the chair at meetings of the NEDC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have taken the chair at meetings of the NEDC twice this year and on 24 occasions in all.
    Mr. Duffy: Will the Prime Minister say whether the NEDC is interested in the energy aspects, and especially the international aspects, of monetary control?
    The Prime Minister: The council at present is giving high priority to the question of investment with special reference to the objectives of investment, firm by firm, in public and private industry. It is at present working out its programme for 1975 and the whole House will appreciate that all the work coming before the NEDC is dominated, as yesterday's debate showed, by the international aspects of energy and the financial consequences of the world energy situation.
    Mr. Jasper More: Has the Prime Minister any plans to meet the miners?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I have no immediate plans to meet the mine-workers. I understand that the executive of the NUM met yesterday and took a decision on the situation. We had better wait and see how things develop.
    Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his chairmanship of the NEDC gives him unique authority on economic affairs? Will he take the opportunity, early in the new year, to broadcast to the nation setting out in plain and stark detail the economic situation, the remedies and the sacrifices which are necessary? will he tell the people what is expected of them? They are waiting to hear.
    The Prime Minister: I have done so, and I shall do so again whenever I consider it to be desirable.
    Mr. Heath: What action do the Government propose to take to deal with breaches of the social contract?
    The Prime Minister: This matter was fully debated yesterday. I should think that the Leader of the Opposition, who answered none of the questions put to him yesterday, ought occasionally to pay tribute to the large number of cases settled within the social contract, instead of going nit-picking round the place trying to find every case where it has gone wrong.
    Mr. Heath: Since the Prime Minister was not in the House last night to hear the speech of the Secretary of State for Employment, he will not know that his right hon. Friend did not answer this question. Therefore, will the Prime Minister now say what action the Government are taking to deal with breaches of the social contract?
    The Prime Minister: In every case, whether before or after the event, there is a danger that the guidelines are not being followed. These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or other Ministers who are concerned with the particular industries involved. The Leader of the Opposition was asked yesterday what he would do. The only alternative was clear —namely, a return to statutory policies, which would once again produce the three-day working week.
    Mr. Heath: So the Government will do nothing?

    SIMONSTOWN AGREEMENT
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary in the procedures for the termination of the Simonstown Agreement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Foreign Secretary has spoken of discussing the termination of the Simonstown Agreement, that the Secretary of State for Defence has spoken of negotiating the end of the Simonstown Agreement, and that there is a great deal more than a semantic difference between these two prospects? Will he tell us which procedure will be adopted, when it will be started, and when he expects it to be concluded?
    The Prime Minister: The matter is quite simple. It has been explained before, but I shall explain it again. We see no need for the Simonstown Agreeement. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, even before the announcement of our proposals on defence, said that, if necessary, it could be left to wither on the vine. The position, so far as we can tell from the legal interpretation, is that the Simonstown Agreement exists until it is ended by mutual agreement. If the South African Government insist on that position we shall enter into negotiations to bring it to an end, but we do not now propose to regard it as operative. We have no obligations under the agreement.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Prime Minister will certainly regret those words about the Simonstown Agreement, since there is perceptible evidence that the tragic logjam of attitudes in Southern Africa is breaking up. Is this the right time to increase the degree of social and political ostracism of South Africa?
    The Prime Minister: It is not a question of the degree of ostracism of South Africa. We very much welcome what has been happening there—which is the result of many hon. Members on this side of the House pressing the points that they have done over the last 10 years against votes by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on Rhodesia, on South Africa and on arms for South Africa. The South

    1807
    African Government are now forming a new view on where their interests lie. I welcome that they are doing that. I hope that it will lead, as has been foreshadowed in the statement by the South African Prime Minister, to substantial changes. I am referring not only to Rhodesia and apartheid, but to Namibia. We welcome the changes that are taking place, but the Simonstown Agreement has nothing to do with them.

    CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Prime Minister if he will make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage everyone who is able to participate in a social contract which will include conservation of scarce resources, collection and recycling of waste materials, work within local communities, and personal involvement in a national effort to combine the fight against inflation with progress towards a fairer and more co-operative society.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This is in fact already the Government's policy, as set out in Cmnd. 5727, War on Waste —a Policy for Reclamation. My hon. Friend will be aware of the announcement by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Environment on Monday that, as a first step towards achieving the objects set out in that paper, the Government have established the Waste Management Advisory Council, which held its first meeting yesterday.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people are anxious to help the country's survival effort and would welcome his initiative in setting out a practical programme in which they could participate? Will he consider making a television broadcast, launching such a national self-help project, and also urgently examine any departmental red tape or other factors which may prevent its success and get them removed?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this matter. It is important both environmentally and in terms of our balance of payments. I think that my hon. Friend will have seen in the White Paper the enormous figures involved in the loss of
    1808
    foreign exchange due to the fact that materials are wasted in this country.
    Regarding the reference to voluntary organisations, I believe that when this thing really gets moving many voluntary organisations will want to play their parts in it. Many of them are doing so already on their own initiative, but in many cases the councils or the industrial organisations are not geared to take full advantage of what they are doing.
    We certainly shall need a great deal more publicity on the matter. We are considering what can be done in that direction. I am sure that there will be general support from both sides of the House and the country as a whole. It is a question of ensuring collection of the waste as well as preventive action because of the enormous waste in packaging and other things which place such a heavy burden on our imports.
    Mr. Thorpe: Referring to scarce resources, I should like to ask the Prime Minister specifically about oil. Is he aware that we welcome the conservation measures announced by his right hon. Friend, but that they will save only £350 million and will still leave this country with a bill for £2,000 million for imported oil? Since the Government have rejected straightforward rationing and prefer to have rationing by the purse, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to the possibility of a two-tier pricing system, so that there may be a limited allocation for people who have to travel to work, particularly in rural areas, to ensure that they are not penalised by the increase in price?
    The Prime Minister: The last point, which is important though not original, is being considered with other proposals. My right hon. Friend, in his announcement of these matters, made it clear that it was an interim proposal. Indeed, I am sure that he and all others concerned will welcome suggestions from the right hon. Gentleman and anyone else in the country about these matters. The one mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman is important.
    I took the Question on the Order Paper to refer to waste in general and to a very wide area of importance outside energy. In a sense, I would say that we should

    1809
    concentrate very much on energy conservation, but that does not weaken the force of the argument in the non-oil and energy spheres set out in the White Paper to which I referred.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the Prime Minister aware that recent difficulties in the marketing of waste paper have proved a discouragement to local authorities and voluntary organisations which have been proceeding with enthusiasm in that area? Is he further aware that Ministers in the Department of the Environment have not responded to a proposal that the Government could help by making long-term marketing arrangements for the disposal of waste paper, and for storage in times of plenty, so that there may be an even flow and proper marketing arrangements?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive suggestion. All the facts set out, which cover a period of years and came to a head in the White Paper, suggest a whole series of frustrations and of people leaving things to be done by others. There is frustration for people who save paper which is not collected by the local authority, and the local authority is frustrated because there are no means for disposing of it. All these matters are important. That is why we have tried to get them together in this Waste Management Advisory Council. What the hon. Gentleman said is of importance. If he has any specific proposals to make, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be happy to receive them.

    WEST GERMAN CHANCELLOR
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the German Chancellor.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner—Question No. 4.
    Hon. Members: Where is he?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the House will realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not here because of the death of his
    1810
    father, a few hours ago. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen will not pursue those interruptions any further.

    PRESIDENT OF FRANCE
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the President of France.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 17th December.—[Vol. 883, c. 399.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend believe that, as a result of the private talks and the subsequent summit talks, the prospects of Britain's remaining in the Common Market are that much brighter? Will he further restate the position that, if so, he will make recommendations to the British people to accept the terms of renegotiation?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that I dealt with this matter very fully both in my statement and in answer to questions in the House on Monday. I welcome the progress that was made on the budgetary question. That is still to be ratified and turned into concrete proposals as a result of what we then decided.
    There are other matters of vital importance to this House, to the economy, and to the country, on which we hope to make progress. One or two are becoming easier, but others remain very difficult. I repeat what I said on Monday and in the speech which I made just before these talks took place, a copy of which I put in the Library, namely, that, in accordance with our manifesto, if we get satisfaction on these terms I shall certainly wish to recommend their acceptance. If we do not, I shall have to make a different recommendation.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the House of Commons be given an opportunity to make its own judgment on the results of the Prime Minister's renegotiations before there is either a Labour Party conference or recourse to the ballot box?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that when the renegotiations are complete

    1811
    the matter will be reported to the House. Indeed, the House is already spending a considerable amount of time, by day and by night, on those questions. Of course there will be a report to the House, and it will be for the House to decide whether it intends to debate the matter. It will take somewhat longer before any recommendations are made to the country, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make recommendations to the country. We shall not tell the country that we are going to take a particular decision only on the basis of the consent of the people and then take a decision rejecting any attempt to get their consent.

    EEC SUMMIT MEETING
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Common Market summit meeting.
    The Prime Minister: I did so on 16th December, Sir.—[Vol. 883, c. 1121–24.]
    Mr. Gardiner: Will the Prime Minister accept that it may be of some help to him in his negotiations, and of help to those on both sides of the Common Market argument, if we can have an early announcement from him of the form that his proposed consultation of the British people is to take? Is there any valid reason why an announcement of this should wait upon the conclusion of the negotiations and the Government's own decision upon them?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of making this clear as quickly as possible. There is no requirement that the negotiations must be completed before a recommendation is discussed. We have still to discuss this matter, and I agree that it is important to make a statement to the House at the earliest possible moment so that the House can consider it.
    Mr. Faulds: Once the Government resolve to recommend the renegotiated terms, will the Prime Minister revert to established practice and require of his Cabinet and ministerial colleagues either their acquiescence in collective responsibility or their resignations?
    The Prime Minister: I shall consider these matters when the time comes, but
    1812
    I shall not expect any degree of consistency on any question from my hon. Friend.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the Prime Minister say whether, during these discussions or at any time, the question has been gone into as to the matters arising on a determination of the Treaty of Accession at the insistence of one contracting party, and of the associated obligations involved?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking whether this matter has been discussed at the summit meeting or at other meetings, I can tell him that it was not discussed at the meeting I attended. I think that, almost certainly, the answer is that it has not been discussed at any time. We are negotiating with real intent to try to solve the problem in front of us. We have made some progress. We have not, obviously, started to discuss with our colleagues what would happen if the negotiations were to fail.
    Mr. Bid well: Does my right hon. Friend accept that continued uncertainty on the question whether we are in or out of the Common Market—
    Hon. Members: We are in.
    Mr. Bidwell: The real mood of the people is that they wish to come to a decision much more rapidly than my right hon. Friend has said. Will he comment on the suggestion that the uncertainty has a distinct bearing on many of our economic difficulties at the present time?
    The Prime Minister: I said on Monday, and I said in Paris, that it is in the highest possible interests of both this country and the eight other members that these matters be resolved as quickly as possible. It will be of great advantage to us all, but my hon. Friend, who in the course of two elections will no doubt have studied the manifesto on which we fought the elections, will realise that these are important questions for us. They also raise matters of great importance to the other members of the Common Market, and I am sure my hon. Friend would be the first to condemn us if we had a purely perfunctory discussion about them instead of going into them in the real depth in which they are being discussed at present.
    Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister saying that collective Cabinet responsibility is merely a matter for consideration? The Prime Minister may not be able to support his own Chief Whip, but cannot he stand up for collective Cabinet responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: Wherever else I should look for guidance about collective responsibility, it would not be to the right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench. I have just had to ask one of my hon. Friends whether half the people sitting around the right hon. Gentleman are themselves Members of Parliament, and I am assured they are.
    I shall try not to follow the right hon. Gentleman's practice in these matters, as, for example, when the then Leader of the House said that the right hon. Gentleman was only joking when he said he was going to reduce prices at a stroke.
    I shall make an announcement on these matters at the proper time. At the moment, we are concerned with the negotiations. At the end of the day, the position in any Cabinet is that if decisions taken by the Cabinet are not accepted it is a matter for decision by each member of the Cabinet. This was dealt with during the election by certain of my right hon. Friends, and the right hon. Gentleman made a great deal of it.
    As to the recommendation that we shall put to the country, we shall decide this when the renegotiations are complete and the last person to whom I shall look for advice on this matter is the right hon. Gentleman, who, by packing his Cabinet with cronies who supported him, failed to represent the views even of his own party.
    Several Hon. Members rose
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it is high time we went on to business questions.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put it on record, and I should like the House to realise, that I consider the Prime Minister's petulance to be a tribute to my only virtue, which is consistency, particularly on the European issue.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will kindly state the business for the first week after the Adjournment.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 13TH JANUARY—Supply [7th allotted day]: Debate on a motion to take note of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1974, and the related Departmental Minutes.
Motion relating to the Butter Prices Order 1974.
TUESDAY 14TH JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill and of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill.
Motion on EEC Documents COM(69)127 and R/2610/74 on Doctors and Dentists.
WEDNESDAY 15TH JANUARY—Progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 16TH JANUARY—Debate on the Report of the O'Brien Committee on the Export of Live Animals, Command No. 5566.
Motions on EEC Documents R/3358/74 on Agricultural Prices, and R/1270/74 on Consumer Rights and Protection.
FRIDAY 17TH JANUARY—Debate on the Report of the Nugent Committee on Defence Lands, and on the Sandford Report of the National Park Policies Review Committee.
Mr. Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Can he tell us the form in which the debate will take place on the O'Brien Report? I think the House would like to know. We are grateful that at long last we are to have a debate on this matter.
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be a debate on the National Consumer Agency before it is set up?
The Leader of the House will know that this morning an important amendment to the Social Security Benefits Bill,

1815
affecting many thousands of disabled housewives, was carried against the Government, with the support of both parties. Will he give a happy Christmas message to those affected by telling them that the Government will accept the amendment?
Mr. Short: The debate on the O'Brien Report will be on a substantive motion and, as far as we are concerned—and I am sure this applies to the Opposition, too—there will be a free vote at the end of the day.
I shall pass the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the Natonal Consumer Agency and on the vote in Committee this morning to my right hon. Friends, and no doubt they will consider what he said.
Mr. Jay: Is it not regrettable that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not found time for a debate this week on the Prayer against the import duties order which raises a number of food taxes on 1st January? Do I understand that he has not even found time for that debate during the first week after the recess? When will he find time for it?
Mr. Short: I give my right hon. Friend the undertaking that I shall find time for a debate before the Prayer is out of time.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to move Item 4 on page 2386 of the Orders of the Day relating to the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1974, as such a decision will give time for the hon. Lady the Undersecretary of State for the Home Department to carry out the assurances that she gave the Standing Committee yesterday?
Mr. Short: I can certainly meet the hon. Member on that. If that is his wish, I can ensure that the order is not put today. Of course, there could be no debate in the House, when it has already been discussed in Committee; it simply comes here for a vote, if necessary. But if he feels strongly about this, I will certainly ensure that that motion is not moved today.
Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great public debate on whether this country should remain in the Common Market has, in the minds of many people, been unfairly presented because of what appears to many of us to be the constitutional impropriety of
1816
commissioners in Brussels, who hold the same status as civil servants in this country, having free access to the media to propound their biased views without anyone having an opportunity to rebut them? Is this not a vital issue that the House should discuss when we return?
Mr. Short: I think that there is a problem about the activities and pronouncements of international civil servants. There was a statement by the Secretary-General of NATO last week. Certainly that is a point that the Government should consider.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: What has happened to the adjourned debate on the Bill relating to seat belts?
Mr. Short: I gave an assurance last week that that is still adjourned. I shall be reinstating that debate in the near future.
Mr. Spearing: Can my right hon. Friend tell us on what motion the three EEC orders will arise in the first week after the recess? Will he accept the request of the Scrutiny Committee that such motions should be amendable?
Mr. Short: We are considering the whole question of how we deal with these motions. As my hon. Friend knows, only today I have offered to have a long discussion with the Opposition on this question. We are feeling our way in this procedure and are coming up against difficulties the whole time, but I am happy to talk to the Opposition spokesman or any other hon. Member who has views on these matters.
Mr. Churchill: Since the Prime Minister has just said that he will make a statement on the doctrine of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, can we expect that statement in the first week after the recess?
Mr. Wigley: When do the Government intend that we should debate the Kilbrandon proposals and the White Paper issued in September? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that that debate will be a two-day debate?
Mr. Short: There will be a debate some time in the last week in January. I should like to sound out opinion on both sides of the House about whether we need a two-day debate, but if that is

1817
the general wish of the House, I will certainly arrange for it.
Mr. Body: One appreciates that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken that we shall be able to debate the new import duties order. Can he go on to say that we shall have ample time to debate it, since it increases a large number of food taxes and is of considerable public importance?
Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has put down a Prayer on this subject. I take it that that is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The time for that debate, of course, will be one-and-a-half hours.
Mr. Spriggs: Has the report on Members' interests been sent to the printers? If so, when may we expect it to be laid before the House?
Mr. Short: I am afraid that I do not know. I was led to understand that it would be coming before Christmas, and I still hope that it does. However, I certainly have not got it or seen it yet.
Mr. Winterton: Although the farming industry and many hon. Members will welcome the debate on the O'Brien Report, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a crisis still exists in agriculture? Will he seriously consider setting up a Select Committee on agriculture, as has been urged upon him by many hon. Members?
Mr. Short: Without accepting the premise of that question, I will certainly look at the hon. Member's suggestion.
Mr. Powell: With reference to the business on the Thursday night of the week after the recess, on the EEC documents, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to "a motion", in the singular. If so, would he reconsider that statement, since the two documents appear to refer to very different subjects?
Mr. Short: I think that I referred to a motion on agricultural prices, that is, Document R/3358/ 74, and to a motion on consumer rights and protection, Document R/1270/74. There are two different documents.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Would the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange for a debate as early as possible in the new year on
1818
the strategic plan for the North-West, so that all hon. Members may express their view? I have been asking for this since 6th May last year.
Mr. Short: I know, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady's persistence. I have suggested to her before that she might try to influence her own Front Bench to use one of their Supply Days for this matter. That was the practice followed by the Labour Party when in opposition, and very successfully.
Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all hon. Members are concerned that what they say in the House is considered to be accurate? Is he aware that the Foreign Secretary accused me yesterday of inaccuracy, when I told him that the Australian Prime Minister had said that the present Government were shilly-shallying? Would he try to persuade his right hon. Friend to make a statement in the House or to find some other way of apologising to me?
Mr. Short: I will certainly refer to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said, but of course all hon. Members are responsible for what they say.
Mr. Rost: Why have the Government not yet allocated time for a debate on the energy conservation programme, in view of the widespread criticism that they have done too little too late?
Mr. Short: The Secretary of State for Energy made an important statement recently, which he said was an interim statement. However, I passed on this point to him last week, and he will bear it in mind. If he thinks it advisable to debate the matter, I will certainly try to arrange a debate on it.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: When will legislation come forward to introduce public lending rights?
Mr. Short: I know that the Undersecretary of State for Education is very active in this matter and he hopes to make an announcement of some kind before Christmas. However, the Bill will not be introduced, I am afraid, until after the recess.
Mr. Michael Marshall: When may we expect a debate on the problems of the

1819
steel industry, particularly bearing in mind the desperate shortage of steel in the country, the urgent need for an announcement on the closure review and the intemperate attacks on the Chairman of the Steel Corporation by many Labour Members?
Mr. Short: Not next week, Sir.
Mr. Lamond: Does my right hon. Friend recall that I asked him whether he could ask our right hon. Friend to make a statement about the import of cotton yarn from Mediterranean associates in the EEC? May I remind him that this is a matter of great urgency and ask that he try to get something done about it by tomorrow at the latest?
Mr. Short: I agree that this is an extremely important point, which has been concerning the Government very much. I will refer to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Dykes: In view of the need for regular monitoring of the economic situation and the fact that the Secretary of State for Employment woefully failed to deal with the essential basis of the current economic crisis last night, when, also, the Prime Minister was not here, would the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early debate on the economy again in January?
Mr. Short: When there is another debate on the economy and one of my right hon. Friends is trying to put the case, I hope that the Conservative Party will allow him to do so.
Mr. Hannam: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the point of order that I raised on Tuesday concerning the lack of time available for important arts Questions? Would he seriously consider the suggestion, suported by hon. Members in all parts of the House, that time be given at 3.5 p.m. on those days when Education and Science Questions are tabled, for arts Questions to be answered?
Mr. Short: I realise that there is a problem, and my right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip will discuss it through the usual channels. There is only a limited amount of time, and any time given to the arts will have to come from something else. However, we shall consider this.
Mr. Cryer: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of when the legislation will be introduced to empower us to hold a binding referendum on the question of membership of the EEC?
Mr. Short: Not yet, Sir, not next week —not before Christmas. However, I hope that we can announce something shortly afterwards.
Mr. Michael Latham: When will there be a debate on the Prayer in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) on the important regulations entitled the Building (Second Amendment) Regulations, which deal with the thermal insulation of houses?
Mr. Short: Off the cuff, I cannot say how that order stands in time, but I will certainly look at it. However, I cannot guarantee to give any time—at least, not before the Prayer runs out.
Mr. Peyton: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the very important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) about a debate on energy? There is a widespread feeling that the Government, having wasted a great deal of time before taking any conservation measures, then did something halfhearted, which amounted to only a frivolous skirmish with the problem. We shall want a debate at an early date.
Mr. Short: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to call a statement which will save about £100 million a year a frivolous skirmish, I can only say that I do not. I think that that is a lot of money. However, it was an interim statement. I will certainly see what we can do and whether my right hon. Friend is able to say something else.
Mr. Faulds: What are the Government's intentions as to public lending rights? We had understood that a Bill was promised for before Christmas.
Mr. Short: I answered that question three minutes ago.
Mr. Tom King: When shall we hear a statement about the situation in the British motor-cycle industry, and particularly NVT?
Mr. Short: The problem there, to which I have referred on a number of

1821
occasions, still persists. As soon as it has been resolved, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will come to the House with a motion.
Mr. Lawson: In the light of the extraordinary performance of the Secretary of State for Employment last night in being determined to say nothing from the beginning to the end of his winding-up speech, may we have a White Paper clearly setting out the precise terms of the social contract?
Mr. Short: The extraordinary performance last night was by the Conservative Party, which quite deliberately tried to prevent my right hon. Friend from putting the Government's point of view.

MEMBERS' PAY AND ASSISTANCE TO OPPOSITION PARTIES
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The Government have decided to invite Lord Boyle's Top Salaries Review Body to undertake a full review of Members' salaries and allowances. The review body will also be invited this time to make recommendations on Peers' expenses allowances.
The last full review, as hon. Members will know, was undertaken by the Top Salaries Review Body in 1971 and resulted in increases in Members' remuneration from 1st January 1972. In its report the review body suggested that parliamentary remuneration should be subject to major reviews every four years—that is, roughly corresponding to once in the lifetime of a Parliament—but it suggested that interim adjustments should be considered between major reviews.
Apart from the updating of some of the rates of allowances in August this year, there have been no other interim adjustments and the parliamentary salary has remained unchanged now for practically three years. As a result. Members' salaries have fallen very seriously behind the rise in the cost of living. In fact, by October the retail prices index had risen by 36½ per cent. since January 1972 while Members' salary has remained static at £4,500. The Government are conscious of the serious financial strain under which many Members are now labouring and
1822
also acknowledge the restraint they have exercised during the last year or so.
The terms of reference of the review will be so drawn as to provide full scope to the review body to cover all aspects of Parliamentary remuneration, allowances and pensions. We shall ask the review body particularly to consider a mechanism whereby Members' remuneration can be regularly reviewed in future so that they do not suffer greater hardship from inflation than the rest of the community. In this connection many Members feel that their salary should be linked to a particular Civil Service salary and the review body will be reminded of this option.
The matter of Peers' expenses allowance is also being referred to the review body because the present system of a single rate of allowance is considered unsatisfactory in that it does not meet the varying circumstances of Peers attending Parliament. Some attend from distant parts of the country, while for others the House is comparatively nearby.
It is hoped that the review body will commence its work early in January, but as this is to be a thoroughgoing review, Members cannot expect the full report to be available for some time. I am sure, however, that Lord Boyle and his colleagues will, as they have always done in the past, set about their task speedily and with the utmost care and due consideration to all the factors.
Hon. Members will recall that in my statement on 29th July I announced the Government's proposals for assistance to back benchers, for Opposition parties and for political parties outside Westminster. First of all I said that I proposed to set up a Select Committee to examine the present support facilities available to back benchers.
I have today put down on the Order Paper a motion proposing the establishment of this Committee. Its terms of reference will be:
"To examine the present support facilities available to private Members in carrying out their duties in this House, in particular research assistance on matters before Parliament, and to make recommendations for such improvements as they consider necessary".
This Select Committee will have a most important task before it on behalf of back benchers.

1823
Next I referred to the Government's belief in the need to strengthen our parliamentary democracy, and said that we proposed that an independent committee should examine the question whether or not public funds should be made available to political parties for their work outside Parliament. I have had consultations with all the parties in the House, and the committee will be set up shortly after Christmas. The terms of reference will be
"To consider whether, in the interests of parliamentary democracy, prevision should be made from public funds to assist political parties in carrying out their functions outside Parliament: to examine the practice of other parliamentary democracies in this field, and to make recommendations as to the scope of political activities to which any such provision should relate and the method of its allocation".
Also in my statement in July I told the House that I would bring forward in the autumn firm proposals for the provision of financial assistance to Opposition parties in the House. Any formula on which this is based must take into account both seats in the House and votes at the last election—votes because there is a correlation between votes won and the volume of correspondence to be dealt with in the offices of the Opposition parties. In the case of the main Opposition, I have applied an upper limit— which I shall mention shortly—based on the costing of an adequate Parliamentary Office, including research facilities for the Leader of the Opposition. The scheme would be confined to parties having either: two Members elected to the House at the previous General Election; or one Member elected and a minimum of 150,000 votes cast for it at the previous General Election.
The formula of £500 per seat and £1 for every 200 votes achieves the following results: Conservative Party, £150,000— which, as I have pointed out, is a cut-off below the figure produced by the formula, a cut-off based on the costing—Liberal Party, £33,250 ; Scottish National Party, £9,700 ; United Ulster Unionists, £7,050 ; Plaid Cymru, £2,300 ; SDLP, £1,270.
The allocation of funds between the two Houses is a matter for the parties themselves to decide, but I would consider it appropriate for a percentage of these funds
1824
to be allocated for the Opposition's work in the House of Lords.
These are maximum amounts and the parties will be accountable for expenditure within these limits to the Accounting Officer of the House.
I believe that these proposals will strengthen the effectiveness and independence of Members of Parliament, of Parliament itself and of the political parties and in so doing will greatly strengthen democracy in this country.
Mr. Peyton: I am sure that the whole House will be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the statement that he has just made and will wish to reflect upon some of the very important issues which have been raised.
I recognise that this is a very difficult and thorny issue for the Government to handle. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition have no wish whatever to add to his difficulties or to play politics with them. However, at the same time, while recognising that now is never the right time to take these decisions, 1 hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the teeth of the real crisis that threatens to engulf this country it is important not to give the impression that our difficulties are just illusory.
Mr. Short: I am grateful for the first part of what the right hon. Gentleman said. No one is more aware of the country's problems than I am. Nevertheless, Members of Parliament have had no increase in salary for a very long time —for much longer than any other group in the community. I think that the time has come when salaries should be reviewed.
Mr. Ogden: My right hon. Friend has responded to the financial pressures not only on individual Members but on political parties. May I express my thanks for that part of the statement referring to the salaries of Members of Parliament? My bank manager will be equally and highly delighted.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if any Member of Parliament feels that he does not need the increase, he has no need to take it? Will he emphasise again that even if the salaries of Members of Parliament are brought back to the 1970 level, they will still not reach the 1964 level? We have shown more

1825
restraint than any other section of society for a long time.
Mr. David Steel: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the Christmas spirit in which he addressed the House this afternoon. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, although it is right and proper that the Boyle Committee should review Members' salaries, the extent to which that recommendation should be implemented will be a matter for the House in the light of the economic circumstances then prevailing? Does he agree, as many of us feel, that it is right that greater priority should be given now to the necessary expenditure on facilities for Members of Parliament rather than to the salary level itself?
Mr. Short: Certainly. I confirm that the Government are not absolutely bound to accept a report from Lord Boyle's Committee. The Government pay very great attention to any recommendation made.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House agree that the gap between the pay of Members of Parliament who are not Ministers and hon. Members who are Ministers is a delicate matter, and that in the interests of parliamentary democracy the gap should not be allowed to be too great? Can my right hon. Friend confirm what seems to be implied by his statement, that the remuneration of Ministers is not to be reviewed?
Mr. Short: I have made no statement concerning Ministers. The Government are still looking at that matter, and an announcement will be made in due course.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the announcement he has made. Regarding the announcement of assistance to smaller parties, does he accept that, despite the present difficulties, it is all the more essential that democracy should be strengthened and that we should regard this as going some considerable way to that end?
Mr. Short: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. Opposition parties in the House are at a disadvantage compared with the Government, who have the whole machinery of the Civil Service behind them. I feel that a healthy House of Commons is a very important element in our democracy.
Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that Parliament is the only body having the right to fix the salaries of its Members? Whatever the level fixed, is it not undesirable and embarrassing that that should be so? Therefore, could the view be conveyed to Lord Boyle that hon. Members' salaries should be linked to those of civil servants or other officials, once and for all? Thereafter the matter need not again be discussed.
Mr. Short: I said that this option would be put to Lord Boyle. We suggest that Lord Boyle should propose some mechanism by means of which hon. Members' salaries can be reviewed regularly without a decision having to be taken by the Government.
Mrs. Wise: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the interests of democracy also make it necessary and valuable for hon. Members to be faced with problems similar to those faced day by day by their constituents? Some hon. Members believe that the best use which could be made of the Top Salaries Review Body would be to ensure the reduction of many top salaries paid, especially in a situation where there is still much stark poverty and where the House has not yet managed even to debate the Finer Report.
Mr. Short: I have spoken to a great many hon. Members privately about this matter. I do not think it is in the interests of democracy that so many hon. Members should suffer from the financial strain which they are now experiencing.
Mr. Hall-Davis: Does the Leader of the House accept that this is a particularly inappropriate moment for a review of hon. Members' salaries, and, what is more, that it will always be an inappropriate moment to review hon. Members' salaries if the interval is as long as three years, whether inflation is 5 per cent. or 25 per cent.? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore convey to the review body that some hon. Members feel that it should not waste time considering whether there should be a more frequent review, or waste time considering linking, which I believe will present the same difficulties as the present system? Hon. Members want an annual review carried out by the review body taking into account the criteria normally used in deciding salaries in different walks of life.
Mr. Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that there is never an appropriate time. I have been a Member of Parliament for 23 years and during that time someone has always said that the time was not appropriate. The time has now come when something must be done.
I suppose it would be open to Lord Boyle to submit an interim report, and to deal afterwards with the question of the mechanics for regular reviews, if he wished to do so. That is entirely a matter for him. I regard it as a matter of some importance that he should recommend to the House some machinery for ensuring that there are regular reviews, without having to decide what is the appropriate time.
Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable body of opinion, which I hope he will represent to the Boyle Committee, which suggests that instead of hon. Members' salaries being linked to a Civil Service grade, they should be linked to the average earnings index, so that as our constituents fix their own incomes they automatically fix those of hon. Members?
Mr. Short: It is open to Lord Boyle to consider that. I might point out that it is open to my hon. Friend, or anybody else, to submit evidence to Lord Boyle's Committee.
Mr. Powell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the payment of public money to Opposition parties in the House represents an innovation so important that it should be debated by the House? Will he therefore give an assurance that this proposal will not be implemented until such an opportunity has occurred?
Mr. Short: This is a considerable innovation and, I think, a very important one. It is a significant step forward for democracy. Certainly it will require a motion before the House, which I shall put down shortly. That motion will, I hope, be debated very shortly after we return from the Christmas Recess.
Mr. William Hamilton: Arising out of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the motion will be worded in a sufficiently wide manner so as to enable us to debate the whole
1828
matter of the relationship between the executive and the legislature, because to many of us that seems to be the more fundamental issue, while the financial aspects are relatively minor?
Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the House will give a lead to the country in saying that hon. Members will accept no more than an agreed percentage per year, instead of waiting for a period of four or five years, and then incurring the acrimony of the public because hon. Members seem to be giving themselves an unreasonable increase?
Mr. Short: I agree that the relationship between the Executive and Parliament is one of the most important elements in the whole concept of the sovereignty of Parliament. Whether that point will be debatable on the motion, I do not know. I think probably not, since that is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, because the motion will deal with the mechanics of aid to Opposition parties.
As regards my hon. Friend's second point concerning a percentage, it will be open to Lord Boyle to propose something of that kind. Let us wait and see what he proposes.
Mr. Tugendhat: Will the Leader of the House accept my congratulations on his sensible and robust defence of the proposals he is putting forward, which I think deserve the robustness he gave to them?
Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not impose a self-denying ordinance on Ministers? An absurd situation is created if a Cabinet Minister is paid less than a civil servant, who is in turn paid less than heads of nationalised industries, whose salaries in turn are much lower than salaries prevalent elsewhere? If individual members of the Government wish to forgo salary increases, it is up to them to do so. It is important that the nation should at least see what the rate for the job ought to be.
Mr. Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. However, I think that the whole House will agree that the matter is more pressing in the case of Members who are not Ministers. But the other matter is being looked at. We shall have something to say about it in due course.
Mr. Wigley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although those of us in minority parties are grateful for small mercies, we would be more grateful for larger ones? Is he aware, further, that if my party won all the seats in Wales, we should still get only sufficient funds to employ 10 research assistants—one for every two portfolios? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this formula is satisfactory to meet the circumstances leading to the establishment of separate assemblies for Wales and Scotland, and is he satisfied with a situation where the combined money of Plaid Cymru and of the Scottish National Party is only a third of that of the Liberal Party, although together we have more Members?
Mr. Short: We spent many months looking at different formulae, and we discussed the matter with a great many people. We decided that any formula must take account of both votes and seats —seats because the volume of correspondence coming into an Opposition Leader's office here is directly related to the number of votes in the previous election. I have been into this matter carefully. I am afraid that it has produced the result for the hon. Gentleman's party that I have given, but he is getting more than before.
Mr. Madden: As my right hon. Friend said, there is never an appropriate moment at which to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament. However, to do it now is one of the worst times imaginable. As a full-time Member of this House, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take steps to ensure that our allowances for research and secretarial assistance are given an emphasis to enable us to perform a proper scrutiny of the executive, which present arrangements do not allow? Will my right hon. Friend instruct the Boyle Committee to defer its examination of our salaries for at least a year and to concentrate on allowances for secretarial and research assistance?
Mr. Short: No, Sir. I will not do that. I feel that the coming year will
1830
be a difficult one for the country and that it will need a vigorous, virile, healthy House of Commons. I hope that what I have announced today will contribute to that and relieve a great many Members from the worry and strain of financial difficulties in which they find themselves at present.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. All these matters are debatable at a certain time. We have a very important debate later today. I think that we must move on.
Later—
Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make a personal statement? Just now, in business questions, I raised with the Leader of the House the matter of an answer given to me yesterday by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. It would be unkind and unfair if I did not point out that on leaving the Chamber I found on the Message Board a letter waiting for me from the Foreign Secretary which was most generous and unprompted. I want to make sure that the record shows that I consider that I have received from the Foreign Secretary the apology which I sought.

BILL PRESENTED
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT)
  Mrs. Millie Miller, supported by Mr. Arnold Shaw, Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun, Mr. W. W. Hamilton, Mr. A. W. Stallard, and Mr. David Weitzman presented, pursuant to the Order of the House yesterday, a Bill to provide for the conduct of proceedings following the counting of votes at a general election in multi-constituency boroughs so as to ensure that each successful candidate shall be entitled to speak: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2nd May and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

  ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Monday 13th January.— [Mr. Coleman.]
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: As we are debating whether we shall adjourn tomorrow for Christmas, may I suggest that we should not do so? My reason is, in the tradition of this House, not that I want to stay here over Christmas, as the Lord President will realise, but that there are several matters of importance to my constituents which I think must be decided before we adjourn.
  The first specific issue to which I refer concerns the Secretary of State for the Environment. There is a tremendous backlog of decisions on planning consents as a result of appeals to the right hon. Gentleman. One which I have in mind is at a place called Carsington, where a reservoir is proposed.
  It will be realised how difficult the situation becomes when an appeal hangs fire for 18 months. Land is sterilised. People in the area who farm or who live there and work elsewhere are not aware of what is to happen to them. In this case, the appeal has been waiting at least 18 months for a decision.
  I know that there were two General Elections intervening which upset the issue completely. But there is a tremendous backlog of decisions waiting to be taken by the Secretary of State. I hope that the Lord President will ask his right hon. Friend to come to the House before we rise to announce these decisions which are causing so much difficulty. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do it tomorrow, perhaps we might sit on Monday, though God forbid, to enable him to do so.
  There seems to be something wrong about the administration of matters of this kind. I cannot believe that it takes 18 months to decide whether there should be a reservoir at Carsington or to decide other planning appeals relating to houses here and estates there. Six years ago, after inspectors had heard the arguments on both sides, planning appeals were decided within six to eight months. Now they take 18 months and sometimes longer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will
  1832
  be persuaded to keep us here for at least an extra day so that an announcement about these outstanding decisions can be made.
  My second reason for suggesting that we do not rise tomorrow is a more fundamental one. It is the situation in agriculture, which at the moment is still in dire straits. Since the last election, we have been through an extraordinary period. At that time, sections of the farming industry, especially the livestock sector, were in a desperate state. For some unknown reason, the Minister of Agriculture refused to do anything about it. He did not take action to restore confidence. As a result, it declined even further, and we reached the situation where many farmers, especially in West Derbyshire, lost a great deal of money on every animal on their farms. Even our milk farmers were losing money. Belatedly, decisions were taken, and dairy farmers got an increase. But still nothing was done for the beef farmer.
  The Minister pleaded every time that it was the fault of the EEC. That was far from the truth. However, we are to debate the EEC later today, so I shall not refer to it now. But the result of the right hon. Gentleman's special pleading, which was untrue, was that farmers in my constituency did not receive the help that they needed, and a very serious situation exists today.
  There is a grave shortage of fodder. Nothing is being done. We have statements in this House from the Minister, but no money is forthcoming. There is also grave anxiety about milk and whether there will be enough for both the liquid market and the manufacturing market from 1st January next year. I doubt it very much. The Minister must say what he intends to do to restore confidence, otherwise we shall find heifers in calf being slaughtered.
  The beef market has improved, it always does at Christmas. But it has not improved enough. The Minister told us that it was to have an increase of £18·50 a cwt. That has not happened. I hope that the Minister will say what measures he intends to take. He cannot plead that the situation is the fault of the EEC, because he has been given carte blanche to take whatever action he feels to be necessary.

  1833
  My two reasons, therefore, for suggesting that we should not adjourn tomorrow are the delays in planning decisions, which are causing great distress in my constituency, and the failure of the Minister of Agriculture to restore confidence among our farmers, who face severe shortages of many basic commodities on which they depend. Unless the Minister does something in the near future, we shall be in dire straits in 1975. I hope that the Lord President will convey these thoughts to his colleagues. Until they come to this House with specific announcements about the matters to which I have referred, I hope that we shall not rise for the Christmas Recess.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I, too, would like to submit that this is a rather inappropriate time to recess, given the figures published by the Department of the Environment last week on house building. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has spoken of the problems facing agriculture but similar problems of a far more serious nature, with far more serious implications for the future, are currently facing the building industry. The figures that were produced last week were dismal. On the one hand, we have had an 11 per cent. increase in public house-building in the third quarter of this year as compared with the same quarter of last year, and yet at the same time there has been a catastrophic collapse in the private house-building sector.
  The figures show that in the third quarter of this year, compared with the same quarter of last year, there has been a drop of 51 per cent. in private house-building starts. I submit that that is a very serious situation which ought to be debated in this House before it adjourns for the Christmas Recess. There are many thousands of people who are homeless at the moment, and many thousands more will be homeless in the future unless action is taken now. It is no good at all for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Environment to make numerous speeches throughout the country talking about different types of programmes and the different policies he has for temporary house building when at the end of every speech he says, "I have not yet made a decision; we have not yet come to any firm commitment".
  1834
  We want a decision now. We want a commitment now, and unless we get that commitment now, and unless we get action now, we shall in the next two years be facing a horrifying prospect in relation to homelessness and lack of adequate housing unprecedented in this country.
  The most important thing is the real collapse of house building in the private sector, but I would like to see that compensated for by an increase in house-building in the public sector. It is paradoxical, is it not, that at one and the same time we have a collapse in new starts for house building and we have many thousands of construction workers unemployed? There are, for example, 8,000 building workers unemployed on Merseyside, and, as many hon. Members will know, we have a stockpile of bricks throughout the country.
  We have the men and we have the resources. Our problem is to put these together effectively. I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that we should not adjourn until we have had an opportunity of debating in the House the current housing situation and of impressing upon the Secretary of State the importance of taking action now in order to protect ourselves from the possibility of a catastrophe in housing in a year's time.
  4.24 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: I share the view which I suspect most hon. Members who follow me will hold, that, horrible though the thought is, it is very unwise of us to say farewell to Ministers on the Front Bench opposite for as long as is proposed, because there are too many and too serious matters to which they should be attending. I do not believe we can rely upon them to get on with the tasks to which they should be devoting their energies unless they are under daily supervision in this House.
  Having said that generally, I make one specific point which concerns the crisis which I believe is building up in the National Health Service. Anyone who has been following this in the Press—and the Press is covering the situation accurately, I believe—must have been very alarmed at the way in which junior hospital doctors now seem to have reached an impasse in their dealings with the Department, which has led them to tell the Minister

  1835
  that they no longer have faith in her officials and wish to deal personally with her. Anyone who considers the terrible fate which they are inviting thereby must wonder what has driven them to this, but at any rate it is something seriously to be reckoned with.
  Again, and perhaps even more serious, there is the situation which has developed in the consultant field, where we have evidence from various parts of the country of such anxiety, unease and general distrust amongst consultants over the way in which the Government are dealing with the negotiations about their interests that they have started to work to rule. I have seen, as other hon. Members may have, a letter which has been sent to the Minister which explains the concern of the British Medical Association at what it regards as inexplicable delays, and which warns the Minister in terms of a grave risk of unprecedented disturbance to the National Health Service. This seems to me to be a matter of the greatest seriousness and one upon which the House should be informed at the earliest possible moment.
  We know there are meetings due to take place tomorrow. It may not be possible for the House to be informed before we rise of the results of those meetings but I believe that a full statement should be made to the House at the earliest possible moment—that may be an argument for our returning earlier than planned— about the dealings between the Government and doctors, consultants, and junior doctors, and also about the general state of morale in the health service, where nurses are perplexed and distressed and administrators are terrified of the impact of the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State. The country as a whole must be gravely concerned at what is happening in a service in which we used, and rightly, to take great pride but which now seems in danger of something close to collapse. This is something which should concern the House, and the Minister must devote his energy to sorting out the problems, and we must have a statement at the earliest possible moment.
  4.26 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I feel it would not be right for the House to adjourn without my
  1836
  putting on record my thanks for the statement made by the Leader of the House today about the general concept of hon. Members' salaries and facilities for back benchers. While he was speaking I felt, from the questions that were raised on both sides of the House, that hon. Members had failed to notice the motion on today's Order Paper and an important part of the statement made by my right hon. Friend in relation to back-up services for hon. Members.
  Speaking for many of my hon. Friends, I would tell my right hon. Friend that a good number of us have become increasingly embarrassed of late by letters we have received from our bank managers asking if we would not mind banking with their institution for a change, instead of their institutions banking with us. Though our constituents have every right to expect considerable sacrifice from their Members, for, after all, we are the ones who stand for election, they have not the right to ask us to make sacrifices for our children, and they are as entitled to share in the general increase in the existing standard of living and to be protected against any fall in that standard on the ground of the social contract as any other section of the community. It is right that my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on the way he took Questions today in view of the considerable difficulty he must have faced in trying to come to such a decision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orms-kirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) made an important statement on housing. I would agree that we have had so many false starts, false booms and false promises in the field of housing that it is better that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment should be able to work out a coherent and sustainable plan to deal with this terrible problem than that he should come to this House and rush along, starting to make statements which again turn out later to be only false promises. The manifesto of the Parliamentary Labour Party is a very popular document at the present moment. I, too, believe in it, and I would point out to my right hon. Friend that one of its important parts is the statement on transport on page 20, stating that the energy crisis has undermined our objective to move as much traffic as possible from road to rail and water.

  1837
  One of the things which have happened in my area is that Freightliners have decided to close down one of its services between Hull and Liverpool, which is going to put 10,000 additional loads on the roads in the course of the year—bad roads and congested roads. That is a most terrible decision, to save £60,000, on the figures we were given by Freight-liners.
  Apparently, on 6th January, no matter what meetings my right hon. Friends may have with various people, this service will terminate. If it does, it will make nonsense of any claim to have an integrated transport service. It will increase congestion. It will cause worse effects upon the balance of payments, with increased demands for petrol and other types of motor fuel. It will result in a number of men becoming redundant. It will result in the virtual disappearance of an important service. Before the House rises, we should have a general Government statement about the various effects of nit-picking by nationalised industries, which are rightly seeking to balance their accounts—I do not blame them for that —and taking an overall view of the problems of transport and its integration and the effects on energy conservation and fuel imports.
  I am secretary of the Parliamentary Group of the Transport and General Workers' Union. There is an industrial dispute at an establishment known as the Casonava Club. The management has said that it has dismissed people because they sought to take part in a trade union. The Gaming Board has refused to take any interest in the labour relations in that institution, although the board is responsible for the licensing of employees who work there as well as for the licensing of the establishment itself. If the board has the right to license a person to work in an establishment and to withdraw his or her licence, it has the further duty to ensure that that establishment is being properly run, that its employees may belong to a union, that the patrons are not put at risk in their gambling, and that there is no possibility of there being even a suspicion of criminality or bad supervision or anything of that nature in the institution.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should have urgent talks, before the House rises, with the Home
  1838
  Secretary to see what exactly the board is up to in not looking at this trade dispute, which has important implications for the working of the board and of the industry, quite apart from the trade union issues involved. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should make a statement on it tomorrow.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I believe that the House should not go into recess until we have dealt with the problem of providing a system of compensation for those who suffer losses through terrorist activities. We have dealt with the problem on the criminal side through the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, but that leaves the civil side and it is becoming increasingly urgent to deal with it.
  The position is quite different in Northern Ireland, which has legislation applying to the Province alone under which anyone who suffers damage to property may obtain a certificate from the appropriate police authority, testifying as to the cause of the explosion and those responsible, and entitling the holder to compensation for his losses. No such arrangements apply in Great Britain and they are becoming desperately and urgently needed.
  The Home Secretary told me on 21st November that the Government did not propose to introduce legislation to provide compensation for uninsured losses caused by terrorist action in Great Britain. But about 25 bomb incidents have occurred since the first one at the Old Bailey in March last year. They have resulted in many deaths, many injuries and hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage to property.
  The only provisions which exist in our law for compensating people who suffer are those contained in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which is restricted to compensation for victims of crimes of violence. It does not cover all forms of terrorism, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board said in its most recent report that relatively few of those entitled made claims. Since the incident at the Old Bailey on 8th March 1973 the total losses suffered, by individual private citizens especially but also by others, have escalated. In respect of

  1839
  that incident, however, many claims are still outstanding.
  I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), when he was Home Secretary, what he was going to do for people who in the Old Bailey incident lost property or suffered damage to their property and who were inadequately insured against loss, and for those who, although insured, suffered consequential loss. The then Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) replied:
  "The Government have no plans to make special provision for compensation for loss suffered on this occasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 322.]
  Not all the claims in respect of that incident were settled, and those that were settled were not all settled in full. Many people were not insured at all and had to bear their own losses.
  The question is, who should pay for the increasingly serious amount of damage being caused by terrorist incidents in this country? Insurance companies have been paying out and are continuing to do so, but they cannot be expected to do so indefinitely. It is inevitable—this is why the problem has become urgent—that sooner or later insurance companies will start tightening up their restrictions on this type of claim and will start refusing to pay. They have acted very honourably up to now, but we cannot expect them to continue as they have been behaving unless an adjustment is made in our law to make it similar to that which applies in Northern Ireland.
  One reason why I think that the ordinary citizen of Great Britain will feel rather badly about this matter, quite apart from the announcement today of the £42,000 being paid in compensation to certain people in Northern Ireland, is that one exception has been allowed for those who suffer damage through terrorist action when uninsured. The only people whose uninsured losses are being paid for are Members of Parliament. On 2nd December the Leader of the House told me:
  "Ex-gratia payments to Members in respect of compensation for uninsured losses have been made from the House of Commons Vote."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December 1974 ; Vol. 882, c. 326.]
  1840
  What is good for Members of the House of Commons is good for the average citizen who suffers uninsured loss through terrorist action.
  4.38 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: I endorse all that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has said. A possible solution would be to have something on the lines of the War Damage Insurance Act, with statutory responsibility in these matters. What the hon. Gentleman has said is timely and should commend itself to the Government.
  The matter I seek to raise is a constituency matter, which is why I seek to resist the Adjournment of the House tomorow. It concerns also a number of other constituencies. If I say at once that it is an example of the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism, I do not think that when I have told my story my description will be regarded as tendentious or unreasonable. Indeed, I expect that many hon. Members would support my request to have the situation resolved.
  Some time ago one or more organisations—I use no other description at the moment—decided to indulge in an extensive sales campaign in various parts of the Midlands. They did so by means of pyramid selling, an activity about which legislation has been introduced on a number of occasions, including one quite recently, in order to curb it, although not, it seems, with unqualified success.
  A number of people with grandiloquent designations—"general manager", "captain" and so on—were employed to engage people for the purpose of licensing other individuals to sell low-quality goods. An organisation called Holiday Magic and another company decided to seize upon certain areas of the country and saturate them with licensees to sell low-grade cosmetics from their front parlours. Coincidentally with that, one of a number of finance companies came on the scene and offered finance to people who had been inveigled into beings licensees of Holiday Magis.
  It has been suggested all along that these operation were entirely coincidental and not interconnected. I make no comment on that save to say that, on almost every occasion when Holiday Magic secured a

  1841
  new licensee, by the most extraordinary coincidence the same licensee was soon approached by representatives of a subsidiary of a large finance company and was advanced money on the strength of what inevitably turned out to be a second mortgage.
  The money advanced was far in excess of any reasonable repayment capacity. It was advanced ostensibly for such purposes as house reconstruction or improvement, but invariably it found its way to being connected with the licensing operations of Holiday Magic and was used— and, I suggest, was accepted to be used —to help finance the unfortunate persons who were engaged as licensed sales people of Holiday Magic.
  It was not long before a large number of people found themselves in a chronic state of indebtedness. From my investigations it appears that between 200 and 300 people at least in and around my constituency are victims of this system. I have reason to believe, but I have not had the opportunity personally to document this matter, that the total number of people all over the country who have been inveigled into what I can only describe as a singularly despicable and fraudulent enterprise is probably in the region of 5,000 or more.
  Not all the people were involved with Holiday Magic. There is another company, equally disreputable, called Golden Chemicals which has also engaged in the business of profligate licensing of people who are quite incapable of carrying out the sales operations that they were licensed to pursue and, indeed, were never intended so to do.
  I want to put on record, because this matter may get considerable publicity in the Midlands, that the principal finance house was Julian Hodge Ltd., whose subsidiaries were responsible for financing the operations. It is right to say, however, and I am happy to say, that—I do not know whether as a result of pressure that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden), myself and others have brought to bear, or because the companies decided of their own volition to face up to their responsibility—in many though not all cases these matters have been resolved inasmuch as the debts have been written off, and in other cases the debts have
  1842
  been written down and the scale of repayments made less repressive to the persons concerned.
  But that is not the end of the story by a long chalk. There are other finance houses—at least three which I have in mind—which have financed operations of this kind and which have not so far committed themselves to repairing the damage they have done. I seek from the Government an assurance that appropriate pressures will be brought to bear to ensure that these companies face up to their responsibilities. It may be thought that this was perhaps a rather zany but basically honest operation, but I shall explain why I suggest that that is not the case.
  First, the number of persons licensed to carry out this front-parlour salesmanship—which is perfectly permissible in itself and has been accepted for a long time, and can indeed provide useful pin money—in any given area far exceeded anything that could have any reasonable market expectation. So it was inevitable in the nature of things that persons engaged in these operations would find it impossible to sell the goods. The goods were low-grade cosmetics. Having seen them myself, although I am merely a male layman in such matters I would nevertheless say without hesitation that they were trash and could not reasonably be expected to be sold, even if there was a market expectation for them.
  The company concerned engaged agents and sub-agents all the way down the line, all of whom would have their pick. A lot of people were inveigled into the scheme. In many cases wives were attracted to the scheme without telling their husbands, and got themselves committed to taking part. This has led to a great deal of family disruption and anguish. Most important of all, however, in an overwhelming number of cases the victims concerned have been humble members of the various immigrant communities. Between 80 and 90 per cent. of the people concerned are of West Indian or Asian origin, and nearly all are very humble people. They have been enveloped into this system by people who have deliberately exploited and traded on their ignorance.
  The matter has been a source of considerable concern to the race relations

  1843
  comimttee in Birmingham, and representations have been made to me by a number of representatives of the immigrant communities in the Birmingham area about how offensive this has been. I am not saying that immigrants are the only people concerned—there have been others as well—but this aspect adds an additional piquancy to the situation.
  It is perfectly clear to me, having examined the situation and lived with it during my time as a constituency Member, and indeed even before I was elected for the Handsworth constituency on 28th February this year, that this was nothing more or less than a way of getting possession of other people's property. I say this because in case after case people have defaulted on their debts and there have been questions of foreclosure. There have been a number of instances of people being dispossessed of their property, and in many other cases such a course of action has failed only through the intervention of myself and some of my hon. Friends and because of the publicity which I am pleased to say the Birmingham newspapers have given to this thoroughly disagreeable enterprise.
  I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has no direct departmental responsibility, but he will accept that I warned him that I intended to raise the matter if given the opportunity. I seek from the Government an undertaking that the iniquitous Holiday Magic company should be wound up. There is provision for this under the Companies Act. [Interruption.] I am glad to have support from capitalists on the Opposition side of the House. I hope that hon. Members do not think this is a funny matter, because it is not funny for the people involved. [HON. MEMBERS: "TOO long."] I shall not take up much more time, but this is a matter of considerable importance. Several thousand people have been victims and there have been feelings of anguish. I do not claim that they have all been victims in equal measures. Some may have been victims through their own cupidity. It is, however, a despicable affair.
  I seek from my right hon. Friend an asurance that the companies which have been responsible for lending capital in relation to those enterprises and which have not so far taken measures to put
  1844
  right the damage they have done shall do so.
  There is provision under the Consumer Credit Act for the licensing of credit holders. Those powers are extensive and have a sting, because if the licence is withheld from the banks concerned they will find themselves out of business.
  I seek specifically that the Holiday Magic company, which is obviously a fraud from start to finish—and which has been stigmatised as such by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, where there have been comparable malpractices—shall be wound up and that anybody else who indulges in this disgraceful kind of enterprise shall receive short shrift from the Government.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Latham: I wish to raise three matters, in about three sentences each, to suggest why the House should not rise tomorrow for the Christmas Recess.
  The first is the serious absence of any statement by the Government, despite continuous requests from me and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, about the proposed development land tax. In their White Paper on land in September, the Government announced that the development gains tax would be replaced by a development land tax. Since then there has been total paralysis in the land and housing market because builders and people with land to sell for building have no idea on what basis they will be taxed. Therefore, they are not bringing forward land for development. It is difficult to imagine anything more serious for the housing situation.
  I raised the matter with the Leader of the House when he made his business statement last week, and I also raised it with the Paymaster-General at Question Time one day last week. One right hon. Gentleman said that there would be a statement shortly and the other said that I would have to bide my time in patience a little longer. The building industry cannot bide its time in patience much longer. It is a most important matter. We need a detailed statement on the development land tax before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.
  The second matter I wish to raise is the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me this afternoon when I asked him about the

  1845
  important Prayer tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott), the Shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, against the Building (Second Amendment) Regulations 1974. I understood the Leader of the House to say that he could not promise a debate on the matter before the order came into operation. The order comes into operation on 31st January 1975. It is of such importance that it should be debated tomorrow, and at the latest before 31st January.
  The order concerns the Government's new proposals for the thermal insulation of houses. It arises out of the woefully inadequate statement made recently by the Secretary of State for Energy. One aspect is particularly serious, because many points have been raised in the building industry about the inability of the building block manufacturers to meet the requirements of the order. Those points are so important that the Government should be prepared to explain their views in answering my right hon. and hon. Friends in a debate on a Prayer concerning the order, if necessary tomorrow.
  The third matter is more local. It relates to health services in Leicestershire. In a remarkable Adjournment debate about 10 days ago my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), supported by virtually all Leicestershire Members from both sides of the House, who spoke in the debate as a result of my hon. Friend's courtesy in giving them time, raised the extremely unsatisfactory state of health services in the country. We received a courteous but far from satisfactory reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who said that the Secretary of State was prepared to receive a deputation from Leicestershire Members about the situation we described. I have learned from my hon. Friend that there have been serious difficulties in fixing an appointment with the right hon. Lady. However much they respect the Minister of State, Leicestershire Members want to see the right hon. Lady herself and they will not be satisfied with seeing anyone else.
  I should be grateful for assurances from the Leader of the House that before the House rises for the recess the right hon. Lady will promise to see the delegation headed by Leicestershire Members of Parliament of both parties.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Snape: In opposing the rising of the House tomorow, I wish to raise the question of Freightliners Ltd., which I understand has been dealt with from a local angle by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) but with which I wish to deal from a national angle.
  Freightliners Ltd., a subsidiary of the National Freight Corporation, was set up under the Transport Act 1968, produced by the last but one Labour Government. Many of us who then worked in the railway industry were critical of some aspects of the Act although we welcomed other aspects. The weakness of the Act with regard to Freightliners and other subsidiary companies was that the Government hived off an integral part of the railway system, giving it to an organisation, the National Freight Corporation, primarily concerned with road transport and road haulage.
  The members of my union, the National Union of Railwaymen, now employed in Freightliners, have expressed great concern not only to me but to hon. Members on both sides of the House from a constituency point of view about the prospects of Freightliners. They have made the suggestion, now adopted by the officers and national executive committees of the various railway trade unions, that it should be returned to its rightful place within the umbrella of the British Railways Board.
  The reason is that British Rail does not now regard Freightliners as part of the railway system generally. It treats it as it would treat virtually any other commercial organisation wishing to use its metals, and it imposes upon Freightliners heavy haulage charges for the privilege of using not only its metals but British Rail locomotives, rolling stock and train crews.
  That is obviously nonsensical. When the idea of containerisation by rail was first put forward in the mid-1960s, it was hailed as the future method of moving freight by rail. But now Freightliners is in a grave financial position, one of the main causes being that the British Railways Board charges what Freightliners and the men employed in it consider to be

  1847
  extremely high haulage rates for the privilege of using its metals.
  For the sake of not only the financial position of Freightliners but the morale of the staff working within it, who are deeply concerned about their employment prospects, I hope that my right hon. Friend will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and give assurances to these extremely worried men about their prospects.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Morris: I very much agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) about the Prayer in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott). The matter, which is of great interest to the nation, should be dealt with as a priority. I hope that the Leader of the House will find time for that to be done.
  I had hoped to go away for Christmas confident that the country was being well looked after in the Government's hands, but having listened to the contribution of the Secretary of State for Employment in last night's debate I cannot go away so encouraged.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday put great emphasis on the need for encouraging exports and warned what would happen if we did not improve our export performance. We have questioned the Secretary of State for Trade many times about what he proposes by way of export incentives, yet at every Question Time all we hear from him is about the disadvantage of membership of the EEC and a campaign from the right hon. Gentleman against it.
  We need concrete proposals on how we are to help exporters. We all have exporters in our constituencies and we are probably all asked by them what help the Government are planning to give. France, Saudi Arabia and Germany all help their export industries. All over the world incentives are given for exports, yet week after week we get only an anti-EEC attitude from the Secretary of State for Trade.
  May I urge the Lord President to encourage the Secretary of State, since his Department will be answering Questions on the first day back after the recess,
  1848
  either to make a statement on export incentives tomorrow or to work out something during the holidays so that on 13th January he can give us positive answers.
  I am also concerned about the position of Northampton Grammar School. A petition was taken to the Secretary of State for Education and Science last June and I tabled a Written Question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. When are we to be told what the future holds for the school? Headmasters, masters, boys and old boys are all waiting to hear the Secretary of State's pearls of wisdom. Surely we can be given an answer before Christmas.
  5.2 p.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I want to speak briefly against the Adjournment motion before the unsatisfactory position of secondary education generally and the position of the Burton Grammar School in particular is debated or a Government statement is made.
  One of the irritants in the body of the nation at present is the question of the future of the grammar schools. At a time when the whole nation should be pulling together to exercise its best endeavours to stand firm against impending economic disaster, many people are being alienated by the Government's attitude towards the grammar schools. This ill feeling is totally unnecessary, and a wise Government would see that it did not continue.
  I am concerned about the three Burton grammar schools, which are of proven worth—Burton Grammar School for Boys, Burton High School for Girls and Dove-cliffe Mixed. I invite the Secretary of State, if we are not to have a debate, at least to make a statement declaring that he has no intention in the immediate period to implement the Government's proposals to make them comprehensives. I appreciate that he might have difficulty in reversing the policy upon which his party fought the last election, namely, the total disolution of the grammar schools, but there is ample precedent for such a reversal.
  Such a drastic step is, however, unnecessary. It would be necessary only for the right hon. Gentleman to postpone implementation of his policy. To do so would involve no more than facing up to three realities. The first is that the present

  1849
  economic climate means that there is simply not adequate money available to implement the proposals successfully. Secondly, the Education Act 1944 allows for parental choice to be taken into account. The plain fact is that the overwhelming majority of parents with children at or otherwise eligible for the Burton grammar schools do not choose to see the grammar schools disappear. Thirdly, the argument that the Burton grammar schools were providing more places than necessary is no longer valid, for local government reorganisation has supervened to allow a much wider catchment area which will more than adequately allow for the filling up of available places. So much is this so, that it is a positive scandal that 80 children this year and last who might have gone to the grammar schools have been forced against their will and that of their parents to go to comprehensive schools, since even before any legislation has been passed the Staffordshire local education authority has taken it upon itself to act as though this were the law.
  I end by thanking the Secretary of State for Education and Science for upholding my appeals on behalf of a number of children in the Burton division who were wrongly forced into comprehensive schools, thus ensuring that they could go to grammar schools. May I warn him that feelings on the question of the Burton grammar schools are now running so high that it may well have been because of that issue alone that I held the Conservatives seat at the last election.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: Surely it was due to my hon. Friend's own great qualities.
  Mr. Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation.
  I invite the Secretary of State to delay any decision against the grammar schools until the whole subject has been reviewed and thoroughly reconsidered and until the Government can afford to carry through their proposals properly. If that is not done, grave harm may accrue to the education of Burton children, and even I do not believe that that is what the Secretary of State or his Government really want.
  5.7 p.m.
  Dr. Reginald Bennett: Adding to the latter stages of a formidable list of complaints for which the Government are responsible, I should like to interpolate one which is not as specific as many I have heard but on which I should very much like to contribute because it is one of the many big problems with which we have all been concerned. I wish to put one question and seek an assurance.
  It is now perhaps a couple of months since the polling day to which the Parliament owes its existence. At that time, I think, four-star petrol cost about 54p or 55p a gallon. Within a month there was a Government decision which increased it to about 63p a gallon. As from tomorrow, less than two months from polling day, it will be up to 72p a gallon. It will be nearly another month before we come back, and I seek an assurance that the Government will try to prevent its being 81p a gallon by that time.
  This is a progressive encroachment on the private citizen. I would not attempt to speak on behalf of the so-called motorist, who is usually an ordinary private citizen in a particularly tigerish guise inside his tin can. But the private citizen should be protected from a policy which must have been connived at by the Government though it was not actually created by them. May we have an assurance that no further rises in fuel prices will be made before we return after the recess? I should like to resist the motion to adjourn until we get such an assurance.
  5.9 p.m.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I rise to protest against the Adjournment of the House for two different but very important reasons which nevertheless are linked in a curious way. First, I object to Parliament rising before a proper Ministerial statement has been made about the recent World Food Conference held in Rome, the part played by the British Government in that conference and the contribution they are expected to make to one of the world's most serious and pressing problems. I know that my hon. Friends will not object if I say that

  1851
  this is a somewhat more important matter than some of those they have been raising.
  Hon. Members may have heard me several times in the last few weeks trying to persuade Ministers of the importance of the subject. I have no doubt that the Minister of Overseas Development, who played an honourable and constructive rôle at that conference, feels that the subject is of major importance and would be delighted to be provided with an opportunity to make a statement in the House. She may well have asked to make such a statement and been refused because of the pressure of time.
  The World Food Conference met to discuss world food problems over the next 15 years. It came up with a number of interesting proposals. What it did not do was to send out any real message of hope in respect of the next 15 months, during which, as anyone knowledgeable on the subject is aware, it is estimated that between 10 million and 40 million people will accordingly die of starvation. If that is not an important matter, I should like to know what is.
  Some of us believe that the Government could do more than they have agreed to do. There are at least two points on which I am making separate representations to the Government. First, they could increase their commitment to finance immediate food aid, and secondly they could increase the supply of fertiliser. For the Government not to make a statement on this subject or to provide time for it to be debated indicates a lack of concern about one of the most important and pressing matters facing the human race.
  Yet I am sure that that lack of concern does not reflect the feelings of hon. Members of both sides of the House. Indeed, there is deep concern among hon. Members. The Prime Minister twice in the last fortnight, in answer to me, has shown a sensitivity on the subject which I applaud. Yet it has not been found possible within the timetable for a ministerial statement to be made on it. I deplore the triviality of a great deal of what is discussed in the House and am profoundly disturbed that we cannot find time to discuss a matter so pressing, poignant and and fraught with danger for hundreds of millions of human beings as the world food shortage. I make no apology, there-
  1852
  fore, in asking hon. Members eager to be away from the House to consult their consciences.
  My second reason for suggesting that the House should not adjourn lies nearer home. For a year or so wildcat action has disrupted the commuter lines of the South-East, particularly those in South Essex which serve the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and myself, causing considerable distress, inconvenience and hardship to hundreds of thousands of railway travellers who depend on the railways to get to work.
  For some weeks past people in this area have been experiencing deliberately planned sporadic disruption of rail services. We are told that there will be similar disruption tomorrow and on Christmas Eve and that we may well have three days of it in the new year. I am not concerned with the merits of the dispute, nor would it be appropriate or proper for me in a debate of this sort in which speeches must be short to dwell on the question of disputes between union and union or between unions and employers, save to say one thing. The travelling public are wholly innocent of any involvement in this particular dispute. On the contrary they are being deprived —I measure my words very carefully— of the right to get to work, although they have paid for their transportation in full and in advance.
  Do we get any sign of concern from the bunch of extinct volcanoes on the Government Front Bench? The Secretary of State for Employment, who always has a full House when he addresses us because of his skill in the use of words, has had to be pushed to say anything on this subject. I asked him last week to intervene. After all he has an instrument called the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. It was used, was it not, in the bakers' dispute? As a matter of fact, the reduction in consumption of the india rubber substitute for bread may well have done the nation a great deal of good. But is the right hon. Gentleman willing to intervene in a dispute which is preventing vast numbers of ordinary working people, including fellow trade unionists, and many who earn less than those on strike, from getting to work? No. His advice to the House last week was that if he intervened it might make matters worse.

  1853
  I can well believe that but not for the reason he gave.
  Mr. Paul Channon: Does my hon. Friend agree that in a situation of this kind season ticket holders who are desperately inconvenienced should at least get a refund on the day their travel is disrupted?
  Sir B. Braine: I entirely agree. That was the second of two propositions which I put to the Chairman of British Rail in a letter which I hope was on his desk first thing this morning. It is taking money under false pretences to accept money from people for a service and then finding oneself impotent to provide that service, especially in circumstances where people do not know in advance when disruption is to take place.
  A few days after the Birmingham bomb incident, when people were naturally anxious and worried about the trend of events, there was one of the wildcat strikes to which I referred lasting an hour. It was sporadic, sudden and unannounced. The concourse of Fenchurch Street Station was packed with people who did not know what was happening. I am advised that had there been a bomb scare at that time the station staff and the police felt that a most serious situation could have occurred. People might have panicked and tried to get off the platforms. There might well have been injuries.
  I telephoned the National Union of Railwaymen's offices and asked to speak to Sir Sidney Greene. I could not do so. He was attending the Labour Party conference. I asked whether I could speak to the next senior officer. He too was unavailable; he too was at the Labour Party conference. I asked the official to whom I spoke, who was most helpful, to pass on my message to the effect that an appeal should be made by the NUR to the strikers saying that their action was causing particular difficulty and hazard to innocent people at a time of national anxiety over the bombing. To this day I have had no answer.
  Mr. Snape: Surely the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the General Secretary of my union, the NUR, has made repeated appeals to the strikers in various regions to go back to work. This is an
  1854
  unofficial dispute. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any intervention by the Minister would be likely further to exacerbate the situation? His inflammatory statements will not help matters.
  Sir B. Braine: I do not agree with any of the hon. Gentleman's propositions. I acknowledge that the NUR has been endeavouring to persuade the signalmen to go back to work. Let us be fair about that. British Rail, too, has been urgnfg them to go back to work, but its appeals have failed. If both the management and the union are impotent and are unable to do anything, someone must act in the public interest. Who is that? I do not blame Sir Sidney Greene or Mr. Richard Marsh. The responsibility rests squarely on the Secretary of State for Employment. He has the necessary powers. Last week he declined to use them.
  My first proposition to British Rail and to the Secretary of State in the letter I sent them last night was that there was reason to believe that the signalmen would call off their unofficial action if an independent inquiry at which they were represented were set up straight away. That would be a start. If an undertaking were given to suspend the unofficial action in return for an inquiry into grievances, whether real or false, that surely would assist.
  The continued silence of the Secretary of State for Employment causes, and should cause, Parliament grave concern. That is one reason why the House should not adjourn tomorrow. Why should Parliament adjourn on the very day when hundreds of thousands of decent working people will be prevented from getting to work at this time of acute economic difficulty for the nation? There is, as I have shown, a way out of the problem if only the Secretary of State for Employment would stir himself. Who can strengthen the resolution of the right hon. Gentleman? Who can stiffen his backbone? Only Parliament can do that. Only Parliament can control Ministers who have to answer to us for the power that for the time being they wield.
  Before we adjourn, let that great debater and maker of fine phrases come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House why he is impotent to intervene in a

  1855
  situation which is causing maximum disruption to large numbers of my constituents and those of other hon. Members who represent the South-East. Let him come here to explain why he is not able to ensure the right of our constituents to get the service for which they have paid.
  Parliamentary government is on trial everywhere in the world, and it is on trial here. It cannot long survive where those who govern refuse to redress the grievances of the governed. Either we show that we really care about important: matters or we shall forfeit all respect at home and abroad. I say, therefore, that: the House should not adjourn until the Government have shown their concern about the two matters I have mentioned.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I support right hon. and hon. Members who oppose the rising of the House tomorrow for the Christmas Recess. I warmly congratulate the Lord President on his brave announcement about the remuneration of Members of Parliament and the assistance to be given to minor parties in the House. The Lord President's announcement is to the considerable benefit of democracy, and I warmly welcome what he said. I have discovered that there is never a right time to say anything that is controversial, but I believe that the Lord President has done right by the House and the country in making his announcement.
  Will the Lord President tell me how the Select Committee which has been appointed to consider assistance to Members of Parliament has been selected? If I may be a little pointed, hon. Members belonging to the party which I have the honour to serve are mostly ex-Ministers, wealthy people or ex-members of the Research Department or of the Conservative Central Office. I would prefer the appointment to the Select Committee of an hon. Member who genuinely represents back benchers who have little or no income apart from their parliamentary salary and parliamentary expenses.
  It is strange that we should be going into recess when our economy is in a more serious state than it has ever been in my lifetime or during any period in the last 100 years. We had a full debate
  1856
  on the economy yesterday, in which many excellent speeches from both sides of the House were made, but no speaker in that debate put forward positive solutions for overcoming the economic crisis. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a superb speech which totally demolished the Government's policies. I regret that he did not devote sufficient time to putting forward what he considered to be the proper solution to those problems.
  Whether or not the Leader of the House is prepared to admit it, a crisis exists in agriculture. During business questions I asked him this afternoon whether he would appoint a Select Committee on agriculture to consider the long-term problems of the industry and to ensure that it played its full part in our economy. A Select Committtee on this important industry would be a valuable asset to the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) spoke of the fodder crisis, but he did not mention the sugar crisis. Early next year there will be a sugar shortage, and I ask the Lord President to direct his mind to that problem and tell us what actions the Government are taking to safeguard our sugar supplies.
  I hope, too, that the right hon. Gentleman will have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the continuing problems of the livestock and beef sector of British agriculture. I recognise that the Minister of Agriculture has made one or two excellent moves in recent weeks to help the livestock sector, but a great deal still needs to be done. I hope that the Lord President will have a quiet word with some of his right hon. and hon. Friends prior to the debate on the O'Brien Report which we are to have shortly after we return from the Christmas Recess. The matters dealt with in that report are of considerable interest and concern to the British livestock farmer.
  I turn to two constituency problems. During this Session I had an Adjournment debate about the non-commencement of the construction of the new Macclesfield district general hospital. This matter is still of deep concern to my constituents, not only to nurses, doctors and consultants—and, goodness knows,

  1857
  they have lobbied hard enough in expressing their dire concern. My concern is particularly for the lives of my constituents which are in jeopardy because of the totally inadequate conditions in the National Health Service in my constituency.
  There has been a long delay in the full and proper implementation of the Halsbury recommendations on nurses' pay. Many representations have been made to me by nurses who have not yet received their proper award. Bearing in mind what has been said in the Press today about the teachers and the Houghton recommendations which will be implemented very quickly, why are the nurses having to wait so long for the money to which they are entitled?
  Education is also of deep concern to me. A village not far outside Maccles-field called Rainow has for many years been promised a new primary school. Despite representations I have made to the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the replacement of two totally inadequate schools in that village, no progress has been made. The children in the meantime are suffering. One of the schools is situated on a dangerous road, and every day that passes when the schools are in session children's lives are in danger.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) is equally concerned with me about the tragic situation in Ethiopia. Will the Lord President assure us that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is doing everything he can to bring sense and reason into the happenings in Ethiopia? I am sure that the whole House shares the concern I am expressing about Haile Selassie, the ex-Emperor of Ethiopia, and his family and the many people who are in detention. I hope that proper standards and treatment are observed by those who are in power in Ethiopia. The eyes of the world are upon Ethiopia. The ex-Emperor of Ethiopia has set high standards of service not only to his country but to the world, and I hope that those who are in authority in that country will treat him as he should be treated, with respect, honour and decency.
  I oppose the rising of this House for the reasons I have expressed. I hope
  1858
  that the Lord President will deal with the many points which we have raised.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I shall be brief and wish to raise only two matters since I do not wish the House to adjourn without giving consideration to them. I hope that the Leader of the House will convey my views on both matters to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  The first matter concerns the very real anxiety felt by people throughout the country now that they realise that there is to be no death penalty for terrorists. I have always been a retentionist, yet I am now prepared to accept that there should be no death penalty. But what is to happen to those people who are convicted of terrorism and of causing the death of many completely innocent people, both young and old, who have had nothing to do with Irish affairs? The nation needs reassurance that those people will be put in places where they can cause no more damage to this country or to any more innocent people.
  I was once in a position where I was locked up for five years, and that also applies to my right hon. Friend who is now on the Opposition Front Bench, the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). People who find themselves in that position can lose all sense of civilisation. I believe that the people of this country need protection from terrorists. It may be said that my suggestions come from a Norfolk backwoodsman, but I think that we must have some action in this respect. I know that my ideas would be supported by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) who made such a magnificent speech in defending the abolition of the death penalty.
  I believe that we should have an island or a similar place, completely set apart, to accommodate terrorists of this nature. I suggest that terrorist prisoners should not mix with other prisoners and should be given some hard work, which men need in that situation. The nation should know that those people will never be allowed out again. We need reassurance on these matters, and I hope that we shall have a statement, if not before we rise for the Christmas Recess, certainly very soon after the House returns in January.

  1859
  The other matter to which I want to refer, which has not been much in the public eye, concerns an organisation called the Children of God. One of my constituents has a grandchild aged 15 or 16 who has fallen under the influence of that organisation. She has been enticed away from her school and has signed papers making over any money which she may come into in the future. I do not know whether that legal matter can be overcome, and no doubt the lawyers in the House can tell me, but I believe that the Children of God is an evil organisation and that the Home Secretary should look into it to see whether its members, who come from America, can be persuaded to go home.
  I have nothing more to add, except to comment that I believe the speeches in this debate drawing attention to our agricultural problems should be well noted by the Government. It is most important that a fair price should be obtained by those who grow sugar beet in this country. If a good price is not paid, we shall not get the contracts signed to enable us to have sufficient sugar next year—and it is next year to which we should now be looking. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer some of these points.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Before we adjourn for the Christmas Recess, I believe that the House should seriously consider debating the subject of transport. It is many months since we debated railway legislation, and on that occasion the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) entertained us for three and a half hours on the British Railways Bill, an obscure Private Bill. However, the whole matter has now come to a head because of the deteriorating energy situation.
  I wish to emphasise the importance of making sure that people are attracted off the roads, and on to the railways, particularly for day travel to work. Although there is a tentative programme by British Rail to refurbish multiple units and the sort of units that carry thousands of people every day in the provinces, the fact is that those units are aged and tatty and unfortunately have a history of unreliability. If we are to attract people to go on the railways to their place of work,
  1860
  reliability is of the essence. There is a growing fear that we shall be faced with an increase in the size of lorries. Therefore, since we have an excellent railway network, we should ensure that the size of juggernauts is not allowed to increase without the nation knowing what is happening and that the railways are used to the full.
  For example, in 1973 300 private sidings were closed, yet successive Transport Ministers have said that we must get more private sidings traffic on to the railways. It surely makes sense that we should follow such a course. Every hon. Member can give examples of private sidings which are closed, and it is obvious that that traffic has been transferred to the road. Therefore, we need urgent Government action and ministerial initiative to deal with this situation. I am pleased to see the former Minister of Transport Industries, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) on the Opposition Front Bench, and no doubt he will be pleased, as I am, at the announcement by the Minister of Transport that he hopes to persuade the top 100 firms to move their traffic from road on to rail. But the record in 1973 was not very encouraging.
  With regard to the Aire Valley in my constituency, I have been heartened by the ministerial announcement that the Aire Valley motorway proposal has been ended and that consideration is to be given to an all-purpose trunk road. That is the kind of decision that needs to be taken in other areas. There are a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who face the possibility of the building of motorways, particularly urban motorways, which are highly expensive and which in future will bring diminishing returns.
  The problem of transferring traffic from road to rail still exists. Certainly in the Aire Valley we ought to give earnest consideration to the refurbishing of equipment and rolling stock and to the opening up of new stations with park-and-ride facilities to attract people to a reliable, fast and smooth service.
  We ought also to consider opening up our countryside by the use of railway stations which have long been closed. I have in mind the Settle-Carlisle railway, a picturesque and commanding line, the passenger stations of which served the

  1861
  Yorkshire Dales National Park, which is an important and beautiful area often inundated with motor cars. Yet going through the middle of that national park we have a silver ribbon of steel which could serve the people if those railway stations were opened for ramblers, hikers and people who love the countryside without the damaging effect of thousands of cars visiting the area at weekends. We should encourage such ideas by debating them in the House.
  The second matter with which I want to deal briefly is of great importance. I suggest that the legislature should have the opportunity of scrutinising the executive. One matter that we ought to debate is the way that the executive is brought into close contact with the legislature in our parliamentary system.
  We ought to debate the increase of 10p per gallon on petrol and the increased cost of school meals. We have not had debates on those matters because the announcements were made in Written Answers to Questions. I regret that, and I urge the Government not to extend that means of making announcements. I know that the previous administration did it, and I regret that too.
  As an elected representative, I want the right to question Ministers on their decisions. I do not like a system which allows the Government to make decisions which I have no opportunity of debating either in the Parliamentary Labour Party or on the Floor of the House. If Ministers' decisions are valid, they should stand up to questioning by the Opposition. After all, that is what the Opposition are for. Therefore, we should not be prepared to allow announcements to be made in that way to avoid questioning.
  I believe that as a matter of urgency the House ought to debate its modes and procedures to ensure that Parliament, which is very old and traditional, keeps pace with the executive which has control over a complicated and highly technological society. We should ensure that the elected representatives of the people have control in this House. The power to make decisions in tower blocks down the road by a Civil Service which, albeit very devoted and competent, is not accountable to the people, should be transferred to the Floor of the House.
  I suggest that we need an urgent debate on our procedures, on the way we conduct
  1862
  our business and on the way the executive is brought into this Chamber and makes announcements. We may have to consider starting Question Time at 1.30 p.m. to allow for more statements to be made. I should have no objection to that. I should welcome an extension of the opportunities for back benchers to discuss these items of great importance. I think that we should discuss these urgent and important matters. I hope that the Leader of the House has some useful and relevant views on them.
  5.44 p.m.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: There is much force in the observations made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). The matters to which he last referred have been under discussion and consideration in this House for many years, though without producing any ideal result. The search for better procedures must continue.
  I wish to make the briefest of interventions to support certain views which have been vouchsafed in the debate.
  First, I support the argument put forward so forcefully and persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) about the problems of commuters in the South-East because of the troubles on the railways. There is a large number of commuters in my constituency. Commuters from the South-East go into Fenchurch Street station, whereas commuters from my constituency go into Liverpool Street station. I imagine that those two stations compete for the unenviable distinction of being the least attractive and comfortable of stations at the best of times. Therefore, commuting is not an agreeable circumstance in any event, but recent happenings have made travel particularly disagreeable and difficult.
  I share my hon. Friend's desire that the Government should take a quicker and more effective initiative in this matter, should show whether the Conciliation and Arbitration Service is capable of workng, and should indicate what hope can be held out to our constituents that there will be an early respite from the difficulties that they face. If rail travel is difficult and travel by private transport is increasingly difficult and expensive, the need for improvement in our public transport system in the rural areas is even

  1863
  more important. I hope that urgent attention will be given to that matter.
  I now wish to emphasise the agricultural aspect, which has already been stressed, and to support the position of the horticulture industry, a considerable section of which is based in my constituency. Horticulturists have suffered from the Government's decision on the oil subsidy and are likely to suffer even more from the increasing price of oil, which is vital to their operations.
  I support what has been said about the troubles in the National Health Service. As one who formerly had some responsibility in these matters, it is sad for me to see the trouble and dislocation at present threatening the service.
  Finally, I support what was said about the urgency of the housing situation, notably in the private sector. I agree that this could be made good by a further concentration in the public sector, but the economics of the matter, apart from public demand, make a revival in the private sector urgent and important. I know that the Secretary of State has this matter in mind, but, like the other matters to which I have referred, it is of the greatest urgency.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: It is quite wrong that the House should adjourn until we have had a clear statement by the Government on a number of points that are still outstanding on the case that has come to be known as the "Shrewsbury pickets".
  The first statement that ought to be made by the Government in justice to my constituents and to the people of Shropshire is that the so-called Shrewsbury pickets have nothing to do with Shrewsbury or with Shropshire.
  Mr. John Tomlinson: Where was the hon. Gentleman at Question Time?
  Mr. More: I am coming to that. Wait for it.
  People in Shropshire are hard-working, God-fearing and peaceable. The so-called Shrewsbury pickets were hooligans imported from places like Liverpool and Wrexham who attacked workers on building sites in Shrewsbury, next to my con-
  1864
  stituency, and at Telford, which was in my constituency until a short time ago.
  What we had at Question Time, to which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) has just referred, was a brave, clear statement by the Home Secretary that he did not intend to interfere in that case by way of clemency in his capacity as Home Secretary. As has been emphasised by the Prime Minister on a number of occasions, that question is one reserved personally to the Home Secretary.
  What I am concerned about is what has been happening in other quarters in the Labour Party and in the Government. I am entitled to say that two things have been happening, quite independent of the Home Secretary. First, I understand that a meeting was held yesterday of the Parliamentary Labour Party. This fact came to my knowledge because I found a piece of paper in the Members' lavatory headed—
  Mr. Winterton: "Government property".
  Mr. More: —"House of Commons", and it was signed by a gentleman called Barlow. It announced that there was to be a meeting of the PLP in one of the Committee Rooms to discuss this topic.
  I do not know from which faction in the Labour Party this piece of paper emanated, or who it was who thought the Members' lavatory was the right place for it, but whoever brought it there clearly did not think it was important. I agree that there are powerful arguments for having literature provided in lavatories—
  Mr. George Cunningham: This is the House of Commons.
  Mr. More: I am talking about the House of Commons. If the Government or the Labour Party are thinking on these lines, could we perhaps have "The Labour Government 1964–70: A Personal Record" or something of that kind?
  Mr. Tomlinson: Why does not the hon. Gentleman sit down?
  Mr. More: Because I have another thing of equal importance to say.
  I want to know the position of the Prime Minister in this matter. Was he at this meeting? Who is Mr. Barlow

  1865
  who summoned the meeting? I know of no hon. Member called Barlow. What was said by the Prime Minister when he met the TUC, and what are the Government's plans now in regard to this so-called case of the Shrewsbury pickets?
  One matter on which we want to be assured is that there is no question of engineering anything by way of parole for these gentlemen. I should like an assurance before the House adjourns for the recess that there will be no intervention of that kind inspired in any way by the Government.
  Another thing we want to know is that the Government have no intention of trying to alter the law. Complaints have been made by some members of the Labour Party—
  Mr. Cryer: That is what Parliament is for.
  Mr. More: I am referring to the two cases that have been decided under a particular law, and I am concerned to know that this law will not be altered on account of those cases. The law in question was passed in 1875, and it is the law of conspiracy. Therefore, we are entitled to know from the Government what the Prime Minister said to the TUC and what the Government's intentions are. We want an assurance that no further intervention will be made from the Government side in this matter and that these two hooligans will be left to serve the sentences they so richly deserve.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: So many subjects have been raised by hon. Members that one could be forgiven for thinking we were talking about the Easter Adjournment and not about the fact that we are to adjourn tomorrow.
  Several points have been made that I had intended to raise, and I shall refer only briefly to two of them. The first point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). We in the Folkestone and Hythe area are suffering in much the same way as the people of Essex, and I make one special plea on this matter. I know that signalmen have their own views on this, but they are good family men. They have, in effect, inflicted a three-day working week upon commuters from Folkestone
  1866
  and Hythe, but do they realise the number of people who are looking forward to family reunions this Christmas?
  I have received a number of letters from elderly constituents saying, in effect, "Our families are coming to see us at Christmas. As we have not seen them for the last 12 months, can you assure us that the trains will run?" I cannot give them that assurance, and it is necessary for the Minister to make a special appeal so that these families can enjoy their reunions.
  The other matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), and this is about the use of thermal blocks in the building industry. I have a factory in my constituency that is most anxious to get a decision on this matter. It employs 80 men, and it will go out of business if a decision is not made. It is important that the matter is settled as a matter of urgency.
  Last Thursday I raised with the Leader of the House the matter of the Channel Tunnel and received an unsatisfactory reply. We were led to believe that a treaty would be signed on 1st January next year to deal with this matter, but we are still awaiting a decision on it. The House has debated this issue, and a Bill was to have been brought in but so far we have not seen it. I have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I have not been able to make much progress.
  I have a number of constituents whose houses are in jeopardy because they cannot sell them, and they do not know what to do with them. This matter started at the time when the right hon. Lady the present Secretary of State for Social Services was Minister of Transport, and one can judge how long ago that is.
  I receive letter after letter saying "Will 1st January be the date on which this matter is settled?" It should be settled by then, according to all the treaty arrangements. The Bill should either be pushed through or dropped. Will the Leader of the House please give me a decision, which I cannot claim from the Secretary of State for the Environment? What is the position about my constituents? Shall we break the treaty, renegotiate it, or are we in the position that the Government will not make up their minds? We must have a decision, but we shall not be able to

  1867
  get it before 1st January if the House adjourns tomorrow. May we please have a decision on this?
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. John Tomlinson: I support some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about the need for a general debate on transport.
  I am particularly concerned that the Government's decision about the increase in petrol prices was made known by means of a Written Answer. I deplore the use of that method, and I deplore also the increase in petrol prices because of the increased rate of VAT announced in the Budget.
  These increases are logical only if they reduce the consumption of petrol, and if that happens it is imperative that we debate the implications for other predetermined transport programmes. If we are to reduce the consumption of petrol it is absurd to continue with a motorway programme that is based on transport expectations in 1968, when there was no immediate petrol crisis.
  In my constituency, a proposed motorway will do considerable environmental damage to some of my constituents, particularly those in the village of Water Orton. They will be surrounded on three sides by a motorway box, but it will be a box to carry transport which I do not think will live up to the predictions in 1968 when the decisions were taken.
  At the same time as we are building motorways like the M42 in my constituency there is a deplorable rundown in public transport in many rural areas. We should be debating transport priorities so that we can consider railway lines like the Birmingham-Nuneaton line, which serves vast parts of rural Warwickshire but has no local stations for commuters. They have to use the roads, and because they use the roads the argument grows for more motorways. This circular argument must be resolved, particularly in the light of the energy crisis.
  The whole inter-urban motorway programme should also be reviewed in the light of our wish to achieve a self-sufficient agriculture. One of the side effects of the motorway programme is that over the last 10 years we have taken from
  1868
  agriculture valuable land equivalent in size to Oxfordshire. This is not a matter just of damage to the environment and to energy conservation but also of damage to our agriculture.
  While a projected motorway is in doubt, people who live anywhere near the line suffer blight for as far ahead as 1990. Uncertainty brings incredible problems of this kind. I hope that my right hon. Friend will sympathetically consider the need for an urgent debate not only on immediate transport problems but on the interrelationship of transport policies.
  I had not intended to speak about the Shrewsbury pickets, but the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) would have done much more credit to the real arguments if he had not sought to trivialise. It is well known that Mr. Barlow is the Secretary of the Parliamentary Labour Party. There is no reason to complain about a matter being discussed in the PLP which will be, and has been, discussed in the House. Matters of public concern should be discussed in party groups as well as in the Chamber. I hope the hon. Gentleman warmly welcomes the Home Secretary's statement, as I do, since it is realistic in all the circumstances. Rather than try to score cheap party points, he and the whole House should applaud that statement before we adjourn.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rost: I am not alone in suspecting that this disgracefully incompetent Government are inviting Parliament to take three weeks' leave so that Ministers can turn their backs for that period on the looming economic crisis. As the country progresses towards the catastrophe, the Government continue to pretend that there is no problem, in case they have to take some action.
  With their shilly-shallying on the issue of whether we stay in Europe, with rising inflation, a complete breakdown of confidence in industry, rising unemployment and the worst-ever balance of payments, what do the Government do? In the economic debate yesterday, they were continually challenged to tell the country that the problem existed and to get on with a programme for survival. Yet they do nothing. We are now asked to adjourn for three weeks so that Ministers can pretend that the problem does not exist.

  1869
  This crisis is the most important problem we have, but I want to deal with only one aspect of it, where the Government could have done something. That is an energy conservation programme, which would at least have saved a few hundred million pounds on the balance of payments. After weeks of delay, we were finally presented with a package of inconsequential measures which will save practically nothing and which revealed that the Government have spent 10 months not even thinking about the problem. We should now be implementing a massive import-substitution programme. Instead of running down the food industry, we should be building it up, and we should have a major energy conservation programme.
  Countries which can well afford to be more wasteful than we can are implementing major savings. The United States today applied a 55 mph speed limit. European countries have already this year saved between 15 and 25 per cent. of oil imports. We have had 10 months of dithering, and now, after continuous pressure from the Opposition, we are presented with a package programme consisting mainly of proposals to start discussions and programmes of investigation and research, plus only one or two piddling measures—nothing constructive—to save a little energy.
  This is not the time for detailed proposals of what the Government could have done, but at least we should have had a debate on those measures in which proposals could have been made and the Government's inaction challenged. There is no shortage of energy in this country or the world if we only use it more efficiently, and there is no need for us to suffer a declining standard of living because of price increases if we get down to some sensible conservation programmes, short term, medium term and long term.
  I am therefore extremely critical of the Government for not having acted in this one respect. However minor, something could have been done here to defer the economic catastrophe into which they are rapidly leading us. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will rub the Government's noses not only in their messy mismanagement of the whole economy but in their complacency and inaction in energy con-
  1870
  servation. Ministers are far more likely to listen to him than they seem to be prepared to listen to me.
  I hope that at least the country will realise the gravity of the situation. If the Government will not tell the country, it is time that some of us persuaded the Government more aggressively to face up to these problems and propose a programme of economic survival.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Mike Noble: There is a need before we adjourn for a debate on the problems of the North-West—a substantial area, with over 80 Members of Parliament and a considerable proportion of the population and industry, which at the moment is undergoing close examination. There have been proposals over the past few years which could bring radical changes to that area. We have, for example, the changes recommended in the North-West Strategic Plan. That plan suggests that development should take place very largely along the Mersey Liverpool-to-Manchester axis. I should like to assure the House that there are other parts of the North-West. There will be considerable differences of opinion among hon. Members of both major parties who have constituencies there as to how that plan should be implemented. But it is very important that this matter is debated.
  Alongside the strategic plan we also have the question of the Central Lancashire new town. This is a growth area situated very close to one of the oldest industrial parts of this country—North-East Lancashire, where my constituency of Rossendale happens to be. When the Central Lancashire new town was proposed, we were given assurances that North-East Lancashire would consistently have preferential treatment in terms of Government assistance until it was able to stand on its own feet. With the changing policy of the previous Conservative administration and the extension of intermediate area status to the whole of the North-West, that preferential treatment has now gone.
  We have a situation in North-East Lancashire, therefore, in which we can no longer afford to offer inducements over and above those offered by areas such as that of the Central Lancashire new town. Yet we have the considerable

  1871
  problems of a decaying industrial environment. We have problems of the highest mortality rates and of some of the poorest schools, as well as problems of industries in serious decline, such as the footwear and textile industries.
  Therefore, we should have a debate on this subject. In that debate we should not hesitate to recommend that the kind of aid which areas need—not only areas such as North-East Lancashire—should not consist of jam spread very thinly but of specific aid for specific industries or companies, aid of the kind recommended in planning agreements and through the National Enterprise Board. The problems in the North-West are severe. The people of the area expect them to be considered in the House. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give serious consideration to this matter.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: Hill farming and market gardening are two sectors of agriculture which face very serious difficulties at present and require early attention by the Government. Both groups may be relatively small in number but both make an important contribution to the domestic output of British agriculture. They not only assist our balance of payments situation but in the context of the local economies, make a real contribution in terms of employment and the level of money in circulation.
  The fundamental reason for the grower's problems is the rapid and steep rise in the price of oil used to heat his glasshouses. Over the past year that price has trebled from £73 to £208 per 1,000 gallons. The Government have assisted with an oil subsidy, but that terminates at the end of December this year. Regrettably, so far the Government have remained totally opposed to any suggestion either that this subsidy should continue or that some alternative method of assistance should be substituted.
  I want to remind the House of two facts. First, the grower is entirely dependent upon the market price he receives for his products. There is no guaranteed or intervention price. Secondly, fuel amounts to over half of a grower's costs. Regrettably, there is every likelihood that the price of oil will continue to rise.
  1872
  The majority of growers in Cornwall and in the Tamar Valley, which forms part of my constituency—and there are over 150 such units—have between a quarter and a half acre under glass. They thus form largely an industry of self-employed persons, who work hard and for long hours and make a significant contribution to the local community in both an economic and a social context. The loss of this subsidy will, in general terms, mean an increase in their costs of between £750 and £1,500 per annum. This situation will lead many of them seriously to consider whether they can afford to stay in business at all and particularly whether they can continue growing with heat.
  There are three aspects of this matter which we must consider. The loss of the use of heat would mean a lack of local fresh produce early in the season. The Tamar Valley is a leading area for the production of lettuces, tomatoes and strawberries. Possibly excesses at the height of the growing season would also result. This, clearly, would be good neither for the grower nor for the consumer. I believe that there would be a shortfall in the domestic output in Britain of fruit and vegetables. There would in-inevitably be a rise in the level of prices to the consumer at times of the year other than the peak season.
  The third point we should remember is that many of the glasshouses which have been constructed within the past five years have involved considerable amounts of investment by the Government and individual growers. It would be quite ludicrous to waste these valuable resources, particularly at present. Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider their position on the oil subsidy. It is in the interests of the country as a whole as well as the local Tamar Valley community. I understand that there are no EEC objections. Indeed, most of our EEC partners will continue to aid their own growers until June 1975. Belgium gives a VAT rebate on oil. Holland subsidises the natural gas used. Denmark for example, gives low-interest bank loans. Therefore, if our partners in Europe, who are also our competitors, can do this, I believe that we also should help our our domestic producers.
  I turn briefly to the current situation of our hill farmers, and specifically to

  1873
  the farming on Bodmin Moor. As the House will know, it is areas such as this which are the source of our young cattle. Therefore, such areas play an essential part in the pattern of production of our livestock industry. To a certain extent the Government have recognised the problems which agriculture has faced this year. It has not been a good year. The short-term difficulty for hill farmers concerns the availability and the price of fodder. The Minister of Agriculture made a statement on 11th December this year. However, I believe—this is also the view of hill farmers—that the measures then announced are both inadequate and impractical.
  It is estimated that in Britain there are about 46,000 farm units which draw hill livestock subsidies, of which 10,000 are in England and 12,000 in Wales. In his statement the Minister indicated that the cost of the fodder scheme would amount to about £150,000 in total. In other words, the average amount of capital injection into each hill farm will be £3·20—two bales of hay. There are 900,000 hill cows in the United Kingdom. There is to be assistance to move of £15 per head. If we take the ceiling of £150,000 which the Minister mentioned, this means that just 10,000 cows will be moved. That is just over 1 per cent. of all hill cows. If we relate this to Cornwall and to the hill farming area of Bodmin Moor, again this means that about 115 cows will be moved, on a pro rata basis. That is just over 1 per cent. I suggest that, however well-intentioned the Minister of Agriculture may have been, this scheme is neither adequate nor practical. Health risks are also involved. I cannot see the scheme working.
  Before the House adjourns, the Minister of Agriculture should reconsider and elaborate upon this scheme, to make it more meaningful, for the sake of the future of our livestock industry.
  6.20 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am sure that the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the very hard-worked staff of the House will agree that there are many reasons why the Christmas Recess should start immediately. However, there are many reasons why it should not, to one of
  1874
  which I should like to draw attention. I refer to the Government's housing policy and the position of furnished tenants.
  Judging by the storm clouds supposed to be gathering over us with regard to economic matters, it is surprising that there seems to be plenty of money in the High Street and that the nation is doing its Christmas shopping with unabated zeal, even if only on the basis of "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
  One section of the population, mercifully a small section, will not enjoy their Christmas under any circumstances. These are people who have no home, who have no roof over their heads for themselves and their families. There is no worse predicament for any man. He cannot be happy about anything if he has no shelter for himself and his family.
  The Government gave security of tenure to furnished tenants. For the purposes of this debate, I give the Government the credit for thinking such a step would improve the situation and of having good intentions in what they did: but the effect of what they have done has been the very opposite of what they intended, which was to make more accommodation available for letting. This applies to the rural areas and especially to my constituents in Winchester.
  May I put two individual constituency cases to the Leader of the House? I know of a widow living in Winchester whose husband recently died. She is quite elderly and owns a large house. Her family have left home, and she now has to sell the house to pay estate duty. Being kindly people, the family had allowed some friends to occupy a furnished flat at the top of the house. The friends now cannot or will not leave. They cannot be removed. That elderly lady is now unable to sell her house to pay the estate duty. She finds herself between the devil and the deep blue sea. That is a genuine case, details of which I shall be happy to send to the Minister.
  The second case is a remarkable one. I know a man who runs a small private nursing home in Winchester. His daughter, who is an State Registered Nurse, and a good girl, lives with him and helps to look after the patients. They own a small lodge situated at the entrance to the drive leading to the nursing home.

  1875
  Over many years, their cook, who was required to cook the special diets for the patients, lived in the lodge. Recently that cook had to leave. The daughter said "Never mind, daddy, I shall cook the patients' meals for a few months until the new cook moves into the lodge." That was a fine arrangement. The daughter stayed at home and commenced cooking the suppers. The father went to the public house and met an old friend who had nowhere to live. The father said "You may come to live in my lodge for a few weeks, which will be just a temporary arrangement." The friend moved in to the lodge. Of course, when the cook arrived, the friend could or would not leave, and there was nowhere else for the cook to live. Consequently the nursing home, which provides a valuable service, will have to close.
  Those are two examples from a mass of cases which have arisen in my constituency as a result of the very wrong-headed measure to give security of tenure to furnished tenants. The measure is wrong, and it should be changed.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. John Peyton: The fact that we have heard so many speeches, most of which have been short, provides a good reason for holding more debates such as this. This debate contrasts very happily with the wearisome, laborious process or ritual of the Consolidated Fund debate, stretching far into the night and inflicting misery upon Ministers and untold hardships on the staff of the House. Perhaps at some future time we may even drag ourselves up to date.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) drew attention to the real problems facing the agricultural community, including the dairy farmers and the plight of the beef producers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go to the aid of the Minister of Agriculture in the Cabinet and say that we must have sensible long-term assurances for this industry. This is not a question of Conservative Members becoming emotional about their farming constituents. It is a question of this country safeguarding its food supplies for the future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) sup-
  1876
  ported my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West. I refer to him especially because he mentioned the fact that I had been locked up with him for five years. As my hon. Friend did not then go on to add that we were locked up together as prisoners of war I felt I should clear my own reputation from any cloud that his remarks might have left.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that he could not rely upon Ministers to work in his absence. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. I suffer from schizophrenia where Ministers are concerned. I often wish that the busy Ministers would leave matters alone, whereas I am constantly urging those who do nothing to get on with things. I find it very difficult to give any clear instructions or advice to the Government on this subject. I think I would opt on balance— but it is a very fine balance—for inaction, because I think that busy Ministers are very dangerous.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred to conditions in the National Health Service, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). I ask that the Leader of the House should invite the attention of the Secretary of State for Social Services to the request that she see a deputation which Members of Parliament wish to bring to her. We all know that some Ministers are more helpful and more accessible than others. The accessibility of Ministers does not usually depend simply on whether they are asked to receive members of their own parties. It would be very wrong if it did. I hope that the Leader of the House will commend to the Secretary of State that she should receive Members of Parliament who wish to put to her points on behalf of their constituents concerning conditions in the health service.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The right hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience in these matters. I am sure that he will agree that Ministers will always see hon. Members. I understood that the request was to see an outside deputation led by

  1877
  hon. Members, which is rather different. No Minister can ever agree to see every deputation even when it is led by hon. Members.
  Mr. Peyton: Even to see hon. Members, some Ministers are much more willing than others. I do not wish to go further or to be unfair, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pass my comments on to the Secretary of State for Social Services, with, of course, my good wishes for a happy Christmas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) raised a difficult question which should be considered concerning the action which should be taken to compensate people in this country for injury or damage to themselves or their property as a result of terrorist activity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Melton made two other points which deserve attention. He called for early clarification of the Government's proposals for a development land tax, and he raised the subject of housing insulation, which has been woefully neglected by successive Governments for many years and should receive urgent attention now that we are in this terrible new phase of energy shortage.
  I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) showed a blissful degree of optimism when he said that he hoped to go away feeling that matters were being well managed [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I suppose that he has gone away to recover from the wave of disillusionment which must have hit him immediately after uttering such an ill-founded hope.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), in a forceful speech, demonstrated his concern about the future of grammar schools in Burton. The Leader of the House has a great deal of experience in education. It is important to avoid dogmatic attitudes which, however right they may seem to us, simply annoy and infuriate the public.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Dr. Bennett) referred to the rocketing price of petrol. This is not a matter for which we can blame the Government. However, I blame the Government for the matter raised by the hon. Member
  1878
  for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) about Written Questions being used as a vehicle for giving bad news. I should welcome an assurance from the Leader of the House that tomorrow we shall not have the publication of a whole bevy of thinly coated, nasty pills wrapped up in the form of Written Answers. It is a bad habit. Admittedly, it has been practised by other administrations. But that does not make it any better, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his considerable influence to discourage his colleagues from it. The first that most of us heard about the increase in the price of petrol was when we read the evening papers the other day referring to a Written Answer. A matter of this kind is important enough to receive more public attention.
  Before I leave the speeches of the hon. Member for Keighley and the hon. Member for Meriden, perhaps I might refer to their comments on the relationship between the executive and Parliament. I have long felt that there is a great deal here which needs looking at carefully. It would be very useful if we could get away from partisan attitudes dictated just by where we sit in this Chamber. Those of us who are not presently in office must face the fact that Parliament loses points to the executive simply by being noisy, disruptive, bad-mannered and obstructive. The House of Commons has ample opportunities to force the Government to strip themselves of some of their camouflage from time to time and to explain what they are up to. It is our own fault that we do not take full advantage of those opportunities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), was rightly concerned about the repeated agony caused to constituents by unofficial disruptions on commuter lines. I have long felt that there is wholly inadequate appreciation on the part of the Government machine of the misery that these unfortunate commuters suffer. I was myself Minister of Transport for a number of years, and one of the most frustrating parts of that job was the realisation of how little could be done to

  1879
  ensure that the avoidable and horrid occurrences did not take place.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I do not wish to make a flippant remark, but Ministers are singularly insulated from the experience of their constituents because they travel everywhere in black limousines.
  Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that my hon. Friend found it necessary to say that. I was at that moment trying to say that when I myself was a Minister I found myself most frustrated by my inability to take effective action to deal with these monstrous frustrations dished out for no reason at all to people who do this daily slog over long and uncomfortable journeys to work and back home.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe also referred to the Channel Tunnel. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will give him total satisfaction on that.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertforshire, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) both spoke about the horticulture industry and its dependence upon the oil subsidy, the arrangements for which are due to expire at the end of this month. I cannot stress too much the importance to this industry of clearing up the position and giving an affirmative answer as soon as possible. To take the props out from under the horticulture industry will only be self-defeating in the end, in that it will force us to go for supplies to expensive markets overseas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) was concerned about the Shrewsbury pickets. Whereas I have no wish to take up every detail of his remarks, perhaps I might draw attention to some remarks made by the Solicitor-General in Oldham the other day. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "The law is no substitute for justice."
  The general line that he took gave the impression that he adopted a rather relaxed view of the law and the way that it should be enforced. It is all very well for ordinary Members to make remarks of that kind, but I believe that Law Officers should think carefully before making such comments in public. I am not at all sure that we would not want, when the House reassembles, to afford
  1880
  to the Solicitor-General some opportunity to explain exactly what he meant on a very important matter, because—let us be quite clear about this—the law is fundamental to the liberty of all of us, and if, even by accident, Law Officers of the Crown were to appear to take a rather informal view of the law that would really be very unwelcome and dangerous.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South East (Mr. Rost) referred again, as he did earlier this afternoon, to the need for energy conservation. In the reply to him and to myself earlier this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House appeared to defend what seemed to me to be the inadequate measures which the Government have taken so far in this field, and taken very slowly and late in the day. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will convey to his right hon. Friend not only the clear statement that we shall wish to debate this matter as early as possible after the Christmas Recess but that we take the view that the Government have been far too much influenced by short-term considerations in this field and it is high time they protected our wretched balance of payments position by taking much more effective action to conserve energy.
  I do not want to revive memories of the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I would like to end my remarks on this note: I would remind the Government that it is not a question of who is to blame for what. Many people may be culpable for all kinds of things today. It may be there is a measure of blame shared right throughout the community. It is not really a question, either, of what the Opposition would do. It is a Labour Government which, unhappily in our view, is in office, it is true with less than 40 per cent. of the votes. What we had hoped they would do yesterday was to give the House and the country some indication that they really understood the dimensions of the crisis into which we are drifting, and what measures they intended to take against it. Therefore, it is with regret that I say to the right hon. Gentleman, part if we must at this stage for the Christmas Adjournment but my good wishes to him personally must be intermingled with a profound regret that the

  1881
  Government should so far have failed to have discharged their high responsibility.
  6.43 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): My Christmas good wishes to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) are not intermingled with anything. I wish him a happy Christmas. He congratulated the House on an excellent debate with a number of short speeches. Mine will be short as well; all mine are. It has been an excellent debate. We should do this kind of thing more often. Speeches have been all the better because they have been short, and, on the whole, constituency speeches. The House is at its best when we have serious, well-prepared constituency speeches. I will try as briefly and concisely as I can to reply to the points that have been made.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has now left the House. He told me why he had to go. He raised the question of milk. Recently, milk producers have received an award that is to be worth over £100 million in the second half of the year. This was specifically designed to deal with the main problems facing producers—the fall in returns on calves and cull cows, the high cost of feedstuffs in winter months and the rise in agricultural wages. This should give the industry new confidence, reverse the decline in milk production which is still evident and put dairy farmers in a position to expand production. Supplies of milk for liquid consumption are not at risk. Marginal production on liquid demand is, of course, liable to fluctuation but remains substantial.
  The hon. Gentleman and a number of others, in particular the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks), raised the question of fodder. I am well aware of the concern among hon. Members, particularly those from rural constituencies, at the effect of the weather on the hay crop this year, but our cereal harvest has been substantially higher this year than last, and that should help.
  The Government have taken major steps in recent weeks both to improve the cash flow of livestock producers and to give specific help on fodder. First, the measures to improve cash flow include a
  1882
  new floor for beef producers, an increase in the hill sheep subsidy and an advancement of the 1975 payment of the beef and hill cow subsidies. These measures on beef and hill cows and the hill sheep subsidy have improved the cash flow by about £44 million, or will have done, by March 1975. Secondly, my right hon. Friend announced on 11th December a series of measures to deal specifically with the problems of fodder shortages. These include special provision for farmers to obtain guarantees for loans, with a relaxation of the normal conditions relating to cash guarantees. The Government have suspended various charges for analytical tests, which again we hope will assist farmers in difficulty at this time.
  The Government have introduced a special scheme to help hill farmers winter their cows on farms where the fodder shortage is less serious. A payment of £15 a cow is available to help farmers with the cost of this operation provided the animals are held off the hills for a period of at least two months. If I may add a comment on the beef situation raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, prices throughout the beef industry are responding to the increased confidence engendered by the measures announced by my right hon. Friend on the 21st November. Producers now have an assurance of reasonably increased returns over the period to the end of January. It is the Government's firm intention to ensure that the common agricultural policy arrangements for next year will provide equivalent support, and we have very good reason for believing this will be so.
  I would point out that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) congratulated my right hon. Friend on a number of excellent moves he said he had made. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) raised the question of houses, as did a number of other hon. Members. It is a problem in which I myself am extremely interested because I have a very badly housed constituency. He and a number of others raised the question of the extent to which a public building programme might well substitute and compensate for the drop in the private building programme. Let me say at once that the present position on house building is highly unsatisfactory. However, this needs to be seen in the

  1883
  context of the position that this Government inherited in February of this year, one of the worst ever—a rapid downturn in the private sector which had started in the second half of 1973 and a very low level of public sector building over the previous three years.
  The Government's initiatives have brought about encouraging improvements in the public sector. Let me give the House one or two figures. Between January and October of this year there have been 128,637 housing starts in the public sector. This compares with 96,637 starts in the same period of last year, an increase of 33 per cent. That is not bad. The number of public sector dwellings approved has also increased in the same period by 32 per cent. Unfortunately, these increases have not yet compensated for the significant drop in private sector starts, which have fallen from 189,000 in the same period to 92,000.
  Private sector performance is still very low but more building society funds are available following the £500 million loan scheme, and the Secretary of State for the Environment is urgently considering what further initiatives he can take in housing.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to the National Health Service. I can confirm that a meeting of the joint working party on the new consultant contract has been arranged for tomorrow. I have no doubt that a statement will be made after the meeting. That is a matter for the negotiators, but the working party is well aware of the public interest in the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is aware also of the views expressed by the junior hospital doctors. Negotiations on the lengthy and detailed proposals for changes in the contract for junior hospital doctors and dentists are continuing, although firm agreement on a number of points has already been reached.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) made some kind remarks about my statement earlier today. I am grateful for them. He also spoke about housing, about which I have already said something. He referred also to the question of the Freightliner service between Hull and Liverpool. There is one train a day Freightliner service between Hull
  1884
  and Liverpool, going via Sheffield and Manchester. The National Freight Corporation proposes to withdraw the service on 6th January, as it is making a heavy loss. The decision was a matter for the management, and for the management alone.
  There will be very few redundancies— fewer than 20, according to the corporation's estimate. There are high hopes that most of the redundant workers can be absorbed by British Railways locally. We estimate that the additional road traffic will be no more than 30 lorries a day, three per working hour each day.
  It remains the Government's policy that as much freight as possible should go by rail rather than road. We believe that it makes sense to do so on economic, social and environmental grounds. But that cannot mean that every single ton now on rail must stay there evermore, irrespective of changes in demand. We want to see a net movement from road to rail, but that does not mean that there can never be marginal changes in the opposite direction for appropriate freight.
  The distance between Hull and Manchester is 90 miles and between Hull and Liverpool 120. The quality of the road links available, mostly on the M62, make this route unsuitable for Freightliner operations, which are not normally competitive under 150 miles. The chairman of the corporation has agreed to meet local Members of Parliament who are concerned about the Government's policy, and he will be happy to do so before the decision is implemented.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) raised the wider question of Freightliner services. He will not expect me to comment on it now, but I will refer what he said to my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, especially the employment aspects.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central also raised the question of the Casanova Club in Hull. I will have inquiries made, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, met representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union about the matter last night and is at present considering their representations to him.
  Mr. McNamara: We have no Casanova Club in Hull. It is in London. I raised

  1885
  the matter in my capacity as Secretary of the Parliamentary Group of the Transport and General Workers' Union.
  Mr. Short: I am sorry to hear that there is no Casanova Club in Hull. I am interested to know that there is one in London.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) raised the question of compensation for the victims of terrorism. He rightly said that it had been highlighted by the announcement today of the award of £42,000 in Northern Ireland. I would remind him of the reply of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this matter. The general principle is that it is for the individual himself to take whatever protection he thinks appropriate against damage to his property by insuring it. That applies to damage from terrorist attacks just as much as it applies to damage from other causes.
  It is a fact, which the whole House regrets and deplores, that bomb attacks have continued for nearly two years in Great Britain and have caused a great deal of damage to property as well as a number of tragic deaths and injuries. Nevertheless—and the hon. Gentleman did not claim that we had—we have not reached the point where the risk of damage to property from terrorist activities is so great in Great Britain that it is no longer possible to obtain insurance cover. The scale of terrorist outrage is much greater in Northern Ireland, where insurance cover is therefore difficult to obtain. The case for compensation in Northern Ireland at public expense is quite different.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is well aware of the situation, and he would undoubtedly consider what action he should take if the situation deteriorated to the point where the balance of argument shifted in favour of a greater measure of State acceptance of liability to damage for property. That has not happened yet. Let us hope that it will not do so.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the ex-gratia payments to hon. Members who lost their property when we had the bomb damage here. I felt it right that we should give them ex-gratia payments. In assessing the payments, we used Civil Service rules. All hon. Members in-
  1886
  volved, except perhaps one, were satisfied with the compensation they received.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) talked about pyramid selling in the Birmingham area. As he knows, measures to outlaw pyramid selling were included in the Fair Trading Act 1973. Its provisions, and the regulations made under them, were designed to protect people from the objectionable features of such trading schemes. The legislation appears to have been effective, because there has been little evidence of abuse since it came into law. It was not, however, retrospective and is, therefore, unlikely to help people who invested unsuccessfully in pyramid schemes before the Act came into force.
  Many people who became engaged in pyramid selling took out second mortgages on their homes to obtain the necessary finance, and the applications for loan were usually made to a broker, who apparently had no link with the financier, and the applicants almost invariably stated that the loan would be for home improvements. As far as the financier was concerned, the applications were straightforward and apparently concerned routine cases. Over the past few weeks, as my hon. Friend has said, mainly as a result of an action group set up in Birmingham, the matter of the financial hardships of such people has come to public attention, and several hon. Members have been approached. I cannot answer about the Magic Holiday company, but I will have inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) raised a very important point about the development land tax. I agree that there is a problem, but I think he overstated it. I fully recognise the great urgency of legislating to implement the tax. I regret that tonight I can go no further than to say that this very complex Bill will be introduced as soon as humanly possible. I can say, however, that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General will have a very important announcement to make on the matter early in the new year.
  The right hon. Member for Yeovil and others raised the question of the Prayer on the building regulations of 1974. The order attracts the negative procedure. It

  1887
  does not require an affirmative resolution. That is so under an Act passed by the House under a previous Conservative Government. I know that it is a very important matter, and there will be no difficulty at all in arranging for it to be debated in the Merits Committee when we return after Christmas if that is the general wish of the House. I would be pleased to arrange for that to be done. If it is the general wish of the House that the Prayer should be debated in the Chamber itself, however, I will try to find time for it.
  The hon. Member for Melton also raised the question of the Leicestershire delegation. I can only repeat what I said when I intervened earlier. I have never known a case of a Minister refusing to see a Member of Parliament, but a Minister will not commit himself to see a deputation from outside led by a Member of Parliament. It would be impossible to give an assurance on this matter to cover all cases, but I shall talk to my right hon. Friend about this. I think that she has already written, or is to write, to the hon. Gentleman about it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East raised the matter of Freightliners, with which I have already dealt. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) spoke about improving exports, and I agree with all he said about the cardinal importance of the matter. He also raised the question of Northampton Grammar School. As he knows, proposals regarding this have been published and are under consideration by the Department. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as he is able to do so.
  The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Brain) spoke about the World Food Conference. I appreciate that he has taken an intense interest in this matter ever since becoming a Member of the House, and he and I have been Members for about the same period. I pay tribute to the interest he has always shown. I do not complain that he should get a little hot under the collar, because this is the sort of thing we ought to get concerned about. I very much regret that it has not been possible to have a debate on this, but I shall bear the matter in mind and see if anything can be done. How-
  1888
  ever, I reject entirely his allegation that the Government are not concerned about this. He might have paid tribute to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has achieved in Brussels. We are often told that the renegotiation is a myth, but an enormous amount has been achieved in the renegotiation of our terms—
  Sir Bernard Braine: The right hon. Gentleman would not wish to be unfair to me. I went out of my way to say that the Minister of Overseas Development had made a constructive contribution to the Rome conference, and I have said this previously in the House. On this occasion I also said that the Prime Minister was sensitive to the argument. I have no doubt about what the Minister has done. I was regretting—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer on this—that no time had been found to discuss a matter of such importance.
  Mr. Short: That does not indicate lack of concern on the Government's part. It is simply a matter of shortage of parliamentary time, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. I note what he said about my right hon. Friend, and I am grateful, but he might have paid a word of tribute to the magnificent achievement in Brussels, in the new arrangements that she has been able to negotiate there.
  The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members also raised the topic of disruption of commuter rail services. I have a great deal of sympathy with this point. But the hon. Gentleman must remember that his Government in their few years in office—two years and a bit—reduced industrial relations in this country to the lowest level ever known, and it will take some years to restore good industrial relations.
  With regard to the signalmen's dispute, British Railways are concerned about this. It is an unofficial dispute and has been condemned by the union concerned. It would not, in the circumstances, be right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the CAS to intervene. The Secretary of State does not believe that it would help bring an end to the dispute for him to intervene. Indeed, it would probably be counterproductive and cause greater difficulties if he did. The right hon. Member for

  1889
  Yeovil realises the problems in this sort of dispute. We have a great deal of sympathy with the public who suffer so much inconvenience because of unofficial disputes of this kind.
  A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), raised the question of parliamentary announcements. There is no question of avoiding parliamentary accountability. There are so many announcements from Government sources that it is not possible to make all of them in parliamentary statements, and some are made in Written Answers—
  Mr. Peyton: As we are on this subject, would the Leader of the House suggest to some of his right hon. Friends that they would be very welcome to make statements if the statements were a bit shorter?
  Mr. Short: I agree about that. I was a culprit today. I try as hard as I can to cut down statements, and I scrutinise them. I always insist on brevity, but I am afraid that this insistence is sometimes not successful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley said that the House should have the right to question Ministers on such matters as increases in petrol prices, but hon. Members already have that right. They can question Ministers at any time, and Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all their actions, for what they do and for what they fail to do. We had an economic debate yesterday when the sort of question to which my hon. Friend referred could have been raised. It is fundamental to our democracy that Ministers should be answerable to Parliament at all times.
  My hon. Friend also asked questions about transport in rural areas, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said. He will recall that I spoke for him in both the recent election and the previous election, in both of which he won. I am aware of the shortcomings of rural transport in his area. The Government are also well aware of this. My hon. Friend spoke about making more use of the railways. We fully accept that the British Railways Board is doing all it can to seek economic business, and, for their part, the Government now have power under the Railways Act 1974 to give grant assistance to expenditure on facilities for
  1890
  freight haulage by rail, but it is too early to say what level of expenditure will be involved.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) spoke about terrorism and violence in our society, and I fully share his concern. I also realise that the public are concerned. The hon. Gentleman made a number of important points. He said that the country needs protection—and, indeed, it does. But this House, and all of us who are concerned about this matter, should try to diagnose the causes of violence and lawlessness in our society. My own theory is that such causes are to be found in the fact that today there is no clear demarcation between right and wrong so far as young people are concerned. A previous generation referred to a code of behaviour which told them what was right and what was wrong. But there is nothing today to indicate what is right and what is wrong. Young people have to decide moral issues from their own resources. We must in our education system pay much more attention to moral training and example for young people.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the organisation called the Children of God. which has been causing us some concern. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary at the Home Office stated in a Written Answer today:
  "In view of the report on the activities of the movement published earlier this year by the Attorney General of New York, we asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to make certain inquiries. These are still in progress and it would be premature for my right hon. Friend to make any statement at present."
  The hon. Member for Macclesfield spoke about sugar supplies and suggested that there would be a severe shortage of sugar early next year. We must recognise that sugar beet crops in this country and elsewhere in Europe have been extremely poor and consequently further imports will be needed. But substantial quantities have already been contracted from the Continent. Negotiations with the Commonwealth sugar suppliers are continuing, and we hope to reach an agreement satisfactory to all the parties early in the new year. The EEC has committed itself to make up the remaining deficit by subsidising imports from world markets, and yesterday the EEC Commission accepted tenders for 105,000

  1891
  tons of imports. That included about 90,000 tons of raw sugar which will come to this country.
  We fully expect that terms for an agreement can be found which will satisfy both producers and consumers next year. Supplies which will reach the United Kingdom during January and February 1975 under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement will be unaffected by the delay in settling a long-term agreement. There is every reason to suppose that supplies could be under way quickly as soon as a final agreement is reached.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) raised the question of the "Shrewsbury Two", and told us that he obtained his information by scavenging around among the waste paper in one of the lavatories in the House of Commons. Representations for the early release of the men are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider. He answered many Questions on the matter today, quite clearly, with no ambiguity.
  I am aware of the motions in the names of the hon. Members for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and others and the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett). I repeat what I have already said twice in the House, that the discussions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with the TUC related to various general matters arising from the case. The trade unions have to consider its implications. I do not believe that this has necessarily carried any constitutional implications, nor that it represents any political intrusion into the judicial processes. It is well understood—and I explained it in the House recently—that advice on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy remains the sole responsibility of my right hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) complained that the Government did not put their policy yesterday. The Opposition's behaviour in the debate last night was disgraceful. Nobody shouted louder than the hon. Gentleman in trying to prevent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment putting the Government's case. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot, with hand on heart, plead with the Government to put their case and then, when they try to do
  1892
  so, shout down the Minister, which is what the hon. Gentleman did. I observed him last night. He is the best argument I know for televising Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) made an important and constructive speech about North-East Lancashire. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to what he said. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the Industry Bill, which will be published shortly. It will enable the planning agreement system to be started and the National Enterprise Board to be created. It will have a significant contribution to make in areas of the kind of which my hon. Friend spoke. I shall bear in mind his request for a debate.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) raised the important question of homelessness. He was the only Member to say that we should have a recess, and I am glad that he did. The hon. and gallant Gentleman paid tribute to the Government's efforts in the question of furnished lettings. We have heard before the point he raised, and the Government have examined it. I have been concerned in that examination. Our information is that what has been done has helped a great deal. There may be one or two cases, such as those the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised, where problems have arisen, but on the whole we believe that it has helped enormously. However, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman sends me any points that he has, I shall be happy to have them examined.
  I hope that I have covered most of the matters raised. I apologise if I have missed any. I hope that the House will now feel able to pass the motion.
  Mr. Lawrence: May we assume from the right hon. Gentleman's failure to reply to my excellent speech—I think the only excellent speech to which he failed to reply—that he does not disagree with my suggestion that one of the best things the Government can do is to stop their relentless drive towards the destruction of our grammar schools?
  Mr. Short: I did not reply to that point, although I answered a specific point about a grammar school. The hon. Gentleman raised the question generally, and I do not at all agree with what he

  1893
  said. He said that the matter was one of the most destructive influences in Britain today. I believe that the 11-plus is one of the great remaining social injustices, and the sooner we get rid of it the better. The only way is by having comprehensive, common secondary schools. It is impossible—it is a contradiction in terms —for comprehensive schools and grammar schools to co-exist in the same areas.
  The hon. Gentleman is way behind. The argument has been won throughout the country, even in the hon. Gentleman's own party, by and large. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter. If he would like to come and discuss it with me one evening, I would be happy to talk to him about it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Monday 13th January.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1975–76 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a sum not exceeding £1,630,810,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 42, for the year ending on 31st March 1976.—[Mr. Joel Barnett.]
  7.16 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful for the opportunity to ventilate for a few minutes one aspect of defence which was squeezed out of our debate on Monday. I understand that it has been agreed between the usual channels that my yodelling should not be allowed to bring down an avalanche. I do not want to precipitate a long debate on defence, to the detriment of right hon. and hon. Members who are straining to get into Europe, straining to keep out of Europe, or in an agony of indecision as to what to do about Europe.
  To keep strictly in order, my thesis is that the amounts now sought in the Vote on Account, in House of Commons Paper No. 42, are insufficient. I say that because I believe that defence is already cut to the bone and that spending should not be cut further but should be increased at least to keep pace with inflation.
  I think back to many debates on the matter. I remember a remark made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who said that the whole thing could be summed up as follows: "either we are defended or we are not."
  The Secretary of States says that NATO is the linchpin of the Government's defence policy. We should all be agreed on that. But it is a fundamental error by the Government to take NATO to mean the plains of Central Europe.
  NATO is not just the plains of Central Europe. It has two extremely vulnerable flanks, one on the north, where vast Russian forces are mustered, and one in the Mediterranean, where the alliance is in considerable disorder and where it is

  1895
  astonishing to see that the Government, according to their papers so far published, intend to thin out in Malta and to thin out in Cyprus, of all places, just when the Middle East must be the No. 1 powder keg in the world.
  Even more fundamental than the flanks of NATO are our overseas trade routes. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary says that Britain must trade with the world. We must. Yet his Government wish to reduce the frigates, destroyers and the afloat support of the Royal Navy and to poison the wells in Simonstown.
  If ever there were an indictment of the Labour Party's east of Suez policy, it is the dreadful situation over Middle East oil. Nothing that the Soviet could have done militarily against us, with its rockets, missiles, guns and submarines, could have done us more harm than has been done by the oil embargo and the fantastic recent increase in oil prices.
  Our withdrawal from the Gulf in 1967— 68 served notice to the Arab world and the Communist world that we in Britain lacked the political will-power to exert any political influence in overseas areas such as that. The irony is that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who brought about that withdrawal, is now, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the man who must face the consequences. How different the situation might have been for Britain if we had not made that catastrophic withdrawal. I put the point to the House because it makes an overwhelming case for no further withdrawals east of Suez.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £1,630,810,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 42, for the year ending on 31st March 1976.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1975–76 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £9,208,896,100, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated
  1896
  Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil Departments, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 43, for the year ending on 31st March 1976.—[Mr Joel Barnett.]

  DEFENCE ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1974–75
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £461,440,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1975, for expenditure in respect of the Defence Supplementary Estimates as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 72.—[Mr. Joel Barnett.]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1974–75
  Resolved,
  That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,538,470,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1975, for expenditure in respect of the Civil Supplementary Estimates as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 73.—[Mr. Joel Barnett.]
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Edmund Dell, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Robert Sheldon and Dr. John Gilbert.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2)
  Dr. John Gilbert accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1975 and 1976: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

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

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Second Special Report from the Scrutiny Committee, dated 20th August 1974, No. 258-II, paragraph 28 states:
  "that the House of Commons should have the right to give its opinion both on the principles and details of particular Community documents, by debating and voting on motions and on amendments thereto."
  Last night we had a debate on the Adjournment motion, and the subject for discussion concerned Community documents. The same thing has happened tonight in spite of representations that it would be better, in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, and more convenient for the House to separate matters concerning renegotiation with the EEC, and no doubt the summit renegotiations which have been continuing this week, from discussion on other documents and the draft general budget.
  I understand that document R/2829/ 74, which is included in the proposed debate, concerns the renegotiations since it concerns adjustment of contribution of moneys from Britain. The rest of the documents and the draft general budget, which I understand consists of several volumes which are in the Library, do not come directly under the heading of renegotiation or coincide with the subject of Cmnd. Paper 5790 which is also down for debate.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Lord President will consider this arrangement of business, otherwise in spite of his plea for stronger democracy, it might be difficult for the House to deal with both matters simultaneously.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. To decline to allow amendments to be tabled and, therefore, debated is an important erosion of democrary and represents the sort of spirit which pervades in Brussels. I look to you, Mr. Speaker, for protection which will give back benchers the right to express the opinion which is shared by the majority of people in the country concerning some of these documents, some of them of great complexity, which are pouring out from Brussels and which come to this House after the Scrutiny Committee has reported. I ask
  1898
  you, therefore, to give us protection by ensuring that in future the opportunity for tabling amendments and debating them will be provided.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are feeling our way in this matter and we are trying various methods of approach. We have tried "take-note" debates and "approval" debates and we thought that this week we would try debates on the Adjournment motion. However, we are quite willing to discuss this question with anybody. The basic difficulty is that Parliament has lost its sovereignty over this whole area of legislation which applies to the people of this country and the most we can do is discuss these points.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) raised the question of amending the orders. That would be a new departure for this House. We have never allowed orders to be amended, and that is a very difficult path on which to start. However, we could look at the point.
  We made inquiries on the whole question and we felt that it was the general wish of the House that these orders and the six-monthly report should be discussed in a general debate which, I hope, will go on tonight until midnight. However, we shall see how we get on, and if it is felt at the end of the time that there should be another occasion for debating budgetary matters I shall see what I can do to arrange that.
  Mr. Speaker: This is not a question for the Chair. As for protecting the rights of back benchers, the motion for the Adjournment offers the widest possible protection in that it enables anybody to say practically anything. That represents the greatest protection for back benchers. If it is desired that these matters should be debated other than on the motion for the Adjournment, the responsibility for change lies not with the Chair but elsewhere.
  Mr. Spearing: I appreciate that this is not a matter for the Chair, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Lord President mentioned that the Scrutiny Committee had sent the orders to the House for discussion and for information. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would

  1899
  give us an assurance now, not at some time in the future, that he will provide time for the House to consider these orders and the draft general budget. Possibly that could take place after the recess and on a motion which would allow of amendment.
  Unless my right hon. Friend can give that assurance, I feel sure that the debate which is to follow, which is on the motion for the Adjournment and which will range very wide, will not follow the sort of course we all want it to follow whereby it was confined to matters of renegotiation. Therefore, I hope that in protecting the interests of the House and of democracy as a whole my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that he accepts that merely the appearance of these documents on the Order Paper, albeit in italics, does not constitute consideration by this House as recommended by the Scrutiny Committee, and that he will find time for a debate on the orders and the draft general budget in the near future.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: The Leader of the House mentioned budgetary matters specifically as something that might be held over for later discussion. There are two aspects to this. One is document R/2829/74 and the other is the draft general budget—I think that I am the only person who has a copy—which runs to seven volumes. Both of these are down for discussion. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to "later discussion", which of these did he have it in mind to discuss? The two are quite separate.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House take into account that there is a vast difference between procedures which allow individual expressions of view and procedures which give the House the opportunity of expressing a collective view through motions which can be amended? That is precisely why a debate on the Adjournment motion, however wide it may go, cannot meet the point we are seeking to make.
  Mr. Short: We are in a difficulty here and we are feeling our way. We have tried various methods of discussing these subjects. I have said that if at the end of the debate the view is expressed that
  1900
  we should debate the whole thing again, I shall be happy to arrange that. We cannot withdraw the motion now since it is down for debate, but if it is generally felt that we should have another occasion we shall be very happy to provide it.
  Mr. John Davies: When the Leader of the House referred to debating the whole thing again, I take it he was not inferring that we would be going over the debate again on six months' experience?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): No, certainly not.
  Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that if we debate this matter on the Adjournment motion, the only report that will appear in the Journals of the House is that the Adjournment was moved and there was a discussion? In that case, surely there will be no record of such a discussion appearing in the Journals of the House?
  Mr. Speaker: That may indeed be so.
  Mr. David Stoddart: I should like to raise a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, although it is related to what has been said. I refer to the "take-note" discussion which we had on 3rd December relating to EEC documents R/1472/74 and R/127/74 concerning energy policy.
  Mr. Mellish: We talked it out.
  Mr. Stoddart: I know. There was an amendment to the motion which you accepted, Mr. Speaker. It was moved and supported. After one and a half hours the debate was adjourned while the Secretary of State for Energy was on his feet. In those circumstances you, Mr. Speaker, said that the debate must be adjourned. No Opposition speaker was called in the debate. Neither was the Chairman of the committee which is examining European secondary legislation called.
  On the following day, 4th December, the motion and the amendment were placed on the remaining Orders of the Day—item 28, page 1656—presumably by the Government business managers. However, the motion and the amendment did not appear on 5th December, nor have they appeared subsequently. However,

  1901
  an article in The Guardian on 5th December seemed to indicate that the Government had decided that the matter was finished and that the motion to take note had been carried.
  Surely that cannot be so. You, Mr. Speaker, announced that the debate had been adjourned, and neither Question had been put. The House did not take a decision to take note. In my view, the matter is still before the House because the motion and the amendment were moved and, therefore, they became the property of the House. In my view, it is not within the jurisdiction of the business managers to take away from the House business which is the property of the House. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how we can get the motion back on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. It is certain that no decision was taken. The motion was talked out and the debate on it will be resumed on another day. I am not sure whether the conduct of the Chair has been criticised, but I do not think it has. However, no decision was reached. When the matter is to be put back on the Order Paper is certainly not a matter for the Chair.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: We all agree that it is useful to have a general opportunity to debate developments in the European Communities both in the context of the progress reported in the White Paper, Cmnd. 5790, which we welcome, and in the context of the communiqué issued after the Paris summit meeting last week.
  There is sometimes an air of unreality about our debates on the so-called renegotiation because there is nothing before the Community which was not in contemplation when the Treaty of Accession was signed. Thus we are all grateful that there is no question of amending the treaties containing the basic terms of membership. I was glad that the Prime Minister went out of his way, before going to Paris, to say:
  "We do not seek to change the basis on which the European Community is founded."
  In consequence of the attitude which the Government are now adopting, there is much which is encouraging in recent developments on the economic and political fronts. The White Paper
  1902
  "Developments in the European Communities March—October 1974", gives in paragraph 8 an impressive list of policies carried forward. They include the conclusion of negotiations under the GATT between the EEC and the United States; Community participation in the special United Nations emergency programme to help the developing countries hardest hit by the increase in the price of oil; agreement to raise a Community loan to help member countries in balance of payments difficulties as a result of the increase in the price of oil—a subject which we debated only recently; agreement on the extension of a common Community policy towards State trading countries; progress towards determining a long-term energy strategy for the Community; and the further extension and development of political co-operation between the Foreign Ministers of the member countries of the Community.
  All those matters we welcome and many of them were carried forward at the recent Paris summit meeting. All Heads of Government, including our own, in effect reaffirmed in Paris that a strong European Community was essential for our prosperity and political influence just as a strong Atlantic Alliance is essential for our security. We have common interests, as the summit has shown, which we share with the Community; and, as the Duke of Wellington once said. "Interests never lie".
  I therefore particularly welcome those parts of the summit communiqué which emphasise the need for political co-operation at every level. I welcome the proposals which have been agreed by all Heads of Government for more regular meetings which result, in the words of the communiqué, from a unanimous recognition of:
  "the need for an overall approach to the internal problems in achieving European unity and to the external problems facing Europe"
  That applies to the need to adopt common positions and common policies in all areas of international affairs which affect the interests of the European Communities.
  There is also the welcome reaffirmation of the objective of progress towards economic and monetary union as stated at the Paris conference of 1972 as well as a very welcome determination to

  1903
  implement a common energy policy in the shortest possible time.
  All that is in addition to setting up working parties to study the possibility of establishing a passport union, a stage-by-stage harmonisation of legislation affecting aliens and the conferring of special rights on citizens of the nine member States as members of the Community. That is a very good example of European co-operation wholly in accordance with the provisions and aims and objects of the Treaty of Accession.
  There is only one caveat in the document, namely, the Prime Minister's explanation that the Government reserved their position upon direct elections to the European Parliament until after the completion of the process of so-called renegotiation. For many of us it is a matter of deep regret, both here and in Europe, that the Labour Party is not represented at the Parliament in Strasbourg. However, it should be recalled that the British position on the issue of direct elections, which was reaffirmed by the Conservative Government, was set out by the Labour Government, of which the Foreign Secretary was a distinguished member, in April 1969 in the Saragat Declaration. It was a declaration on Europe by the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Italy. It stated:
  "In the firm belief that their future and the future of Europe are indissolubly linked; that only a united Europe can make its due contribution to peace, prosperity and international co-operation and can, at the same time, provide the necessary framework for the fulfilment of their common destiny; and that therefore no effort must be spared to give a new impetus to achieve European unity, Britain and Italy have agreed their European policy as follows:
  The economic and political integration of Europe are both essential. As experience has shown, neither can go forward without the other.
  The European Communities remain the basis for European unity. The Treaties establishing these Communities provide for the accession of other European countries… .
  The political development of Europe requires that all member countries of an enlarged community shall be able to play a full part. Europe must be firmly based on democratic institutions, and the European Communities should be sustained by an elected Parliament, as provided for in the Treaty of Rome. The role of the present European assemblies must be enhanced."
  1904
  That was the statement made by the Labour Government in 1969 and reaffirmed by the Conservative Government, and I hope that it still remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, although there can be discussion about the modalities by which that objective is achieved. It is clear that, as far as one can judge, all that is at issue between us is a number of so-called terms. Let us look at the progress which has been made this year.
  The Opposition have consistently urged the need to make changes in the common agricultural policy. As the Prime Minister said from the day he launched our application to join the Community, the agriculture policy, like the other policies, can be changed, but it can be changed only from within.
  Equally, there is no need for us to differ over the attempt to find a new and fairer method of financing the Community budget. From the outset we contemplated changes in both the size and the shape of the budget and also—by the establishment, for example, of effective regional policies—changes in its structure. As we said in our 1971 White Paper,
  "Neither our contribution to, nor our receipts from, the Community budget in the 1980s are susceptible of valid estimation at this stage."
  That appeared to be what the Lord President agreed to the other day. Although no one else in the Community has raised this issue, and although every other member of the Community faces the same problems of inflation and rising oil and world commodity prices, we are nevertheless entitled at any stage to raise the issue, even though only the British Government at the moment foresee a steady real decline in our relative prosperity vis-á-vis our partners.
  If that be the case—and the Commission says on present evidence that there is some ground for that argument—we were certainly entitled to invoke the Community's 1971 undertaking that
  "if unacceptable situation should arise the very life of the Community would make it imperative that the institutions find equitable solutions ".
  Interestingly enough, the precise phrase which we negotiated is referred to in the summit communiqué. That is the concession which the Goverment have apparently achieved, namely, a repetition of

  1905
  the very undertaking that was negotiated at the outset.
  In those circumstances, the "corrective mechanism" called for by the summit conference must be supported by us, particularly as the Government have made quite clear that they are seeking a formula which would not apply to Britain alone but would be applicable to all members of the Community, so that our and their contribution might well change as national circumstances altered.
  Nor do I think that there can be any quarrel with the Government's concern to ensure that the terms of entry are fully implemented in accordance with the wishes and needs of the various Commonwealth countries. I am sure the Foreign Secretary will be able to assure the House that no Commonwealth country would wish us to leave the Community. This was referred to yesterday, but I think that the Foreign Secretary did not wholly appreciate the full force of what the Australian Prime Minister had been saying. His words were, I think, that there was no advantage to Australia if we left. New Zealand would say the same. The Foreign Secretary will confirm that the New Zealand Government were recently much more pleased with the Commission's proposals on price than with the United Kingdom's proposals. That is often the case.
  Although changes are being made, they are by no means being made solely on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government. Progress made in improved trade and aid to the developing countries of the world was promoted forcefully not only by Her Majesty's Government but also by the Commissioner who is primarily charged with this responsibility and who has done a splendid job.
  The same considerations apply in relation to the sugar-producing, developing countries of the Commonwealth, for which we sought assurances during the negotiations from partners in whose word we had confidence. Those specific and moral commitments have been fulfilled. The problem now is one not of access but of price. Here again we shall find that the British housewife, as well as the Commonwealth producing countries, will benefit considerably from our membership of the Community. We are in a much more favourable position than we should have been were we trying to
  1906
  renegotiate the old Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That would not have been as good for us, the housewife or the producing countries.
  Mr. Spearing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman used the words "have been fulfilled". The whole House hopes that that is so. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, however, that when representatives of the Commonwealth countries were in Brussels last week, instead of being offered the highest price even within the mandate which the Council of Agricultural Ministers had given to the Commission, they were offered the lowest price? We hope that the conditions will be fulfilled, but I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying we have made sure of it.
  Mr. Rippon: The specific and moral commitment referred to in the debates on the European Communities Bill was the access for the 1·4 million tons. The basic problem is price, but now that the negotiations are developing the position is much better than it would have been if we had been negotiating the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement on the old lines, and that applies to all the parties concerned. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will confirm that some progress has been made today and that the first £20 million worth of subsidies for us has been agreed. As for the other matters—value added tax and the maintenance of our own regional policies—provided, as the Prime Minister says, they do not infringe the rules of fair competition, they are all common ground. There is, therefore, very little in dispute between us on basic principles.
  The Foreign Secretary went a long way yesterday to dispel some of the illusions about Britain's position in the Community. I was glad that he blew sky high all the nonsense that has been talked about trade figures and the so-called deficit in our trade with the Community. He said, fairly enough, that very little could be deduced one way or another from the various sets of statistics which are thrown up. In so far as our deficit with the Community countries has increased, I am sure that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) was right in saying yesterday that one reason is that food and many other raw materials and commodities are now cheaper in the Community than they are outside.

  1907
  Equally, I hope that the Foreign Secretary may be able to confirm that the tariff changes which come about on 1st January will once again be beneficial to this country. Perhaps he will say which tariffs will be cut and which will rise or, at any rate, whether on average they will be going up or down in terms of the value of imports. The price of a number of items will be going up—for example, tinned peaches from South Africa—but there is little doubt that the balance of advantage lies with us as a result of the changes that will lake place on 1st January.
  As one argument after another advanced by those who wish that we were not a member of the Community is swept into limbo, it is not surprising that the old vague assertions about loss of sovereignty are being dusted off. In referring to the International Energy Agency, which in many respects is far more supranational than the Community, I was glad to hear the Foreign Secretary say yesterday that no one minds
  "abandoning sovereignty if the benefits are worth it".— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th December 1974 ; Vol. 883, c. 1563.]
  He said that in regard to the International Energy Agency the benefits would be worth while. In that case, however, there is no veto and a majority vote can bring into force an emergency from which all sorts of consequences can flow and over which we would have no direct control.
  The truth of the matter, and we in this House must face it, is that sovereignty can no longer be exercised on a purely national scale. The whole history of political progress is the history of a gradual abandonment of national sovereignty. I welcome what the communiqué said on the subject of the Luxembourg compromise. It made it clear that in regard to that compromise there would no longer be the maintenance of the practice of making an agreement on all questions conditional on the unanimous consent of the member States. That is a sensible provision, but refers only to abandoning or renouncing the practice in regard to all agreements, and there are minor matters in which it is manifestly sensible to proceed by a majority vote.
  I am sure the Foreign Secretary will confirm that there is no question of our
  1908
  having to acquiesce in any policy which we consider to be against a vital national interest. We have pooled sovereignty in a number of organisations—for example, the United Nations, NATO and WEU— and we do not complain if on the advice of the Government we support in the United Nations a mandatory resolution and subsequently feel ourselves bound to follow it. We have to realise that the Government pursue policies which they know will subsequently command the support of this House.
  Having joined the European Community and acceded to the Treaty of Rome, we are committed to certain agreed aims defined in the Community treaties. But in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty it is fair to say that the legal and constitutional implications of Britain's accession to the European Communities were clearly stated by the Prime Minister when he made the initial application, and the House subsequently voted by an enormous majority in support of the Government's proposal to apply for entry.
  In that speech on 8th May 1967 the Prime Minister—who was reinforced by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, in the House of Lords on the same day —left no room for doubt at all about the nature of the commitment to the directly applicable principle of community law that is the basis of membership on any terms. In the Prime Minister's own words:
  "membership of the Communities involves a vesting of legislative and judicial powers, in certain fields, in the Community institutions, and acceptance of a corresponding limitation of the ordinary exercise of national powers in those fields. The extent of the powers of the Community institutions in this respect is, of course, limited to the purposes set out in the Treaties, and those purposes cannot be altered except by unanimous agreement of the member States."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1088.]
  That was further spelt out in the White Paper issued by the Labour Government in May 1967. Although certain changes have occurred in the Community since then, all the succeeding Conservative Government had to do was to reissue that White Paper in 1971. Nothing has occurred since to invalidate the broad conclusion described in the 1967 White Paper. The Government could not have negotiated in good faith unless they

  1909
  accepted those basic minimum requirements.
  Mr. Neil Marten: My right hon. and learned Friend raises the interesting historical dispute about what the present Prime Minister said in 1967. However, when it came to the test on the European Communities Bill the right hon. Gentleman voted against the Question. "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill".
  Mr. Rippon: The Prime Minister has been careful to say that the only reason why he opposed it was that he did not agree with the terms. In other words, if only the terms had been right on agricultural policy and on the budget and so on, he would have seen no difficulty whatever in supporting our application to join and the signing of the treaties.
  Many matters are now coming before the House which have caused a good deal of trouble, but they are matters which the House would not think of discussing at all if they involved domestic legislation. [Interruption.] That is true. If legislation had not come from Brussels, no one would make any fuss. If it had been known, for example, that the legislation on King Edward potatoes had come from the Ministry of Agriculture without reference to Brussels, nobody would have raised a squeak of protest.
  We now have an opportunity of discussing what is in these draft regulations. What normally happens is that the Government of the day lay a Bill before the House, it has its Second Reading and the House can accept it or reject it. More frequently a stream of statutory rules and orders come out of Whitehall and there are opportunities to pray against them but with no opportunity to amend. We know that when the draft regulations on lorry weights came before the Conservative Government, because of the wholehearted disapproval that was expressed by the House we accepted that situation.
  We would then have been entitled to say—because nothing is more vital to a Government's interests than their survival —"As the House of Commons has so clearly demonstrated its opposition to the draft regulations, we shall use our veto because it relates to a vital matter of national interest—an interest so vital that Parliament has taken the trouble to express its deep concern about it." I see no difficulty in that respect.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech would be better if occasionally his sentences ended. Does he suggest that if a normal order had come forward in the House to transfer the control of our future North Sea oil supplies to an executive agency outside the House, the House would consider it not worth giving it lime for debate?
  Mr. Rippon: The House has a choice in these matters and can debate matters which are of great interest. If I do not complete my sentences in order to prevent the right hon. Gentleman intervening, it may save the time of the House.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made what appeared to be an important statement on behalf of the official Opposition, and I wonder whether he will make it clear. He said that a vital national interest invoking the Luxembourg Agreement could include a case where the Government were either defeated or in danger of being overruled or were mandated by the House of Commons, apart from whether that would be regarded as a large matter or a small matter. Was that a correct understanding of the point?
  Mr. Rippon: I was trying to suggest that if in practice an issue was raised in draft in Brussels as a proposal about which the House of Commons felt so strongly that it indicated that it would not support the Government and their policies, the Government would be justified in saying that that was a major issue. I would not put it any higher than that. [Interruption.] I said that Governments might regard their survival as vital to the national interest. However, the House of Commons might not take that view. That is the ultimate safeguard of the House of Commons in all these matters involving the exercise by the executive of the prerogative power of making treaties and agreements of all kinds. If the Government enter into a treaty or agreement which the House repudiates, the consequences have to be accepted. That has always been the case in regard to treaties.
  The assumption is that when a Government reach agreement they bind themselves. I hope the Government will make it clear that when they reach agreement in due course about this so-called package of negotiations they will bind themselves

  1911
  to see the matter through. Their own credit will then be at stake. It is all right for a Minister when abroad to say "I agree ad referendum "—that is to say, ad referendum to the Cabinet. It does not apply ad referendum indefinitely to Parliament and people.
  Far more significant in terms of parliamentary sovereignty is the question of a possible referendum.
  Whatever the possibilities may be—we accept that it is only a reference to a "ballot", but this matter is exercising public interest and concern—I submit that, in the interests of parliamentary sovereignty and good government, there ought at any early stage to be a Green Paper on the place of a referendum in the British constitution with reference to the practice in other countries.
  While the House is taking up a great deal of time considering these draft directives and regulations from Brussels, some of which are of relatively minor importance with which the House will readily concur, it should be possible to find time to discuss a fundamental constitutional issue within the framework of our own domestic system. It is necessary to make clear that if the Government reach agreement on the package of renegotiation, they will recommend that package to the House and to the country and take full responsibility for doing so.
  I submit that all these discussions about sovereignty, draft directives, our procedures and this so-called package of renegotiation, which is a continuing process which will go on for many years, are manifestly now at the margin of world events. We should recognise that, within the framework of the Community, it is essential to concentrate on the major problems of recession, energy shortage, trade, employment and inflation which threaten to engulf us all. Indeed, we should welcome that the meeting of Heads of Government in Paris gave high priority to those issues. Faced with the threat of a world economic recession, the European Economic Community has the capacity, which we do not have alone, to give essential mutual assistance to deal with inflation and a distorted balance of payments.
  In the 1930s we sought to shelter behind the protection of high tariff walls with disastrous results. This time there is
  1912
  more hope to be found in the existence of the European Economic Community, which now has both the institutions and the means to pool our resources. Indeed, on Monday we witnessed the warm welcome that the Prime Minister rightly gave to the Federal German Government's measures involving a substantial measure of reflation for a country with a surplus.
  The Labour Party has always prided itself upon its internationalism, just as we on this side of the House would wish to do. Surely we ought now as a House of Commons to recognise that the European Economic Community is likely to remain the best available effective framework within which we can co-operate with other countries for our common good.
  So far from threatening our own withdrawal, which is unnecessary to pursue the Government's objectives, we ought to be looking to its enlargement and considering whether in the new circumstances Greece or a new democratic Government in Portugal could be part of that wider family. Certainly we should be thinking of what we can achieve not only within the framework of the EEC but within the framework of the Council of Europe, which ought not to be forgotten in the context of a debate on Europe. We ought to be working together to try to create a truly united Europe from the Iberian Peninsula to Finland.
  Mr. John Lee: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman completes his panegyric on a united Europe, may I ask whether he would include Iron Curtain countries? After all, this is a much wider area.
  Mr. Rippon: I am saying that we should not confine our debates solely to what we are trying to achieve in the European Economic Community, which is an important part of our rôle in Europe, because what the Government are trying to achieve can be brought about without any threat of withdrawal. Indeed, so far from threatening to withdraw, we should be thinking whether other countries could join the European Economic Community. There are some countries which, for various reasons, cannot become full members—for example Austria, which is bound by its treaty obligations, or Switzerland with its traditional neutrality. However, we should be thinking in terms of how to use our

  1913
  membership of the Council of Europe more effectively. If we could effectively bring about a greater degree of unity in Europe from the Iberian Peninsula to Finland, we would create a strong foundation from which to proceed towards detente between Eastern and Western Europe. I believe that that is the ultimate safeguard not only for peace and security but for the very survival of our civilisation.
  I hope that in the course of the debate we shall lift our sights away from this detailed renegotiation, which is to some extent bogus, as I think we all know, deal with those issues on their merits as they arise and consider the wider grave national issues which should concern us at this time. We must co-operate together within the whole framework of Europe if we are to have any hope of solving the dangers before us.
  8.07 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): I certainly think that this is a useful occasion on which to have a broad-ranging debate on developments in Europe. I draw to the attention of the House that, apart from the documents which were the subject of certain points of order by some of my hon. Friends, we are basically discussing a review of developments in the European Economic Community between March and October 1974 which was published as a White Paper, intended to be as objective and factual as possible, but, of course, with special reference to the renegotiations that we have been conducting. I hope that there is no complaint about the manner of its presentation.
  My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said that we were feeling our way in all these matters. I do not think that anybody should be too proud to learn. If any right hon. or hon. Members have proposals or suggestions to make on the manner of presentation of this White Paper, I should be glad to hear them with a view to improving it so that the House of Commons can play its full part in these matters and know as much as possible.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that it is an interesting phenomenon that the
  1914
  number of regulations and directives that issue from the Commission, and, therefore, fall under the scrutiny of the House of Commons, is in some ways greater than would be the administrative decisions that would have been taken by Ministers in this country which would not have been challenged except by way of Questions in the House or in correspondence. I think that note should be taken of that.
  I had not fully realised that in some ways we are encompassing the Government with a greater degree of control by Parliament as a result of the transference of these powers than would otherwise be the case. I am sure that I would not have been required to come here and answer a number of these questions if these matters had remained under the administrative control of Ministers in the United Kingdom. That is a simple fact. I am trying to state the facts. Others may draw deductions.
  On the large issues, as the Lord President said, a number of matters which have been delegated—no, not delegated— which have gone to the Commission by the decision of the House at the time must be looked at to see whether there is any derogation of sovereignty which is unacceptable to the House. That is part of the scrutiny that the Lord President is undertaking at the moment.
  Perhaps I could return to this matter later, because I want to try to explain the Government's understanding of the question of sovereignty.
  I want to begin with the common agricultural policy, which is included in the White Paper. The circumstances under which it operates have changed in the last year, because CAP prices are on average lower than world prices. Indeed, CAP prices of cereals and sugar are substantially lower than world prices. The question that we have to ask is: how long is this situation likely to run? Is it permanent or not? I am sceptical about those who say that for ever the situation will remain as it is today. I remember learned books being written in the late 1940s telling me that there would be a permanent dollar shortage and nations of the West would spend their time scrambling for the odd dollar. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was one of those who always disputed that view, and I should

  1915
  not disagree with him now if he disputes the view that there will not be a permanent food shortage.
  If one has to take a balanced view on this, it would be fair to say that prices in the world for food are likely to remain higher and to be consistently higher in relation to manufactured goods than they have been in the past. It is fair to say that the days of Britain exchanging her manufactures for food from abroad, which characterised our trade in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, certainly the first half of the latter, are gone, because the food-producing countries have more muscle now.
  The raw material-producing countries and those that produce commodities have bound themselves together with a kind of regionalism which in some ways I dislike because it stands in the way of a multilateral world. Nevertheless, coming to terms with the situation as it exists, these countries, in a number of fields, have banded themselves together, and their bargaining position as against the industrial West will probably continue to be stronger because they have discovered how they can use their position in a way that was not done in earlier days.
  Those are the facts that we have to weigh and consider when we are looking at how the CAP will develop. If I had to make a guess—and my guess is no better than anybody else's—it would be that there will be a decline in prices of world food. There is a large amount of tillage still to be employed, but I doubt —and I think we must take a judgment on this—whether prices will decline to the level that they were before the recent rises.
  What has happened has in one sense been of benefit to the British consumer— that is, in the sense of being a member of the EEC—because, for the time being, and taking food supplies across the board, the housewife is getting food at a less high price—I shall not say cheaper—than she would have done if we had been outside the Community.
  There have been the three developments since the White Paper was published. On sugar, we have the agreement to import 14 million tons for an indefinite period from the developing Commonwealth. That is an important gain. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may
  1916
  think that he tied it up, but I promise him that people in the Community did not think it had been tied up. I shall be kind because the Christmas spirit is here. We had a lot of difficulty in ensuring that the figure of 1·4 million tons was accepted by the Council and the Commission.
  Secondly, measures have been taken to help the serious position of British livestock farmers, and the next step will be to negotiate an adequate and new permanent Community beef régime that will ensure a proper return to producers and will take account of the needs of the consumer. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has proposals for that which he will put before the Community when it meets early in January, and now we have the Commission's proposals for the Annual Price Review.
  In this review and in the CAP stocktaking that will follow we shall follow up some of our renegotiation objectives. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks they are either non-existent or, if they exist, he got them anyway, let me say that we want to see established firm criteria for prices which are set in relation to the needs of the British farmer. We need to improve Community intervention arrangements. Intervention in itself is not a sin; it depends whether it leads to "mountains". If it does, the system is clearly wrong, but we have been intervening in certain markets for a long time past.
  We must also, as part of our renegotiation objectives, seek to ensure that producers outside Europe can continue to have access to the EEC market when that is of advantage to them and to us.
  Mr. Peter Blaker: The right hon. Gentleman regards "mountains" as a sin in the European context, whereas in the context of the World Food Conference people have been calling for buffer stocks, which are regarded as a good thing. Does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the two?
  Mr. Callaghan: I do distinguish between the two. It depends whether it is a system of agriculture which is designed to produce a mountain that cannot be disposed of except at unremunerative prices, or to produce food to aid

  1917
  millions of people throughout Africa and elsewhere who are unable otherwise to secure proper standards of nutrition and how that is to be financed. I distinguish between the two.
  Mr. John Davies: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food having defined the proposals that he plans to put to Brussels, may I ask whether he would be inclined to allow the House to have access to these proposals, to look at them alongside the proposals now put forward by the Commission, so that we can try to reach some assessment of the comparative advantages of the two?
  Mr. Callaghan: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be willing to give the House all the information that he can. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying to me—I hope he is not—that, in all circumstances, a negotiating mandate should be made available to the House, my reply is that I am sure the House in its wisdom will see what a stupid and foolish thing that would be. It would mean giving away a negotiating position before it was developed. I know of nobody, be he a trade union negotiator—and I should not have done it when I was negotiating on behalf of a trade union—or a business man, who will tell the world his negotiating position, his fall-back position and what he is willing to take before he starts. The House has to accept this and assume that, on the whole, British Ministers will be on the side of the British people. It is not an unfair assumption that when they go to Brussels they try to negotiate to secure the best result for our own people.
  As I was saying, I draw a distinction between the two.
  On the matter of the Community Budget, since the White Paper was published, as the Prime Minister said recently, we have started a process which I hope will lead to a corrective mechanism to deal with the unfairness of the present EEC budget problem. I presented our case on 1st April and 4th June, and emphasised that as we adopted the full loans resources system we should find ourselves paying a significantly higher proportion to the Community budget than was fair in relation to our share of the total Community GDP.
  1918
  The Commission, as a result, was requested to draw up a stocktaking report on the economic and financial developments in the Community since enlargement—that is one of the documents listed on the Order Paper today—and I think it adopted a different analytical approach from our studies, but the Commission's report broadly substantiated our case.
  The recent Heads of Government meeting in Paris marked a major step forward on the budget issue. At that meeting Heads of Government recognised that the impact of the budget arrangements will lead to problems and invited the institutions to devise a corrective mechanism as soon as possible to prevent such problems arising.
  The decision of principle which they took is one of general application, and it deliberately avoids detail, but it makes clear that the correcting mechanism should be based on objective criteria, which would include a test of ability to pay. I cannot yet say, obviously, how much the United Kingdom might save once such a mechanism came into effect, although it could be a substantial saving towards the end of the transitional period.
  The objective now is to secure early agreement in the institutions on the details of this corrective mechanism. It is my hope—and I have every reason to believe it will be substantiated—that the Commission will start work immediately and that the discussions on this correcting mechanism can be held in the Council early next year. I have no doubt that there will be tough negotiations over the details, but the Heads of Government have established the principle and we are now asking the institutions to take action to give effect to it within the time scale that we set ourselves for completing these renegotiations.
  The safeguarding of the interests of the Commonwealth and developing countries takes up quite a portion of Cmnd. 5790. The Community has made considerable progress over the last months in safeguarding the interests of Commonwealth and developing countries. A total of 22 countries from the Commonwealth and 23 from the non-Commonwealth are participating in the association negotiations.
  There has been rather more delay than I should have liked, but this is one of

  1919
  the inevitable consequences when nine nations are trying to move together, each with its own separate interests. This is one of the disadvantages of having a group of nine, but the question, which the country will decide later, is whether the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. I have never assumed that everything was on one side in this matter. However, I am confident, now that the negotiations have got so far, that the arrangements negotiated will meet the aid and trade interests of the developing countries.
  I was asked to make a comment about sugar. The price is proving a difficult issue to settle, as the House might assume. The producers will get a long-term guaranteed price related to the Community price of the day. That may not seem very much to them at the moment, but the world price is being extremely volatile. It has fallen from over £600 to £460 or £470 in a short period. When one thinks back to 1968, when it was £30 a ton or thereabouts, one can see what a tremendous margin there is. I have no doubt that it is in the interests of the developing countries as a whole to take a price which is broadly based on the Community's internal price, but, of course, they must, and it is reasonable that they should, expect a good premium when the world price is much above. But that is the position at the moment.
  How large an additional sum will be needed is of particular interest to the United Kingdom and the British housewife. In accordance with the agreement, the main bulk of sugar will come to this country, but producers understandably wish to secure as high a price as they can, while the consumers, especially ourselves, although they are anxious to give the producers a fair deal, naturally want to keep prices down.
  In view of some reports, I should say that the Minister of Food tells me that the negotiations have not broken down. It is the usual bargaining process which is going on and negotiations are to be resumed early in the new year. He hopes that they will be brought to a successful conclusion by mid-January.
  The producers understand that the long-term agreement has to be seen as a whole and that the quantities which they will be
  1920
  entitled to supply in future years will be related to the quantities that they in fact supply in 1975. For countries outside the circle of association—that is, the 45 countries; in particular the Commonwealth countries in Asia—there have been substantial benefits, which have been secured by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development under the Community's generalised scheme of preferences.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham might acknowledge the work that my right hon. Friend has done in this field. It is true that she has had a receptive ally in M. Cheysson, who is the commissioner responsible. This is one case which I have certainly observed— I have played little part in it, so I can state the position as an observer—in which British influence, British history and British relationships with the developing countries have given added muscle to those in the Community who have not had that kind of experience and relationship, and have enabled a much better scheme to be evolved for the developing countries than would have been possible otherwise. We can be pleased that Britain has been able to play this r61e with M. Cheysson. I know that he would certainly associate himself with the work that my right hon. Friend has done.
  We intend to press for further improvements. Next year, additionally, apart from the EEC trade agreement with India which came into force on 1st April last, negotiations are well under way with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka for the conclusion of commercial and co-operation agreements. It may be because the Commonwealth countries, as I said to a meeting of the Labour Party in July and as I have said in the House, see that a wider market is being opened up to them that their initial doubts about the prospects of our membership in relation to their prosperity are beginning to dwindle.
  On the aid side, there have been a number of helpful developments which bring the Community nearer our objective, which is that of having a worldwide development policy. A first slice of the Community's contribution towards the United Nations emergency measures in favour of developing countries most seriously affected by oil price increases is being disbursed at the moment, and

  1921
  India and Bangladesh—again, I emphasise, through Britain's influence—will be the major beneficiaries. They are already receiving some benefits through the Community's food aid programme. The Community has already agreed in principle to a continuing programme of financial aid for non-associated developing countries which are in need.
  A helpful study has been produced— again, through M. Cheysson, but with considerable impetus because of our background and because we know the plight of these countries—and it is now for us to see that these good intentions are put into practice as soon as possible.
  Let me come home again now, to regional and industrial policy. We are committed to retaining for Parliament the powers over the British economy which we need to pursue effective regional, industrial and fiscal policies. At the same time, we are parties to treaties which give the Community powers to co-ordinate regional and industrial policies as implemented by member States. Here again, a balance must be struck. Agreed rules can be helpful to the United Kingdom in so far as they would give our aid rules and our industries protection from unfair competition by other member States.
  But there is obviously room for conflict. We are continuing discussions on specific problems with the Commission, so that we can be reassured, if it is possible—I am still not certain: I want to see how it goes—that our plans for British industry will not be hampered unduly by restrictive interpretations of the treaty.
  In the case of the specific step of co-ordinating regional aids so that each country is moving broadly along the same lines, we are taking part in discussions in the working party which has been established to consider possible new ways of co-ordinating the systems of member countries. It is a major renegotiation objective for us to ensure that the new rules do not prevent us from doing the things which need to be done—for example, in relation to movements of boundaries. I would not want to see us lose that power. We intend as far as we can to ensure that this is retained. I think that we can do it, but if it cannot be achieved, I will report to the House where we have failed.
  1922
  On the regional development fund, there has been a great deal of discussion over a long period, but at the recent Heads of Government meeting it was agreed to set up the fund. Italy and Ireland were particularly concerned about it. It is slightly smaller than the Commission's last proposal. We get 28 per cent. of the fund, but we shall be contributing a substantial sum towards it. It is no use saying that that is our net return ; it is a gross return. If we continued to get 28 per cent. and the budgetary contribution remained unaltered, we could find ourselves paying 22 per cent. to get 28 per cent., which is not much of a net gain when we finally adjust it to the new system.
  That is another reason for the importance of the budget renegotiations. If this fund becomes a sizeable one in due course and if we have our contribution to the budget related to our gross domestic product, or in some similar relationship, we ought to get a much bigger slice of the regional fund even while we maintain our receipts at 28 per cent.—that is, if our contribution to the budget goes down.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that 28 per cent. is not a fixed percentage but really a ceiling which we might reach according to the objective criteria which the Commission, with our agreement, has established?
  Mr. Callaghan: No. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the communiqué, page 7, he will see that the resources of the fund will be divided along the lines envisaged by the Commission. Percentages are set out, and it says "United Kingdom—28 per cent." Therefore, till that is altered by agreement among the Heads of Government or by the Council of Foreign Ministers, that 28 per cent. stands.
  The fund totals 13 million units of account—that is roughly £540 million—to be allocated over three years over the whole Community. We must not get this matter out of proportion. I think that the advocates of the EEC always overstated the benefits. That seems a foolish thing to do. Let us get the matter right. What the Community is proposing to disburse through this fund is £540 million over three years. This compares with our own national regional expenditure of £500 million a year.

  1923
  That, therefore, is the size of the fund. It is welcome to us. In our circumstances we do not want to turn away any millions of pounds. But it is not a tremendously large sum. Perhaps it will be built up in time, but the Community contribution at present will be modest in comparison with what we are now doing. Let me reassure the House that by subscribing to it we shall not weaken our ability to implement our own regional policy which is suitable to Britain's needs.
  Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend just clear the figures? He spoke about £500 million over three years. That is for the whole Community, is it not? Therefore, what the United Kingdom would get—I am not sure whether net or gross—would be about £25 million a year.
  Mr. Callaghan: No, rather more than that, I think. We shall get roughly 28 per cent. of £540 million.
  Mr. Jay: Over three years.
  Mr. Callaghan: That is right. That is gross, and I think that it would be about £70 million or £80 million net over the three years.
  Mr. Jay: About £25 million.
  Mr. Callaghan: Well, £20 million or £30 million. I do not think that it is possible to give the figure exactly. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not think that I was trying to mislead him. I was trying to give the exact figure as a useful comparison.
  However, one of the useful things about this is that it means that whereas in the past it was agricultural affairs on which thinking about Community regional development was centred, this has now to some extent given way to the fact that there are industrial problems which the United Kingdom faces and which should be met, too.
  I come to institutions. The regular meetings of Heads of Government will be called, to prevent the notion of "summit", a European Council in the fullness of time. They do provide a useful forum in which to discuss both Community problems and broad international questions. They should give an impetus to practical decision making, and especially to co-operation on economic and common policy questions. It is
  1924
  proposed that they should meet three times a year. As there are two presidencies a year, this would mean one meeting in each presidency and probably a third meeting in Brussels. The work of the Foreign Ministers will thus, I hope, be more effectively combined in the future.
  I come now to the matter of the European Assembly, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham referred. The communiqué reserves our position on this, because in the light of what we had said and the decisions taken by the Labour Party and accepted by the Government, the Prime Minister and I made it clear that we could not take on any commitment to make progress towards the direct election of members of the Assembly till renegotiation has been completed and the results submitted to the British people. If we decide that we should stay in on the terms we are able to negotiate we shall consider whether we should make a move towards direct elections at that time.
  I know that there has been considerable disquiet about the so-called Luxembourg compromise and majority voting. I should like to tell the House how I see it. I believe that I shall be giving an interpretation which is accepted by all the other members. First, the Luxembourg compromise itself was not so much an agreement as an agreement to disagree.
  Some member States, as was made clear at the recent Heads of Government meeting, have never dropped their support for the introduction of majority voting in the Council. They adhered to it then and they adhere to it now. That in some ways represents the reason for the somewhat clumsy wording of that particular paragraph. Others, notably France, took a different view in 1966. The summit communiqué makes it clear that member States are free to maintain their respective positions, whatever they may be or whatever they were. That is what it is intended to say. In other words, those who argue that there never was a compromise are free to go on arguing that there never was a compromise. Those who argue that they reserve the right are free to go on doing so. In that sense there has been no change.
  Since 1966 the practice of the Council has been to seek unanimity on virtually

  1925
  all subjects. The summit communiqué means that in future member States will not insist on unanimity on every subject, however unimportant it may be to them. Let us be absolutely clear what that means. Every nation agrees that the ability of any member State, including, obviously, the United Kingdom, to block any matter which it considers contrary to its important interests is not weakened, and, indeed, is not even challenged. Nobody has questioned that unanimity should remain the rule for all important questions.
  Some interesting exchanges occurred just now as to what constitutes a matter of vital national interest. If I thought the Government were likely to be defeated on the question of—
  Mr. Marten: Aerosols.
  Mr. Gallaghan: I choose my own example—
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Scottish oil.
  Mr. Callaghan: The example I chose is the standardisation of rear-view mirrors on agricultural tractors. If I thought the Government would be defeated on that issue, I would regard that as a matter of vital national importance, because it is a matter of vital national importance that the Government should not be defeated. That stands to reason. If the House feels so passionately about the standardisation of rear-view mirrors on agricultural tractors that it intends to defeat the Government, that is a subject to which I shall not give my agreement at the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. Powell: Would that be the case if the debate on rear-view mirrors for agricultural tractors had been conducted on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, to avoid any risk of the Government being defeated?
  Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) must assume that some hon. Members know a little about what the House is likely to do with regard to special subjects. We do not have to enter the Lobbies on every occasion to discover that. There are ways and means of that being made known through what are called the usual channels, even if there is
  1926
  no debate. Perhaps some right hon. Gentlemen do not have usual channels.
  "Joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth"
  —when the right hon. Member for Down, South returns to lead the Conservative Party in due course.
  I want to make it clear that nobody questions the right of any single member State, including the United Kingdom, to say what is important, for example, to the United Kingdom.
  It is not necessary for agreement on all questions to be conditional on unanimous consent. It is the word "all" which matters here. This amounts to a resolve by all the member States to be flexible on matters of less importance. It is a simple matter of common sense. That is what happens now. When I participate at meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers and a subject is being considered which is not of vital national importance to the United Kingdom and on which we do not have any strict view, I do not feel that it is my job to hold up progress within the Community on that issue.
  It is when we formalise what has taken place, and especially during the nine months I have been there, that we get into the problems that exist because of the theology of the Luxembourg compromise. This in no way erodes our ability to block any developments or proposals to which we object.
  On the question of European union, over the last nine months I have repeatedly asked my Community colleagues what is meant by a commitment to European union, according to the Paris summit communiqué of October 1972. There has never been an agreed reply. Against that background we agreed to the statement in the recent summit communiqué that the time had come for the nine member States to agree, if they could, on an overall concept of European union. This confirms my view that the words represent a slogan more than a precise aim.
  The decision to appoint Mr. Tindemans, the Prime Minister of Belgium, to sound out opinion at all levels in the Community, and to produce a report for the Heads of Government to consider, is sensible and excellent. I suggested to Mr. Tindemans, when I spoke to him about this matter, that he should visit this country and consult

  1927
  parliamentarians of all shades of opinion, the trade unions, the CBI and the institutions, so that he could find out how opinion moves on this question. When he has produced his report, he will consider what the European Assembly and other institutions have to say. Then he can come back to the Heads of Government and we shall all be free to say whether any of his proposals meet our needs, whether they go too far, or whether we want to accept them.
  If the United Kingdom decides to remain a member—if the people of this country should decide so to do—and he produces his report in 12 months, that will be the way this issue will go. These important decisions will not be rushed. We have taken on no commitment, but I regard the Community's approach to this question as showing a welcome new realism which was absent from some of the approaches made when it announced large aspirations with no foundations to support them.
  Mr. Marten: After 17 years of life of the Community where European union has been the target or aim, the right hon. Gentleman can hardly exactly say that matters have been rushed, but, after 17 years, I urge that the Community should now come to a conclusion about this rather more quickly. When the Minister of State made his statement yesterday, I was cut short by Mr. Speaker when I tried to ask about it. Now I ask the right hon. Gentleman. As we are likely to have this issue put to the test by the ballot box by 10th October, and as the expression "European union" is such a vital one—in the minds of most people it means federalism or supranationalism —could not we get a decision from these now matured Europeans after 17 years before the referendum or the ballot box?
  Mr. Callaghan: I dare say we could get a decision, but I do not think that it would be worth very much if we did. It would be one more of these large aspirations which mean very little. If there is to be European union—and it may be that it will come about in 50 years—it will be as a result of a gradual process of growing together. Certainly it will not come by a document rushed out in the next three months so that the British people may take a vote. It will be for Parliament and the people to decide
  1928
  continually how far they want this to go and whether it is in their interests—
  Mr. Marten: We have heard that expression before. Where did that get us?
  Mr. Callaghan: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman has not heard it from a Labour Minister. If we have a perpetual series of Labour Governments he can sleep safely in his bed. I cannot vouch for the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham.
  What I can say is that there will be—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will not tempt me to speculate. I should have thought that, with growing regionalism in the world, over 20 or 30 years there would be a growing convergence of economies throughout the world. I am sure that no one in this country will stand out against that if he believes that it is in the best interests of the British people. There is a growing co-ordination now. Now that there seems to be a better prospect in the Community itself I see coming a convergence between the economy of the United States and those of the members of the Community. It is vital that there should be such a convergence. As a confirmed Atlanticist I have no doubt that it will come, although it will not come while I am in this House. If the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) were to get a text today it would not be of much help to him or to future Members who will sit for Banbury and who will have to take this decision.
  Mr. Spearing: Although most of us agree that a growing convergence is an almost inevitable consequence of the advance in production, marketing and transport techniques, there is a distinction between, on the one hand, a convergence of individual sovereign States over a wide area, perhaps wider than that of the Nine, and which maintain their fundamental sovereignty but co-operate freely and with good heart in specific areas and, on the other hand, the type of convergence where a new executive power is erected which is superior to the individual Governments— rather than a full and free association of countries whose sovereignty is still maintained.
  Mr. Callaghan: That is, I imagine, precisely the kind of question that Mr. Tinde-mans will want to examine, and I hope

  1929
  all opinions will be consulted about this particular matter. Then a report will be produced upon it. Of course, there is a great difference between the two concepts which my hon. Friend adduces. What we are seeing at the moment is the Community moving away from its original belief that it was going to have one sovereign central body which was to administer the affairs of Europe.
  If there is a classic example it is in Economic and Monetary Union where, after the great statements of the previous summit meeting, there is really a welcome new realism in the Community's attitude. Nobody now sees EMU as a goal in whose name one should accept commitments to fix parities or to adjust one's economy to produce more unemployment. The final objective remains on a distant horizon. But what is important is that the detailed plans in which they endeavoured to contort the European economy in 1971/72 have been set aside. This is realism. This is the practical consequence.
  I was interested to hear a distinguished representative at the Heads of Government meeting who shall be nameless describe what happened last week as an illustration of EMU. I took down his words:
  "Created by idealists who simply did not understand the subject."
  That is the reality of the position, and it is a matter for Governments and Parliaments to decide how far, when and in whose interests it will be to move towards an Economic and Monetary Union. That is the important issue.
  On capital movements, the Labour Party manifesto calls for an agreement on capital movements protecting our balance of payments and for full employment policies. We invoked the balance of payments safeguard provisions in the Treaty of Rome last March to enable us to apply this. We have informed the Commission and other member States of our intention to retain the existing rules beyond 1st January 1975 under the same provision.
  I will say a word on the harmonisation of VAT because there is not much in the document before the House. The position here is that the Community discussion is concentrated on the Six directive on VAT dealing with the convergence of
  1930
  VAT in member countries and not towards any move on harmonisation of rates. In the context of these discussions we have made clear that we shall not levy VAT on essentials such as foodstuffs, and the directive, in draft so far, would not require us to change our position. We believe that it will be possible to establish an equitable harmonised VAT basis which would not exclude the zero rating of necessities. But, in my view, full harmonisation will be postponed until the Greek Kalends.
  Going back to sovereignty, like other hon. Members of this House—and my attitude is pretty well known—I am concerned about the implications of membership of the Community for our national sovereignty, a proper concern for Ministers and hon. Members. Of course, all international agreement involves to some degree loss of sovereignty for the signatory States, and especially for citizens of the EEC, because it makes provision for a body of law to have direct internal effect in member States, although the final decisions are taken outside. There is no escape from that point, and the Government are well aware of the importance of this fundamental fact, which is why, as I hasten to point out, we published a White Paper some years ago, in the lifetime of the last Labour Government, setting out in detail the legal and constitutional implications of membership. That is why our whole approach to renegotiation and the ultimate decision of membership of the Community, which will be put to the people, has been based on Parliament's will to ensure that no involuntary loss of sovereignty can occur.
  We have tackled this question from both ends—here at Westminster and in Brussels. At Westminster, the first task is to make sure that Parliament is fully informed, and although the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), has made some complaints about this, I hope that it will also agree that the Government do their best to try to meet those complaints. It is inevitable, in a new situation, as we develop procedures, that they will be less than perfect to start with. But constant improvements are being made. Parliament is provided with a copy of all the draft legislation put forward for consideration by the Council of Ministers at the stage at which

  1931
  the Commission makes the original proposal.
  Since Community legislation, like any other legislation, is often difficult to understand, we have undertaken to provide explanatory memoranda. I know that it is complained that some of them do not really lead hon. Members to the core of the problem. This is because of a desire to be as objective and as neutral as possible. During the period of renegotiation, I have tried to ensure that this has been so, and I am sorry if it has become a source of complaint. We could go a long way further, however, and we will endeavour to meet the views of the Select Committee and be more positive in some of the things we put forward if that is what it wishes us to do.
  The Scrutiny Committees of both Houses of Parliament have a vital rôle to play in sifting these proposals and making sure that Parliament is alerted to and considers proposals of importance. We shall continue to do our utmost to help both Committees fulfil this task.
  We have also given an assurance that if the Scrutiny Committee recommends a proposal for debate, we will not, except in the most exceptional circumstances—I emphasise that there might be exceptional circumstances—let that proposal be agreed in the Community until debate has taken place. When a document is of sufficient importance for Parliament to wish to debate it, the Government should be able to have Parliament's views before the final decision is taken.
  I emphasise that this would be done except in the most exceptional cases. I am doing no more than pointing out that there might be certain cases where the Government feel that it might be urgent in the interests of Britain to conclude some business in Brussels before Parliament has had an opportunity to debate it. I assure the House that this discretion will be used most sparingly, and I have no doubt that, should it ever be used, the Government will be able to give a good account of their reasons.
  I am, of course, fully aware of the difficulties of arranging debates in the House because of the limits of the parliamentary timetable. I hope that the Select Committee on Procedure, which is to consider whether any alterations should
  1932
  be made in the procedures of the House, will be able to come forward with something that will help us.
  Having looked at some of the things recommended for debate and some of the things which might be picked out, my feeling is that the House naturally, at the beginning of a process like this, selects more things for debate than, if we are to remain members of the EEC, it will be selecting in five years' time. That is a hunch of mine. I think it is inevitable that at the beginning the Scrutiny Committee will want to examine more things, but when it realises the stages through which these proposals go there will be a falling off in number.
  I said that in Brussels we are tackling the problem of sovereignty. We have made it clear there that Her Majesty's Government must retain the ability to say "No" to any proposal we consider runs counter to our interests. Should the Scrutiny Committee have recommended a proposal for debate, or should the Houses have expressed views on a certain proposal, these are the factors that the Government would take into account in determining their policy and considering whether important interests are involved.
  I do not accept the view put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that what was agreed in Paris calls into question the value of the Government's assurances to Parliament on draft legislation. As I said earlier about the summit meeting, nothing that was agreed in Paris has eroded that position in the slightest degree.
  There is one other category of Community legislation about which I know the House is sensitive—the instruments issued on the responsibility of the Commission, as distinct from the responsibility of the Council of Ministers, where the Council and the Commission act separately. I want to make the position clear. This process occurs in specific sectors in which powers have been delegated to the Commission, either by the treaties themselves or by deliberate legislative act of the Council of Ministers. I want to express my view that in the vast majority of cases where instruments are put forward by the Commission this House would not consider at all such

  1933
  instruments if they were being made by the Government and if they ranked here as statutory instruments. Some of the measures are so trivial that in the United Kingdom they would be dealt with administratively. Most are transitory in effect and limited in importance. The Community needs to have an instrument of this nature but the Government will be vigilant to see that it is not abused.
  I note what the right hon and learned Gentleman said about the possible referendum, and what should be done regarding this. But I have nothing to add tonight to what has already been said.
  I conclude by referring to the discussions by Heads of Government. It was at the British request that the items of inflation and unemployment were added to the agenda. The French wished the subject of energy to be discussed and some of the best discussions that took place among the Heads of Government were on these three subjects. I came away from the Heads of Government meeting feeling that there was, if not a convergence of our economies, at least a growth of understanding of the reasons why there was not that convergence. I do not believe—here I am repeating a point —that there can possibly be economic or monetary union as long as there is growing divergence between our economies. It is only possible when they converge and come together. This will make it difficult for some new members to join in with the Community. There must be a certain level in the economies of the members if there is to be any sort of parity and equality between them. I would like to see the questions we discussed debated on a broader basis.
  I am not a lover of a regional world, but it is here. Whether we like it or not —I do not care for it—it exists throughout the world in many areas, as hon. Members will recognise. We must accommodate ourselves to a regional world, whether in or out of the Community.
  It is borne in on us that the United States is the motor of the economies of the Western world. If the United States does not reflate and reflate quickly, we shall be—whatever system we may have in the Community—in for the worst recession we have seen for many years. It is that message that we as a Community asked President Giscard d'Estaing to convey at Martinique to President
  1934
  Ford. It was an advantage that he was able to go there and speak on behalf of the whole Community. President Giscard was able to go there for the Nine countries and put this point to President Ford, and there were some reflections in the communiqué of what President Giscard said.
  Whatever the nature of the regional world we shall live in, I hope we shall never lose sight of the fact that it is in a multilateral world which is growing smaller every day that our problems will have to be solved. Nevertheless, there are considerable advantages about meeting as Nine, and associating as Nine. There are also disadvantages to this country, but it is this balance which in the end the British people will have to decide, and at the end of the period of renegotiation it will be for us to say what our view is on the end result.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I offer no criticism of the length of the opening speeches, but I appeal to hon. Members, in view of the fact that the debate must finish at midnight and a substantial number of Members are anxious to take part, to be as brief as possible.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Jim Spicer: I shall heed your words, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We had a long, detailed disquisition of the Government's present position by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, given with his usual reassuring manner. He outlined a wide range of activity being undertaken in Brussels in particular. I should like to bring us closer to home. I hope that over the next six months the Government will direct more attention to the problems they face in this country, with which they do not seem to be dealing as they might.
  It has always been my contention that the right way to approach New Year resolutions is to learn from the year that has just passed. The Government need to make certain resolutions to carry them forward into the difficult year of 1975. Mr. Whitlam made it clear in Brussels yesterday that from his point of view, and the point of view of many other people in the Commonwealth and the Community, the time for shilly-shallying, as he put it, has passed and the time for action has arrived.

  1935
  The first resolution I suggest to the Government, and to the right hon. Gentleman in particular, is that the Government should now admit that the whole idea of a referendum is nonsense. It was dreamt up, with many people in the Labour Party disagreeing with it, to cover fundamental disagreement in the party. It follows from the acceptance of a referendum that we are opening up a basket from which we can see all sorts of ideas developing, many of which would be abhorrent to the House though others might be acceptable.
  I read in a newspaper recently the following item about a referendum in Switzerland:
  "In a nationwide referendum the Swiss people today rejected Government proposals for increased taxes and in addition voted for restrictions on federal spending.
  The majorities were 55·7 per cent. and 69·9 per cent. respectively. On average, about 40 per cent. of the electorate voted.
  They also said No to plans for a state health service."
  It may be a long time before we arrive at that point, but I am sure that many hon. Members are fearful of the consequences if we should move into a situation in which referenda became the established order of the day.
  My second suggestion for a New Year resolution by the Government is that they should try to act much more as a team in what they are doing over our membership of the Community. It is sad and distressing for many hon. Members to find that team work is not something that many people in the Government understand. I should like to quote from the speech to the Labour Committee for Safeguards on the Common Market by the Secretary of State for Trade on 26th November, when he said:
  "First, there are, as there always have been, serious and genuine differences of interest between Britain and its European neighbours. Second, because this is so, there has to be a strong will for success, not just on this side but on the other side of the Channel too."
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary would not dispute that that will is being proved time and time again on the other side of the Channel. The need is that the Government as a team should reciprocate and make clear that as a team they believe that the will exists on this side of the Channel.
  1936
  Going further into that speech, one can find other instances where the Secretary of State for Trade was deliberately undermining the work that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and his team have been doing in a continuing negotion of the terms of our membership of the Community. The Secretary of State turned to what he called "the argument of defeatism", saying that
  "with a £2,000 million trade deficit, a serious sugar shortage, a beef crisis and other difficulties "
  it was impossible for people to point to the benefits of membership any longer. Nobody in his right mind can possibly equate the sugar shortage with the Community. The exact opposite is the case. The sugar shortage stemmed from the failure in February of the cane sugar producers to produce their quotas to this country. We have received nothing but help from other members of the Community in that respect.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would it not have been a help if the sugar beet industry in Scotland had not been closed by the Conservative Government?
  Mr. Spicer: The hon. Lady is correct on that point. We must reserve our position in this respect in the future. If we cannot get the right amount of sugar into the Community at the right price, we must seriously consider increasing sugar beet production in Britain and the Community generally.
  That sort of statement by the Secretary of State for Trade does no good to the work that the Foreign Secretary is trying to carry out. As was said in the House on Monday, our agricultural imports from the European Community have gone up by 57 per cent., and thank God they have. Imports of maize have risen by 90 per cent., and speaking on behalf of a farming constituency where there is a desperate shortage of animal feeding stuffs we thank God for that increase. Without it feeding stuffs this winter would have been at double and treble the price with none available from other parts of the world. The Community deserves the gratitude of the farming community for all it has done to help us in a very difficult situation.
  It is certain that we have reached the end of our traditional relationship with the Commonwealth. One has only to listen to and read what Mr. Whitlam said

  1937
  in Brussels yesterday. He made it clear that Australia believes that we should stay in the EEC and that it would be of no advantage to Britain, Europe or the world if we withdrew from the Common Market. That must surely underline statements which are made continually by some of my hon. Friends and by some Labour Members that the Commonwealth believes we should stay in. Our relationship with the Commonwealth has changed. The Commonwealth has grown up, and while it wants a close relationship it is not prepared to continue under the terms as they once existed.
  Mr. Marten: Will my hon. Friend name the last Conservative Member who made such a statement?
  Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend has the advantage of me there, but that is being said all the time. References to the Commonwealth repeatedly crop up in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) made such a statement in a speech early in the last Parliament. There is frequently this reference to the Commonwealth and our traditional friends and markets.
  Mr. Whitlam has made his position clear. For the first time he went to Brussels instead of coming direct to London. That would have been unthinkable a few years ago, but he went there for the symbolic purpose of showing that the whole balance and weight had moved towards Brussels. He believed that this was inevitable. The sooner we accept the realities of that sort of situation, the better it will be for everyone.
  I accept that the Foreign Secretary has made the case that the supply of cheap food might not have gone for ever, but certainly we shall never see food coming from other world markets at the prices of a few years ago. That should be made clear in the way that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection have sought to do. They have both made it clear that there is a margin in favour of the Community, and I believe we should be honest and accept that that is so.
  There can be no doubt that 1975 will be a very difficult and dangerous year for Western Europe. There can be no safe harbour for any country, least of all the United Kingdom, and we face particular dangers. The first of these is
  1938
  inflation. The second is that we are on a sliding scale with our gross national product. Our GNP in relation to the rest of the Community has fallen from 26 per cent. in 1962 to 16 per cent. The estimate is that by 1980, if the trend continues, we shall be down to 14 per cent. In a situation like that, with the possibility of another flare-up in the Middle East and an interruption of our oil supplies, it is vital that we have friends, that we count them as friends and that we stand up and be counted alongside them in the Community.
  Nothing could have more clearly borne out the reality of the situation than the speech which Chancellor Schmidt addressed to the Labour Party conference only two weeks ago. It was a moving speech. Every person in this country who watched him on television realised the strength and depth of feeling coming from our erstwhile enemies when they speak of the need to have Britain in the Community. They know that without this country there is a serious danger of Europe falling apart and reducing itself to the conditions which we had to accept in the 1930s. That was borne out in the speeches which many of my hon. Friends made in the 1960s and early 1970s.
  Chancellor Schmidt said:
  "in pursuing the interests of my own people let me say very frankly: if we fail to establish close co-operation in order to cope with the risks of the present economic problems in the Western democratic societies, we do, I am afraid, put political stability at risk also, and might endanger our privilege to enjoy living in a democratic system.".
  What worries me is that we are losing sight of that one aim—that we must keep close to each other, if not for the sake of present generations in this country, for the sake of generations to come.
  9.12 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Although we are all glad to see my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in a state of what Nye Bevan used to call rude health, those who heard his speech tonight and the Prime Minister's statement on Monday must have been struck by the remarkable difference between the summit communiqué issued earlier this week and the interpretations which both my right hon. Friends have put on it.
  The communiqué, if one accepts the ordinary meaning of words, records a

  1939
  series of steps towards turning the Common Market into something much more like a federal State. More powers are to be "conferred" on the Commission— that is paragraph 8. There is to be
  "stage-by-stage harmonisation of legislation affecting aliens ".
  That is paragraph 11. Election of the European Assembly by universal suffrage
  "should be achieved as soon as possible"—
  and
  "could take place in or after 1978."
  Then there is the remarkable paragraph about "renouncing" the Luxembourg Agreement.
  Now we have the interpretations. The communiqué itself records a firm British reservation, which I welcome, on direct elections, although that is to operate apparently only until the referendum. That should be noted.
  Most readers will have taken paragraph 6 on the veto in the Luxembourg Agreement about which my right hon. Friend spoke today to mean—and I noted that the Leader of the Opposition took it to mean this as well as I did—that all EEC members had renounced even the extra-legal right under that agreement to veto any decision affecting essential national policy. The exact words, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree, are that member countries
  "consider it necessary to renounce the practice which consists of making agreements on all questions conditional on the unanimous consent of the Member States, whatever their positions may be regarding the Luxembourg Agreement ".
  I welcome the assurances given by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary today that this does not weaken the Luxembourg compromise which, we were told throughout the 1972 debates, particularly by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and by the then Solicitor-General, was the great safeguard for British independence.
  We are now told that all that the communiqué means is that on some minor issues unanimity will not be required. I hope, therefore, that I understand my right hon. Friend correctly today to say clearly that this country retains the right to veto any decision which we consider to be contrary to our major national
  1940
  interest, and that, if we do, that decision will not be valid and will not have the force of law as EEC legislation.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I was very careful in what I said, and I do not want to add to it. I accept every word of what my right hon. Friend has just said and his description of what it means.
  Mr. Jay: I am glad to hear that, because this is not exactly a minor issue. To give away the last resort veto would be to sacrifice the right of the British people to decide their own future.
  Mr. Rippon: Would the right hon. Gentleman say exactly the same about the International Energy Agency?
  Mr. Jay: The International Energy Agency is a temporary arrangement from which we can withdraw at any time we wish, and it does not involve internal United Kingdom legislation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be able to see the difference.
  To give away the last resort power to veto legislative proposals of this kind is something that a great many countries in this century have fought to avoid. There may be a few who would be willing to sacrifice this country's independence as a democratic State and to enter a federal State, but, those who want to do that should advocate it openly and not by stealth, deception and concealment of what is going on. As Hugh Gaitskell said on this issue in 1962, federalism means
  "the end of Britain as an independent European State It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say ' Let it end', but, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought."
  I echo those sentiments.
  The Government have now accepted another concession—or perhaps it should be called a surrender—which does not seem to be wholly consistent with the Labour Party's last two election manifestos. There has so far been no fundamental renegotiation of the common agricultural policy. And the Government are proposing on 1st January to raise still further a whole series of import taxes on food, although the Labour Party voted against corresponding increases a year ago, and the election

  1941
  manifesto, which my right hon. Friend did not quote today, said:
  "While the negotiations proceed, we shall stop further processes of integration, particularly as they affect food taxes."
  Yet we are being asked to raise these taxes on 1st January without, incidentally, the Government finding time for the House to discuss them first. It is true that at the same time on some intra-EEC trade taxes go down, but in view of that pledge and the paramount need of the moment to keep food prices down to reinforce the social contract it is in my view indefensible to raise any taxes on food at present. Yet the order, which we have not even discussed, will make steep increases on duty on 1st January.
  Mr. James Callaghan: No.
  Mr. Jay: The import duty on beef is doubled and there are increases in the taxes on fish and other foods. I am omitting levies which are not strictly taxes and which, for technical reasons, are not included in the order.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Does my right hon. Friend dispute the figures I gave yesterday, namely, that the food index will rise by 0·1 per cent. but that the overall effect of the tariff changes, including food, will be to reduce the retail price index, again by an infinitesimal amount?
  Mr. Jay: What I said was that there would be steep increases in duties.
  Mr. James Callaghan: They are not necessarily passed on to the consumer.
  Mr. Jay: If my right hon. Friend does not think they will be passed on at all, he is exceedingly hopeful. I said that there will be steep increases in the duties, and those are not justified at present.
  I return to the major issue which is being argued by pro-Market propagandists—though not by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary today—that all these food taxes and restrictions do not raise the cost of food. I still ask "What then is the point of all these food taxes and intervention measures if they do not make food more expensive than it otherwise would be?" Why should we not remove them altogether?
  Let us take the example of beef, about which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary knows a great deal. Not merely are we doubling the rate of im-
  1942
  port duty on 1st January, but prices are so much lower in the world outside the EEC that the Community has imposed a total import ban on all imports of beef from anywhere in the world. That was originally supposed to be a temporary arrangement, but it has now been continued indefinitely and is legally enforceable in this country, although we have had no opportunity to discuss this mattter at any time at all. Countries as different as Australia, New Zealand, the Argentine, Brazil and Yugoslavia are all able to send beef to the Community countries more cheaply than they are allowed to by the import ban.
  Mr. Evan Luard: Is not my right hon. Friend leaving out of account an important factor about the Community and its agricultural policy? It is in many ways employing a protective policy which sometimes keeps out imports from outside the Community but it is based on a managed market and its own prices, which at present in many cases are below world prices. The fact that one keeps out foreign imports does not necessarily raise prices.
  Mr. Jay: I was saying that the price of beef in the outside world is lower than the price within the Community, and that is why the Community has imposed an import ban. It is no use hon. Members arguing that this is justified because at the lower prices our home farmers would be injured. They would have not been injured if we had not abandoned guaranteed prices and deficiency payments. If we had continued these well-tried policies and had not imposed the present import ban our farmers would be enjoying greater security; consumers would be paying less for their meat; and consumption would be higher.
  The present crisis in British agriculture is directly caused by the abandonment by the Conservative Government of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments, just as the sugar crisis has largely been caused in this country by the abandonment of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Both were abandoned as a direct result of our entry into the Community. If the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement had run on, we would have had to pay more but would have had greater assurance of supplies—for example from Australia—than we have at present.

  1943
  What is true of beef is equally true of butter, cheese, mutton and lamb, on all of which we are now imposing heavy import levies or duties, and all of which could be bought more cheaply from outside the EEC if we were allowed to do so.
  Mr. Hamish Watt: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give the House some details of the fiasco that is now taking place over milk powder where the EEC deliberately keeps the price of milk powder at £350 a ton, instead of selling it to consumers at a reasonable price? Does he appreciate that thousands of tons of milk powder are being sold to Eastern European countries at £200 a ton and does he realise that the EEC by these regulations will not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot use his intervention for the purpose of making a speech.
  Mr. Jay: What the hon. Member said is broadly true, but, for the sake of brevity, I am trying to stick to the main foodstuffs.
  The fact is that even with the present exceptionally high world prices, which, on the evidence of history, will not continue indefinitely, we are now paying more than we need to pay for a number—not all, I agree—of our main food imports.
  The real folly—I think that here my right hon. Friend agreed, according to what he said today—is that, whatever the cost of a given commodity at a given moment, it must be in our national interest to retain the power to import as cheaply as possible any commodity at any time in the unpredictable future. That is just plain common sense.
  Dear food is not the only burden cast upon us economically by EEC membership. Another burden is our staggering trade deficit with the old EEC Six—the great home market that the then Prime Minister's White Paper told us was to rescue us from all these other burdens. The figures for 1974 are remarkable. The 1971 White Paper promised a positive and substantial trade balance with the great home market of the Six. In 1970 we had a fairly negligible trade deficit about £70 million with the Six. In the first 11 months of this year the visible trade deficit with the Six was £1,925
  1944
  million compared with a total non-oil trade deficit with the whole world in the same period of about £1,559 million. That means that, apart from the Six, we had a visible non-oil trade surplus, so far in 1974, of nearly £400 million. Since our current non-oil balance of payments deficit this year has been only £230 million—a remarkable figure—it follows that, but for the deficit with the Six, we should have had a non-oil payments surplus this year of £1,700 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—these are the figures—which is more than half the cost of our trade deficit on oil imports.
  It may be argued that the whole of our deficit with the EEC is not due to our joining, and that may be so, but it is a different argument. I repeat that we were told by the Tory Government's White Paper that a substantial trade surplus would be gained by joining the EEC. It is well that the House should understand the facts now.
  Let us contrast our deficit with the EEC with those of the other EFTA countries which had the sense not to join the Common Market. Norway at this time is thriving. All these countries have now signed an industrial free trade area agreement with the EEC and it is now in force. That agreement provides for a further 20 per cent. tariff cut on 1st January next year and full free trade between all those countries and the EEC by 1977. That is a fundamental fact in the situation that has not yet been generally enough realised.
  If we were to withdraw from the EEC next year—some people should give thought to the question of what would happen if we did—we would already de facto be enjoying industrial free trade with the present EEC and EFTA countries and be relieved of the crippling burden of the common agricultural policy and of all this undemocratic legislation from Brussels.
  So far from being excluded, as we are sometimes told, from Western European trade, any country that wished to erect new barriers against British exports would have to take the initiative in proposing to do this discriminatingly against the United Kingdom alone of the 16 countries involved. The reality is that this would be such an absurd proposal that nobody, I expect not even the French, would be the

  1945
  least likely to propose it, let alone support it. Certainly no single member of the EFTA group would do so.
  The truth is that this country, if we have sufficient courage and resolution, still has the power, like Norway, to join the industrial free trade area with the greater part of Western Europe, including the EEC, and free ourselves of the damaging burdens that are now thrust upon us. That is what we should do, and there is really no other way in which to rescue ourselves from our present self-inflicted difficulties.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. John Davies: One must greatly admire the consistency of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). He produces over the years precisely the same arguments with precisely the same background, with no regard to the changes that take place either in the statistics or in the underlying factors. He is a model of consistency and one can only admire it, disagree with him though one does.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is not consistent to the same degree. It is interesting to me to contrast the roaring lion voice of the right hon. Gentleman in April this year with the cooing dove voice that we heard this evening. The contrast is astonishing, and I can only offer him my compliments. I believe that it represents a wonderful conversion which we greatly admire.
  In addition it bears out what I genuinely believe to be the case, that people who are exposed to the actuality of the Community which is so much a matter of discussion find themselves more and more drawn into the interest and potential that it represents. In the right hon. Gentleman's change of tone I detect that to a considerable degree. He has great adaptability. We know that, he has shown it, and we compliment him upon it and hope it continues.
  I hope in this evening's debate not to indulge in what seems to me to be a semantic argument. The question of renegotiation or negotiation seems to me a matter that is past being very interesting. I have never had any doubt that at some appropriate time it would be necessary to try to ensure that this country's contribution to the Community's budget was not irrational in relation to the state of this
  1946
  country in the context of the Community. If, as a result of the negotiations of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, the mechanism to which he referred can give some greater degree of assurance about that possibility, who am I to complain? I can only compliment them upon it.
  Equally, I think that if one looks at many of the other fields in which the on-going negotiation is showing itself to be relevant, one sees the same thing. I have never doubted that it was desirable that there should be much freer access to Community markets from Commonwealth and overseas countries. Indeed, in all the negotiations that took place, particularly with the developing countries, it was always the leitmotiv of British Ministers attending Council meetings to try to increase the openness of Community markets to external markets. I shall compliment the right hon. Gentleman if he manages to get some positive assurances on that matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not mention tighter financial control. One of the obvious deficiencies of the common agricultural policy is the slackness of the financial control which has for so long accompanied it. If he can find means of tightening that up, we can only compliment him and wish him good luck.
  Even on aid, I think that the right hon. Gentleman would admit, in fairness, that my party when in government and in the councils in Brussels always took the view that the Community's stance should be much more broadly based and that the generalised trade preferences should be more liberal. If the right hon. Gentleman can now carry that to fruition, we can only compliment him. So if, in this renegotiation, he can improve mechanisms, I can only be content. This process is fully in conformity with my idea of an on-going Community seeking to improve its procedure, its mechanism and its attitude to the outside world.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I am grateful, although I am a little worried about all these compliments. If this is so, and I am doing this in conformity with the Labour Party manifesto, why did the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, if not he himself, tell us we would never get beyond first base and would not be able to do these things?
  Mr. Davies: I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman thought there was something novel in what that manifesto involved in terms of a continuing negotiation. There was not novelty but continuity, upon which I am very content. Let him go ahead : I am happy for him to do so.
  The Community's performance over 1974—perhaps we will be allowed, on a motion for the Adjournment, to deal fairly widely and not stop at October 1974— shows that in a number of ways the doors are being opened and that perhaps some have already given way to great progress through them of manifest improvement. I am content to see that happen.
  Many of us were disturbed when, at the end of last year, the Community faced an entirely new situation. Instead of simply trying to increase the prosperity of its member States, which were already prospering and looking forward to greater prosperity, it suddenly faced the hard fact that hardship and difficulty might lie ahead. The member States needed to find a new attitude to handle a change from continuing and assured prosperity to a situation of perhaps great adversity. It was a difficult and traumatic time in the Community's history, not aided by what seemed then to be the much harder line of the present Government.
  But the Community has come through much of that situation. It has been able to move on. The communiqué from the summit meeting gives encouraging evidence of preparedness to move further forward and to do so effectively. There are real opportunities. We now see the way open to reopening and continuing discussions on worldwide trade agreements within the framework of GATT. This has come about because of a new United States Trade Bill which allows the safety catch to be taken off. We all know that the Community, speaking for nine countries at a time within the framework of these trade negotiations, is undoubtedly far better armed to deal with them effectively than we would be alone. So the Community has a new lease of life in this respect, and a powerful and valuable one.
  The movement into regional funds is a small beginning. But if one looks at the history of the Community one sees that most of these things had small beginnings. Where the Community has gone forward,
  1948
  it has done so because there was support for them and because there was a feeling that there was something worth doing. What is little mentioned but is nevertheless remarkable is that within about 28 years of the end of the last war one should have old enemies actually prepared to fund assistance to one another to overcome social and industrial deficiencies. That is an attainment of no mean order and one which we should certainly not forget.
  We have also seen something of an improvement and an advance on energy. A new impetus has been given by the Heads of Government. I welcome that. There is a danger that we have come to be obsessed with oil alone as the issue in relation to energy. The truth is that it is unlikely that the enormous changes to which we look forward in the supply of nuclear power would be attained by any European country acting alone. We have already seen very valid developments, for instance, in uranium enrichment, and we must see more in nuclear development itself.
  It may be that the energy strategy outlined by the Community for 40 per cent, or more of its total energy demand being furnished in 1985 from nuclear sources is over-ambitious. But it is going the right way. If it is to be attained, it will not be attained by nine independent countries following independent lines of research and development. It will be attained by a common operation. That, unfortunately, will not be achieved if we in particular were to stand outside it, because we have a massive part to play.
  Nor do I believe that the exceedingly important part that coal has to play in the future of energy resources on this continent is likely to be adequately assured without the common support of a force as massive as the European Community. I see already the movements towards such considerations implicit in the communiqué from the Heads of Government.
  In the interesting change in relation to the provision for the social fund which has taken place we see something of importance in itself but something which is also very indicative of another element. For the first time we have seen the European Parliament actually enforcing— albeit its members are not directly elected ; nevertheless they are representative

  1949
  members—an added dimension to the social provisions of the Community. It is an important issue in itself that there should be at this point an evidence of the new power which the European Parliament exercises actually to move the whole thing forward—perhaps even despite the Council of Ministers, as has been the case.
  On the matter of Community loans, which we were most recently debating here, it is a very important step for the Community to have decided by common effort to seek to secure the funds which may be so essential to us in Britain for the support of our currency and for mutual support among the member States in time of adversity.
  Looking at the whole strand of 1974, with its extraordinary uncertainties and hazards, one sees that the year started very badly but that the Community has once again summoned its strength and has moved forward and is now looking in much better posture. But we must support it. If we were to fail it at this stage, I fear that once again the vacillations and uncertainties would dominate the scene, to the great damage not only of ourselves but of Europe as a whole.
  I want to make a further reference to the intention expressed at the Heads of Government meeting in Paris to ensure that there would be something called the European Council which had a kind of overriding rôle in the Community. That seems to be of great importance.
  A great deficiency of the Community mechanism and systems is that all the meetings of the Council of Ministers are given over almost entirely to national bargaining. There is little other than nationalistic impulse in the bargaining operations within those Council meetings. To my mind, that is an immense shortcoming. There is, and has been hitherto, no regular means of ensuring that people in high positions of authority in the Community get together from time to time to ensure that the Community objects are identified, that the Community purpose is given full discussion and that there is a Community strategy, of which national strategy forms a part but which in the end must be contributed and not contested.
  I regard the developments which we have seen, albeit with some anxiety, during the course of the year as now being
  1950
  encouraging, and I compliment the Government on the part they play in ensuring that encouragement.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: With regard to the terms which are used, whether we are European or anti-European, the members of my party think that Scotland has always been part of Europe. If it is not too rude to drag up old history, Scotland looked to Europe for allies against a fairly aggressive southern enemy centuries go. Through that connection, we developed a European system of law. When I visited Luxembourg recently I was glad to find Lord Mackenzie Stuart there to speak up for Scotland's juristic views. There are a number of qualified Scottish persons in Luxembourg as a kind of recognition that, whoever is in any doubt about it, Scotland has always been part of Europe.
  The Scottish National Party is opposed to the EEC as presently structured on a number of grounds. The first and most obvious of these will not come as any surprise to hon. Members. We feel that we occupy a constitutionally absurd position already, even before we came to this House. Scotland is a nation. No one seriously refutes that. Yesterday I heard a noble Lord in the other place refute that fact. No hon. Member of this House seems to refute it. While we are a nation, with many of the trappings and institutions of nationhood, we do not have the normal trappings which cover the central institution of decision making where it counts, particularly as regards finance and industry. That is the position taken by my party, which is a democratic one, as regards Scotland, although we regret the fact that we were the first to enter a common market. We were the bold, international experimenters in 1707 when we entered a common market which had much greater power.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said in previous debate that England should beware the case of Scotland, which entered a common market in 1707. "Look what happened to her ", he said. We have a point of view. Many promises were made that entering the Common Market would bring prosperity. We were told that the removal of decision making to a faraway place—in those days it was a far-off

  1951
  place because of the lack of communications—would not affect us too vitally.
  Although we were the first in the Industrial Revolution, for many reasons which I will not go into now, to reap the normal benefits of good housing and living wages, during the past 50 years Scotland has lost 1 million talented people who mostly did not want to leave. It is a country which is left with some of the worst housing in Europe, and some of the longest job queues. One of the reasons why my colleagues and I are in Parliament is that there is a generation abroad in Scotland today saying "Enough is enough, and we want to solve the problem in our generation".
  I make those points because, when we consider the EEC as it stands, the people of Scotland are wondering whether they will experience third-hand the red tape which we experience at the moment second-hand. Will it be better for us? Will the centralisation from which we now suffer be carried one degree further?
  Recently in Luxembourg the argument was put to me in all seriousness, "Could anything be worse than your plight as helpless pawn in the United Kingdom setup?" That argument does not appeal to me. Although we are not completely satisfied, at least in this House we can make contributions, put our case, get a hearing and have some accountability.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Power sharing.
  Mrs. Ewing: We can question Ministers. The Ministers may not give us the answers for which we ask, but we can go through the motions, and often we get answers. We have a degree of accountability. But, as presently constituted, given the good will behind much of what is going on in the European attempt to come together, we fear that in terms of our lack of influence and accountability the situation will become very serious.
  As I say, recently I visited the European Parliament. On a previous occasion I visited the Commission. I was impressed with many features of the European Parliament. The seating in the European Parliament is arranged not according to member States but according to parties. Its members strive to bring pressure to bear on the Commission and the Council
  1952
  of Ministers, just as we strive in this House to bring to bear on the Treasury Bench. The European Parliament appears to be doing a very good job. It is attempting to do it by reaching concord together. As a child of the war, I was impressed to see the representatives of all those countries sitting together. If the motivation of the set-up is to ensure that Germany and France never go to war against each other again, perhaps it is worth while.
  In this House it is not always easy to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Sometimes when I come back to this House from the European Parliament I recall with pleasure an assembly where speeches are limited to five minutes and where everyone can catch the eye of the Chair and have his say. I hasten to assure hon. Members that I shall not stick to a five-minute limit tonight. I am not in the European Parliament at the moment.
  The European Parliament is trying to seek concord, whereas this House tries to do its business by starting off in discord, however small the majority of the party in power. The European Parliament is trying to democratise itself. It wants direct elections. It has already had some success with regard to the Community budget. But I sometimes wonder whether it will achieve anything quickly enough for my country.
  That is my position. The problems of Scotland are severe, and they need quick solutions if we are not to lose another half million people, especially from our northern lands. When we lose people from such areas, whole communities die, and they can never be brought back to what they were. That is the concern of my party, and, with the best will towards the European Parliament, I wonder whether it will ever get into a situation where it can hold its institutions sufficiently accountable and produce decisions to solve our problems.
  We have suffered from misfit policies. I am sure that misfit policies do not come out of this House because of any animosity towards Scotland. However, so long as we are in the Common Market with the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom has to legislate for the majority. In the same way, the Community will have to legislate for the majority. The result will be that we who

  1953
  are already a minority in a majority will become a peripheral minority in a bigger majority. My logical mind asks how that will benefit Scotland.
  Let us consider the example of regional aid. I was delighted to hear the assurances about this that we had from the Foreign Minister. This is a crucial matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that regional policies within a member State would not be imperilled if the State felt them to be necessary. Let us compare the amount that Britain spends with the amount which is to be spent over the cake as a whole. Although it will be very nice to get a few million pounds here and there for Scotland to deal with small difficulties, no real impact will be made on our major problems. It is more likely that the United Kingdom, with a better attitude to regional aid, will solve these problems than anything that can be done by means of the slow and cumbrous arrangements of the EEC.
  The centralism worries me particularly. I wonder in whose interests these rules about imports and exports are framed. My country, Scotland, is nearly self-sufficient in most basic foods. We are a country which could sensibly look to the Government to say that food imports should be cut down considerably. But we are now unable to look to the United Kingdom to do so because the United Kingdom is giving away the right to do so to a larger framework, perhaps for the greater good of a great many people. But in the meantime we have absurdities forced upon us.
  Mr. Mike Thomas(Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I do not quite follow her argument. Is she saying that, while she would like to see the European Parliament strong and given more powers, at the same time she sees that if it were there would be no rôle within it for a Scottish National Party?
  Mrs. Ewing: I would welcome the European Parliament having more power because I like to see a non-democratic body become more democratic. I welcome any Parliament becoming more democratic. I would welcome this Parliament becoming more democratic than it is. When I visited the Commission for the first time some years ago, in 1969, I
  1954
  was told by a very senior civil servant that the policy of the European Community was that hill farmers would have to go to the wall. I did not like the expression. I have been told they have changed their view. But hill farmers in Scotland, among them many in my constituency, have gone to the wall. No doubt hon. Members will say that that is not the fault of the European Community, but I believe that it is. I believe that the agricultural policy into which we have been slotted has not suited Scotland or Wales or even parts of England.
  Certainly, there has been no attempt to discuss the EEC fishing policy, which does not suit the inshore fishermen of Scotland, including many in my constituency, who are in a state of uncertainty. Young men are not going into the industry. For the first time links over centuries in many coastal towns in Scotland are being broken. This is a very bad situation, because if that link is broken, communities die. I have one such port that has died and is now only a tourist place. Lossiemouth is a tourist and a fishing place. No one wants to have just a tourist place but that could happen if the uncertainty that is hanging over inshore fishermen continued and that is what we face.
  I see the problems staring me in the face. That is hard for me, because I admire much about the Community. I was told at the end of the discussion, when I visited the Commission in 1969, "You must have faith ". I ask: how can I have faith in a set of institutions whose representatives are basically ignorant about the nature of my country and its problems? I found they were not as well-briefed as British civil servants. How can I have faith when I do not know who is to give us priority to help get our problems solved?
  Let us take steel. Is there, somewhere, a steel map showing where people say it is reasonable and others say it is not reasonable to have a steel industry in Scotland? Certainly, the British Government seem to say that it is not reasonable to have a steel industry in Scotland, because successive British Governments have eroded the steel industry there. If this is what we have from a Government over which we have some accountability, what shall we have if we go in? Take the case of subsidised local industry. Are

  1955
  we to be able to do that or not? Will someone spell that out?
  I have great sympathy with those in the House who raised the question of the scrutiny of secondary legislation, and I agree with what has been said. I offer myself to this Committee, and will the Minister take note that I do so? I have offered myself before. I will try once again.
  There is one question of great muddle. From the answer given to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) it seems that the Secretary of State is not sure how many regulations affect him but he thinks there are about 10. The Secretary of State for the Environment thinks about 20 regulations affect his sphere of negotiations, and the Secretary of State for Trade thinks the number affecting him is about 400; but no one seems very sure.
  It is a muddle. When I seek information about how to get a grant for a fishing boat, I get one answer from the Scottish Office and another from the Community. I assume that the Community is wrong. I take it up with the Scottish office—amicably, because we are all anxious to get a solution.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
  Ordered,
  That at this day's Sitting the Business of Supply may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]
  Mrs. Ewing: I come back to another point of opposition by the Scottish National Party. I question the motivation of some of those who supported the European Communities Act. I recall that in the debates in 1968 and 1969 there was the argument that our growth rate would be greatly assisted by our membership. It has not happened. But that is a materialistic argument. I am more impressed by those who leave that argument alone.
  The other argument that I remember that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made—they were in the same rôles then—narrowed
  1956
  down to the point that Britain must be great again. That argument does not have much appeal to Scotland.
  Mr. James Sillars: Why?
  Mrs. Ewing: We are not particularly worried that we lost the Empire. We are much happier with the Commonwealth. I suggest that Britain never got used to it. If we want to play at influencing events, we are told, it has to be from within a super-Power. We hear the phrases "super-Power" and "centralised bloc". The idea is that we could create entente between the two other blocs. But we do not want blocs. We want to be on good terms with all the blocs if possible. So we are not over-impressed that the motivation in that sense was the highest and noblest on the part of those who supported the legislation in this House, although I agree that it was so on the part of many. I can certainly see the noble aspects of a situation in which countries sit down together, but I have to come back to my responsibilities and I do not see the problems of Scotland being solved in that way.
  In The Economist recently there was reference to the phrase "stealthily a super-power". I am not particularly impressed by that aspect of the Community. All we can see is that the Community is in trouble. M. Monnet says that it is in a mess. He asks "What can we do to revive the sick man of Europe?" My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isle (Mr. Stewart) once described the members of the Community as taking in each other's washing machines. He might have been a little facetious, but is there not truth in it? Is it not meant to keep the machines grinding and the markets going? Is that not the objective, rather than noble motives?
  I am pleased to see that a Minister from the Scottish Office is present. We have managed to devolve parts of the Scottish Office through many years of struggle in this House democratically. Now the Secretary of State for Scotland has seven hats at least, with great responsibilities within which he can make decisions. But suddenly we find other Ministers from Britain going to Brussels without a Minister from the Scottish Office, taking one of the Secretary of State's hats and discussing things like Scottish

  1957
  teachers' salaries and agriculture without a Scottish Minister being present.
  That is a serious breach of our constitutional rights in this House, and no one seems to take the matter seriously, except the members of the Scottish National Party. The alarming thing is that the Scottish Office seems to be cooperating in its own demise. It does not seem to have been upset by this process. It has handed over a large degree of responsibility, which again strengthens my argument about accountability.
  The Scottish National Party supports the proposal for a referendum. We are not afraid of a new device. We see nothing alarming about putting a straightforward point to the people. We ask that the decision be made constituency by constituency so that we can ascertain our own constituents' views and those of each and every part of the British Isles. Whatever is decided by the Scottish people, we will accept the verdict.
  If the verdict of the people of Scotland is different from that of the people of England, that would be a very strong argument for independence for Scotland. If it is different from that of England, we suggest that we should put moral pressure on behalf of all the people of Scotland on the Community to change itself in some way which would make it acceptable to Scotland.
  Mr. Sillars: If Scotland voted "No" and the rest of the United Kingdom voted
  1958
  "Yes", should we opt out of the Community?
  Mrs. Ewing: I argue at the moment that we should opt out of the Community. I am explaining that I do not approve of it. We would urge the people of Scotland to opt out. But if Scotland voted for the Community we would be bound to do our best to make it work better.
  I have tried to make my position clear. Scotland's options are open because we have a unique position, being self-sufficient in most basic foods and in energy and having a high export rate and no balance of payments problems. We have an almost unique trading position, being the second highest exporters after West Germany. We have our options open. Some of those options have been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but there are other options and some are very attractive.
  At the end of the day the criterion which will settle the question for the people of Scotland is whether they think that this set of institutions can offer them the solution to their urgent problems, and at the moment I do not see a prospect that it can do so.
  Mr. Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that a great number of hon. Members still want to catch my eye in this debate.
  10.6 p.m.
  Mr. John Roper: The hon. Lady's remarks encourage me to extend my speech more than you would wish, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I shall ask her merely whether she is intending to take up a seat at Luxembourg, next to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnson), in order to play her part in strengthening the institutions of the Community and see developed as quickly as possible the policies she has outlined this evening.
  Mrs. Ewing: I shall if my party so decides. We are a democratic party and all decisions are made by our assembly. It is to be put to the assembly by me on 18th January whether I take my seat and state my point of view for Scotland.
  Mr. Roper: I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady says on that point.
  I welcome the six months' report we are considering tonight. This is a most useful innovation by the present Government and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for having laid this before the House in such a useful and helpful way. I also congratulate him and my colleagues in the Government, including my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Overseas Development, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade, for the part they have played in the Community councils in the first six months. I also congratulate them on their achievements, which have taken us a substantial way on the road to renegotiation as laid down in the Labour Party manifesto in February.
  However, all the congratulations should not go to them alone. They have had the co-operation of our Community partners, who have shown understanding about the needs of this country and have put forward constructive proposals for the solution of the problems which we have outlined.
  I think particularly of the part played in recent weeks by Chancellor Schmidt and by the Belgian Prime Minister Mr. Tindemans, and, indeed, the French President, who may have been somewhat harsh at one stage but has shown himself prepared to support and accept constructive compromises to deal with the
  1960
  difficult problems facing the various countries of the Community. There has also been helpfulness on the part of other Community partners during the past seven months, and the Commission itself has considerably assisted the process of renegotiation.
  The Commission paper we are considering—R/2829/74—on the contribution of the United Kingdom to the Community budget is a full and interesting analysis. Unlike the Treasury document which, as far as I know, has never been laid before the House, it gives us some of the figures we need to make an assessment of the possible cost to the United Kingdom at the end of the decade.
  Other Commissioners have also shown their understanding. Mr. Lardinois, the Agriculture Commissioner, has shown considerable helpfulness in working out solutions which take account of the particular nature of our agriculture. M. Cheysson, the Commissioner for Overseas Development, has worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development and Mr. Pronk, the Dutch Minister of Development, to work out new policies, particularly on the Convention with the 46 ACP countries and the move towards a globalisation of aid policies.
  The Regional Fund has already been referred to. It is a modest beginning, but it is important that at last, after years of argument, a fund will be inscribed into the budget. If the hon. Lady takes her seat in Strasbourg she will be able to argue for its increase.
  We have at least made a start, and this, too, should count as one of the successes of the past nine months of our membership of the Community. There have been substantial achievements. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right when he suggested that there are also substantial problems ahead of us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has referred to the problems of the common agricultural policy as they affect the United Kingdom. There is clearly a need here for co-operation and understanding. We cannot expect the Community to reverse the common agricultural policy overnight, but I hope that there will be considerable modification of

  1961
  that policy after the stocktaking the German Government have called for in the spring of next year.
  One of the important areas that remain a subject of controversy and misunderstanding is the nature of the Community we have entered and the degree to which powers should be exercised in common rather than on an individual national basis. I have recently been reading, for a different purpose, the debates in the House in November 1956 and February 1959 on the free trade area proposals associated with the then Paymaster-General —the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). In view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North has said tonight about the possibility of our entering a free trade area, those debates are perhaps particularly relevant and interesting now, although I cannot share the optimism of my right hon. Friend about the enthusiasm of the other members of the Community to agree to our having a free trade association agreement on the same basis as Norway has had. We are a much more substantial trading partner. I do not think that the automobile industry or the chemical industry of the Community, for example, would be particularly anxious to see us having a free trade agreement.
  Mr. Luard: Is it not the case that France has consistently expressed her opposition to the idea of a free trade area including Britain? That has been a consistent policy over 15 years. It would have been advantageous to this country to have such a trading area, but France has never allowed it, and there is no sign that she would allow it now.
  Mr. Roper: That is my understanding of the situation, but I believe that, in addition, industries in the Community countries, such as the automobile industry in Germany and Italy and the chemical industry in Belgium and elsewhere, would be resistant to our having free trade access if we were not members of the Community.
  In both the debates in 1956 and the debate in 1959 one of the Labour Front Bench spokesmen was my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister, who made it clear on 12th February 1959, as reported in columns 1475 and 1476 of
  1962
  HANSARD, that there were disadvantages to a
  "limited, negative, tariff-free European economy."
  He made it clear that there were dangers in a free trade area without common policies.
  The closing Labour speaker in the debate on 26th November 1956 insisted that competition and the single system of natural liberty were not enough—that, indeed, success would depend on how far we were able to continue from ordinary free trade principles. It was made clear then that we wanted free trade but with such a difference that a new name would be needed for it.
  In 1959, the opening speaker from the Labour benches made it clear that
  "To base the new unity of a wider, bigger Europe merely on the removal of restraints to trade would be simply to have an economy erected on the principle of ' To him that hath shall be given'. We have to try to take a different approach and to start from a different point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1400.]
  As was said then, a good unifying principle is to say to Europe not, "Let us get rid of restraints to trade" but, "Let us see how we can make this area dynamic in economic and social terms". As the debate made clear then, and as is still the case, such an approach must mean that certain decisions are taken in common and collectively if we are to ensure a measure of social control over the economic environment. This is sometimes referred to as a loss of powers by this country to the Community. There may well be instances in the economic world in which a national Government no longer has effective control over multinational companies or over world monetary and commercial developments, but as part of a community it can have a greater degree of control over the country's economic environment.
  Although that may be accepted for certain areas where the case for common policies is clear-cut, there are other areas of policy making, such as agriculture, in which the case for common policies is more difficult to establish. There are differences between the agricultural policies of the original six members of the Community and Ireland and Denmark, as large exporting countries of agricultural

  1963
  products, have different policies in certain elements from those required by the United Kingdom, although, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, this is less self-evident in the present state of high world prices. However, it will be necessary, in the stocktaking which is carried out in the next few months, for a policy to be developed which takes into account the interests of all nine members of the Community, or this will be a substantial problem in the renegotiations.
  In becoming members of a Community we must accept that although, overall, it is intended to be to the advantage of its members, there are inevitably some elements of particular policies which will be unpopular in individual member countries or among certain groups in individual member countries. That is true with national policies and it would be impossible for it not also to be true at a Community level. But what must be established, as Chancellor Schmidt made clear recently in London, is not that there are no disadvantages in Community membership but that, on balance, the advantages of common policies, taken as a whole, outweigh the disadvantages.
  I have spoken about the loss of powers from this country to the Community and the advantages and disadvantages involved. There is, however, another problem of the shift of power which is consequential on our membership of the Community, namely, the possible shift of power from Parliament to the British Government—the executive—who can use their powers as members of the Council of Ministers to take decisions without our sanction. This problem is perhaps more potential than real, but we should consider it.
  I am therefore glad that paragraphs 56 and 57 of the White Paper consider briefly the problems of Parliament and the European Community. If the Minister tonight cannot say anything on this subject, I hope that someone else on a future occasion will tell us what more can be done about this matter in the near future.
  In spite of the difficulties experienced —not despite what the Foreign Secretary said, because of the novelty of Community membership but largely because of the backlog which the Scrutiny Committee has inherited—I believe that that Committee can develop into one useful
  1964
  instrument to serve as a watchdog for the House. Not surprisingly, we have found it difficult to achieve a satisfactory method by which the House can express its views to Ministers before they go to Brussels, but I believe that we must be flexible on this score and I hope that continued experiment will lead us to find a mechanism by which this can be achieved.
  But there is another stage in the process of Community law making where I believe Parliament has not yet established effective control or an effective system of analysis. I believe that we should be more involved in scrutinising and debating legislation in the United Kingdom which arises or purports to arise from obligations to introduce Community directives into the United Kingdom. What we in the Scrutiny Committee do not have at the moment, unlike the Irish Scrutiny Committee, is a particular responsibility in that direction. This is a matter which needs far more consideration by the Government and the House.
  It seems that we should have greater powers to ensure that the provisions of Section 2(2) and (4) of the European Communities Act are not abused. In particular, it would be important to reconsider carefully amendments to Schedule 2 of the Act to increase the number of matters arising from directives which would require legislation rather than statutory instruments. I hope that my right hon. Friends, in examining this matter of parliamentary control, will take another look at the amendment which was moved on 20th June 1972 to Schedule 2 by my right hon. and learned Friend, now the Attorney-General, supported by my right hon. Friend, now the Paymaster-General, and by my hon. and learned Friend, now the Solicitor-General. If this were incorporated as an amendment to the Act it would represent an important extension of parliamentary control.
  Perhaps this evening there is an element of "end of term". The Government certainly deserve an excellent report on their first nine months in the Community. I hope that the report they will produce of their second six months will enable us to say that their efforts in the team have been rewarded and that the success that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary deserves has been earned in Brussels.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I regret that I cannot share the gust of euphoria with which the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) ended his speech. This debate has been too quiet, and yet it is the first round in the referendum debate. In some ways it is surprising that few of the speeches have dwelt at any length on the terms which are being negotiated. Perhaps this reflects the paradoxical and possibly artificial fact that the terms, whenever they are negotiated, are likely to have only a very limited if not peripheral effect both on the referendum campaign and its result. We are to have a referendum because of the sustained and successful activities of those who are not interested in terms but reject the whole concept of the Community, root and branch. In particular, these people have been successful in their advocacy within the Labour Party when it was in opposition.
  The Foreign Secretary, who is a very practical man—as I am sure the Minister of State would agree—knows full well that no terms he can possibly achieve will ever satisfy the Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the Labour Left, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) or the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). They are not interested in terms, because the terms would be negotiated on the basis of staying within a supranational institution of which they want no part.
  In exactly the same way, the Scottish National Party is not interested in devolution or in federal institutions within the United Kingdom, because these would inevitably assume the continuance of— as they would describe it—a supranational United Kingdom. It has always seemed odd to me that the Labour Left and the Conservative Right should attack the nationalist—Welsh or Scottish— posture, because they are themselves making precisely the same argument vis-à-vis Europe, perhaps sometimes with less cultural justification. Every time a Labour or Conservative Member extols the Luxembourg Agreement, the necessity for a British veto and for it to be preserved for ever and ever, amen, he should ask himself why he opposes the idea of a Scottish or Welsh veto within the United Kingdom. It is exactly the
  1966
  same argument, with exactly the same weaknesses built into it.
  The Luxembourg compromise is probably an inevitability in the short term within the Community, but it is depressing that the Government should spend so much time laying emphasis on it when we should be seeking to move away from that situation. It is extraordinary that the Foreign Secretary should take the example of reflecting rear mirrors on tractors as a subject on which the House might declare its democratic rights, which could be carried on to a veto in Luxembourg. That is a glorious example of the fact that there is no such thing as a national interest. There is the Government's interest—and the Government like to equate the two. While the national interest may, exceptionally, be described in terms of unemployment, it certainly cannot be described in terms of rear mirrors on tractors, whatever the House might decide.
  Liberals have never opposed the negotiating objectives set out by the Government. After all, the Community has no meaning unless it has the capacity to adjust and readjust to changing circumstances. It is by definition a non-stop negotiation. We have opposed strongly, first, the exclusive concentration on our own short-term economic problems, to the total exclusion of long-term thinking. That has given the serious impression that Britain wants only to receive and never to give, and that has inhibited our chances of a fully sympathetic hearing for valid claims.
  Secondly, there is the gunboat diplomacy of threatening to leave if we do not get just what we want. Aggressive and introvert nationalism breeds only retaliation and a vicious circle of protectionism. In the last two years Britain has missed an immense opportunity to take a lead in generally improving the whole Community, and in that way her own situation, and has dissipated a deep well of good will going back to the last war. So we have cynicism on the Continent and doubt at home.
  When the Foreign Secretary made his initial statement on negotiations early in the year, I said that the one thing that was absent was any vision of the future, and of the part and the place of the British peoples in the future. Whether we can create this now at a time of crushing and

  1967
  divisive inflation, is the challenge of the referendum and of this debate. There is nothing more important next year. We are approaching a deep and grave decision, with implications that stretch on remorselessly into the future.
  I should like to stress three critical aspects of the future, none of which renegotiation has done anything to help but all of which reach to the heart of the utter necessity of saying "Yes" to Europe in the referendum.
  There is the question of economic and monetary union and the general strategy of the Community. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Peter Kirk), who sits on the Front Bench of the Opposition, remarked in our debate on the Community budget in Strasbourg recently that it was not a budget in the real sense of the word but an aggregation of departmental demands lacking any directional strategy, and he was absolutely right. It is the fact that we do not have any element of strategy within the Community which we should be working to change.
  Few people now believe that the monetary proposals of the Werner Report are viable, or possibly even desirable. Nevertheless, the arguments which led to the desire for economic co-operation are stronger than they ever were. It is disastrous that the Community has not an alternative strategy. The rôle of the British in the last 12 months, despite what the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) said, has been to resist rather than to encourage the finding of a solution.
  As a balance to the freedom of trade within the Community, it is essential that arrangements should be made to protect States which, for reasons which are not always under their own control, can and do get into special balance of payments or monetary difficulties. Britain needs the advantages of a wider market, but, at the same time, needs protection in the short term from monetary and economic forces which she is not equipped to face alone. A pledge by the British Government to lead the long-term unity of Europe could result in action for economic help and co-operation from the Community which is essential to us.
  Inflation is a problem which affects all States, and support for a concerted attack
  1968
  upon it would be forthcoming if this country had taken an initiative, but if we wait much longer Britain will suffer, and Britain would be the last country to gain from the development of nationalistic protectionist economic policies within Europe.
  Secondly there is regional policy and the need to redistribute income within the Community. Reference has already been made to the establishment of a regional fund at the summit a week or so ago. One thing we have to recognise, I am sure, is that that decision was made because of the pressure of Italy and Ireland, on the one hand, and because of the generous far-sightedness of Germany and the Netherlands on the other, and not because of the United Kingdom's activities.
  If one looks beyond the regional policy to the existing instruments for redistribution, some Ministers in the Government have actually sought to prevent money coming to the United Kingdom, as in the case of the social fund and of surveys which were to have taken place in South Wales. There was a further case in East Anglia, and there could be a case in Scotland. It seems incredible.
  If one looks at the European Investment Bank, funds are available at about 10½ per cent., while necessary public works in the United Kingdom are being cut back. It may be the fault of individual Members. They can all think of necessary and desirable objects in their constituencies which are being cut back and for which it would be worth remembering the European Investment Bank exists.
  Without or with British membership of the Community, there is a great danger of wealth being concentrated wholly in the centre of Western Europe, and the fundamental purpose of our membership should be actively to work to forestall that danger by backing proposals for positive integration, so that the Community budget, as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden rightly said, is concerned not just with agriculture, but with industry, social services, the regional fund and a concerted economic policy to control the inflation which harms backward regions and groups. Our failure to work towards this goal has been very serious.

  1969
  If policies to counter unemployment are conducted on a purely national basis, full employment, with or without British membership, will be possible in only a few countries in the centre and north of Europe.
  The Labour Left should seriously ponder the fact that its policy of getting out at any price would simply make us dependent on the Americans. In fact, when we look at the anti-Europe forces, which stretch from the right hon. Member for Down, South to the IRA, and from the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), on the Labour Left, to the hon. Member for Banbury, we see that the only common denominator is opposition. There is no common positive alternative.
  Thirdly and lastly, a bureaucratic Europe will wither and a democratic Europe will flower. I think that only the Liberals in this Parliament and country have consistently pressed for direct elections to the European Parliament. It seems ludicrous that at a time when political opinion is shifting within this country and when even the French Government, who opposed us year after year, are now in favour, the Gaullist mantle should fall over the shoulders of the Foreign Secretary. It also seems incredible.
  Certainly the British Parliament has taken some steps towards controlling the activities of Ministers in the Council. That has been commented upon by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Farnworth. They are inadequate, but in the end—we must face this situation in this House—they can never be more than a minor contribution, given that decisions are made collectively within the Community and given the need for more, not less, collective decisions.
  Lord Diamond's Committee in another place, in its special report, said that the scrutiny committees—I am a member of the scrutiny committee of this House— can be no more than a stopgap in the end. The only way to give the British people direct representation in Community decision making is directly to elect the European Parliament and to give it real powers.
  I do not understand why this Government and the previous Conservative Government denied this right to the
  1970
  British people and misled them by suggesting that national Parliaments can effectively control supranational institutions—because they cannot. We must face the fact that they cannot.
  I think that these are specific and positive points regarding the Community which, pursued by a Government who believe in the future of the Community, could still bring real benefits to Britain.
  The history of two world wars has shown that the safety and prosperity of the British people are intimately bound up with those of the other peoples of Western Europe and that failure to realise that in the past has always led to disaster.
  I believe that British Governments— this Government in particular, because they have the control of the situation in their hands—must adopt a more constructive, even if, in diplomatic terms, aggressive attitude in search of a collective European response to problems which, like the imbalance of economic power among European States, the maldistribution of wealth among regions and groups and the remoteness of decisions made by leaders, we ignore at our peril.
  10.39 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: It gives me much pleasure to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) because I agree with so much of what he said, but in my short contribution I shall stick mainly to some issues that affect Scotland.
  When Britain entered the Community it brought to it something that was not to be found within the existing members. We were already an integrated community of nations, as opposed to regions in European countries. In Britain there were Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales— nations within their own right. That is why in the debate over Europe and in recent years we in Scotland have been much more worried that the Westminster preoccupation with renegotiations would interfere with, delay or lessen the vital regional policies that were necessary for our countries.
  That is why, Britain's having become a member of the Community, I feel that the Labour Party should take its seats in the European Parliament, because it is adopting a petulant attitude in electing not to be there. I have always understood that Socialism and the Labour

  1971
  Party were about the brotherhood of man, about international Socialism, and I am certain where that great fellow Scot, the late Keir Hardie, would have stood in this debate.
  There is another problem among Labour Party Members that comes out time and again in our debates. Fellow Socialists in Europe appeal to them to come in and form a great European Socialist Party, but the trouble in some sectors of the Labour Party is that it is not democratic Socialism that is wanted but Marxist Socialism.
  The same thing happens internally. Where is the opposition to the EEC to be found? It comes from what is termed, loosely or otherwise, the Left in the Labour Party and the nationalist parties here. The same thing is to be found externally. America, our friends in Europe, and even Australia, want us to stay in, but who wants us not to remain a member? The answer is Russia, Communist Powers and certain nationalist régimes of the extreme Right.
  After a brief visit and reading the papers, something has happened among our Nationalists. I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has had to go home. It may not have been as impressive or as historic as the conversion on the road to Damascus, even if on the Metro in Brussels something has made the hon. Lady say that she is prepared to take her seat in Strasbourg, there is a ray of hope, and I welcome it.
  Those who have worked in the Scottish Council and in Scottish industry know that it is vital for our country that we remain a member of the EEC and—I echo the words of the hon. Member for Inverness that we must, and 14 years have gone by—implement Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome, which states quite clearly that
  "The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal sufferage."
  Why do we in Scotland want that to be implemented? It is because we want our members who are at Strasbourg not to be selected by Westminster but to be elected in Scotland. That is the vital democratic difference.
  Time and again we hear the argument about loss of sovereignty. Apart from
  1972
  the fact that there is no real national sovereignty left in a world that is overhung with the threat of nuclear destruction, what about OECD, GATT and NATO, each of which in its own way represents the giving away of far more sovereignty than is required as a member of the EEC? Yet it is the Community that has to be the permanent whipping boy in the argument about loss of sovereignty.
  For Scotland—this is so misunderstood—this is a return to history, to the old alliance, a return to Bonnie Prince Charlie. We are now in Europe, we can work in Europe, and Scotland can be one of the main countries in making sure that Britain plays her part in the Europe of the future.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was recently reported in the Press— such reports are frequently inaccurate— that something called a "manifesto group" had been formed in the bosom of the Labour Party. This is something which should be welcomed, if the name is any clue to the nature, for, indeed, the relationship between the manifesto of the Labour Party at the last two elections and the actions of the Labour Government is of importance for more even than the future of that party and that Government themselves.
  I am no lover of the doctrine of the mandate. I have never supported the view or believed that Governments and Parliaments are precluded from acting in a manner which has not been precisely or even generally indicated beforehand to the electorate. But to say that is not to deny that, when an election has been fought on certain specific, clear undertakings prominently displayed, there is not a duty upon those who won that election to endeavour to carry them out in the plain and natural sense of their terms.
  I believe that what the Labour Party said on fundamental renegotiation in February and reaffirmed in October was sincerely meant in the natural sense in which it was stated. I deprecate the habit, which is very prevalent, of assuming that there will be insincerity of intention or of outcome. It is no way to secure fair dealing to begin by assuming that one is face to face with those who will play foul.

  1973
  Indeed, as I say, there are more than the Labour Party who have a deep interest in the correspondence of performance with manifesto, for he would be a brave psephologist who would argue that the Labour Party do not owe their majority—tenuous in this Parliament, non-existent in the last—to the many thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of electors who, when they would not have done so on other grounds, voted for that party on the faith of what they said on this subject of the European Economic Community which to many of our citizens is of overriding importance.
  It will be an ill day when large sections of the electorate, if ever they do, come to the conclusion that there is no necessary correspondence between what one party or another says at an election and the way in which it acts in office. In this situation, we are all upon trial, and it behoves all of us jealously to consider what was said and what comes of it —and perhaps not least myself and my fellow Members from Ulster, who prominently in our own manifesto declared our opposition to British membership of the European Economic Community upon anything resembling the present terms.
  Perhaps I may be allowed an extra sentence just to rebut the assumption made by two previous speakers that the United Ulster Unionist Party is a nationalist party. We are the reverse of a nationalist party. We do not claim that the part of the United Kingdom which we represent is a nation: we claim that it is an integral part of the nation which is the United Kingdom.
  I do not believe that anyone could read the lengthy passage, so frequently and fairly reiterated by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, without concluding that such a renegotiation as was there outlined is indeed fundamental. I mean in a moment briefly to run through the elements there set out and to show how fundamental they are, but because they are fundamental and because it was that fundamental character which constituted the essence of the contract between the electorate and those who won the election, it is important that we should understand that the outcome of this fundamental renegotiation, if it is successful.
  1974
  must take the same form as that which is being renegotiated.
  This is a fundamental renegotiation of the terms. Therefore, if it succeeds, its form must be something which is no less permanent and no less final than the terms which the Labour Party and many of the rest of us denounced when they were offered to the 1970 Parliament.
  A fundamental renegotiation cannot be sealed either by an undertaking that the veto will always be available or by the outcome of some negotiation, however successful, about the handling of the common agricultural policy, or by any agreements or negotiations which are essentially of a temporary character. Nor can a fundamental renegotiation be accomplished simply by observing that circumstances have changed, or that the Community is no longer interested in certain things which seemed previously important, or that certain eventualities appear more remote than they once did.
  The necessity that, if it is accomplished, this fundamental renegotiation be cast in a form which, so far as such things can be, is final, follows from the very act which is to be consequent upon the completion of the renegotiation—namely, a submission of the outcome, yea or nay, to the electorate for a decision binding upon the Government. There would be no point in asking the British people whether or not they wanted membership upon terms which were not as permanent and as fundamental as the rest of the structure of the EEC itself.
  Having said that, I wish briefly to run once again through the elements, so often stated, of that fundamental renegotiation. First, as regards the common agricultural policy, "major changes" in it
  "so that it ceases to be a threat to world trade in food products, and so that low-cost producers outside Europe can continue to have access to the British food market."
  In the natural and plain meaning of that sentence, it is the antithesis of the CAP itself. This is not concerned with arrangements for a little more sugar to be imported than otherwise would be. It is not even concerned with arrangements —which I applaud—for improved access for the developing countries. It is concerned with the right of this country to import food from the rest of the world because that food is able to be imported more cheaply than it can be obtained

  1975
  inside the Community. It is a point not met by observing that at one time or another one foodstuff or another may be cheaper inside the Community than outside. It implies what it says "major changes in the CAP". It may be truer still to say that it requires a fundamental change in the CAP; for the very object of the CAP is to deny the free "access to the British food market" of food from "low-cost producers" in the rest of the world.
  Then the Community budget. I take this sentence:
  "Neither the taxes that form the so-called 'own resources' of the Communities, nor the purposes, mainly agricultural support, on which the funds are mainly to be spent, are acceptable to us."
  So the Labour Party has said that the taxes which form the "own resources" of the Communities are not acceptable to it. We know what those taxes are. They are the levies and, to a certain extent and in certain conditions, part of the yield of VAT. Thus, the Labour Party has told the electorate that it does not accept the levies and does not accept VAT as sources of the "own resources" of the Community. Therefore that article cannot be fulfilled unless those taxes are replaced by other taxes which are acceptable. That is not a question of shares in the budget. It is something quite different.
  Then
  "the purposes … mainly agricultural support".
  It is not acceptable to the Labour Party that the "own resources" of the Communities should mainly be spent upon agricultural support; nor is that the only purpose which is not acceptable. Therefore, unless the purposes are, if not entirely, yet mainly altered, unless the whole outlook and purpose of the Communities' "own resources"—the origins of the finance and the purposes of the finance—are radically changed, it will not be possible to fulfil this condition of the fundamental renegotiation.
  As regards economic and monetary union, I shall concentrate only upon the repudiation of:
  "any kind of international agreement which compelled us to accept increased unemployment for the sake of maintaining a fixed parity, as is required by current proposals for a European Economic and Monetary Union."
  1976
  A monetary union, in any possible sense of the term, means that there is a common currency. That is more than a fixed parity; but let it be that it is only a fixed parity. Nothing can be a monetary union where there is anything less than fixed parity between the local currencies of the partners. It is exactly that which the Labour Party in principle rejects. Of course it is right in saying that if one unit within an economic union has a fixed monetary parity with the rest, it must face, from time to time, in order to maintain that parity, the consequences of deflation which the Labour Party, rightly, in that context, rejects. So monetary union is not something which can just be left over for a time. It must be renounced by this country—on behalf of this country—as part of the renegotiation if that condition is to be fulfilled.
  Fourthly, I come to the
  "retention by Parliament of those powers over the British economy needed to pursue effective regional,"
  —comma!—
  "industrial and fiscal policies".
  We have heard a lot about the regional policies ; but this also speaks of the retention by Parliament of the powers needed to pursue effective fiscal policies. In other words, this Parliament must retain its fiscal independence, its power to frame its own budget and its own taxation— what many of us, weary hour after weary hour, said to the Government, as we marched through the Lobbies more than 100 times along with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in opposition.
  Yet such independence is inconsistent with the very spirit, principle and aspiration of the Community. It is impossible to study the Treaty of Rome and imagine that the individual countries can permanently retain—that is what we are talking about—powers to pursue their own effective fiscal policies. I shall not weary the House by repeating the argument—for it is exactly the same—in regard to industrial policies. An independent national industrial policy, such as the Labour Party very largely came to power to pursue, is inconsistent with the whole intention of the Treaty of Rome and the development of the Community. So that is something which must be reserved, and reserved permanently, if this condition is to be fulfilled.

  1977
  The fifth and last specific point which the Labour Party put forward is
  "No harmonization of value added tax which would require us to tax necessities."
  presumably meaning what we choose to regard as necessities. That is of course another way of asserting fiscal independence exemplified, it so happens, by a tax of which the harmonisation is implicit in the intended development of the "own resources" and the financing and budgeting of the Community.
  All these conditions do indeed constitute a fundamental renegotiation. It is because they were fundamental that those of us who wish to see this House retain, for as far ahead as can be seen, its real sovereignty and its real responsibility for the policies and laws under which the country is to live, felt able to recommend the support of that manifesto and the support of that party to such of the electorate as we could persuade.
  A Government supporter who spoke earlier touched upon a matter which will be of increasing importance and will come nearer to the centre of these discussions in the coming weeks. He was talking about Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act. He said that he did not believe we would be able to avoid an amendment to or an alteration of the 1972 Act. Nor do 1. I think it is a matter of technicality whether, if this fundamental renegotiation succeeds, its results are embodied by a change in the treaties—I can understand how awkward that is—or by a separate document reserving or restating the British position. But what is certain is that the 1972 Act, which corresponded to a different view of the Community from that which this policy implies, will require to be amended and to be remade.
  If that is possible—if that work can be set in hand—then, as it proceeds, I believe it may be possible for those who have been opponents on this subject and for those who have fiercely and bitterly parted from lifelong political association to draw together again. I believe that if the renegotiation leads to a point at which this House is able again to examine what it did in 1972 and to remake it in the light of the outcome of the renegotiation, and in the light of the revision of point of view which I think everyone has undergone, perhaps once again we shall see how the historic procedures of this House can produce a consensus and
  1978
  agreed basis for the future where before it seemed that there was only division.
  However, that may be too hopeful. I conclude by saying that the Government have—and I know that they know they have—a responsibility not only to themselves and to their own ranks but to the country and to the future of Parliament for the solemnity and the honour with which they carry out the plain and natural meaning of what they promised before they were elected.
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Bryan Gould: I wish to take up briefly the theme pursued by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
  Throughout the so-called "great debate" in 1972, we were told that the issue of sovereignty was of minor importance. Sometimes we were told that there was no loss of sovereignty, because this Parliament could at any point repeal the European Communities Act. That argument is accurate for the time being, but it is disingenuous because it obscures the fact that the purpose and object of the 1972 Act and of those who promoted it was the present Leader of the Opposition, superior legal system which in the end would not allow the repeal of the Act.
  Sometimes we were told that there was no greater loss of sovereignty involved in joining the Common Market than in undertaking any other treaty obligation. One of the major culprits in this regard was the present leader of the Opposition. I recall hearing him on one occasion equating this to our obligations under the United Nations Charter. That statement was repeated tonight by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon).
  Mr. Rippon: On all matters relating to sovereignty I have never gone beyond the quotation from the Prime Minister on 8th May 1967.
  Mr. Gould: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he repeated this evening that there were no greater losses of sovereignty involved in Common Market membership than were involved in membership of the United Nations. The fallacy of that argument is apparent to anyone who has thought about this issue. There is no vesting of legislative power under the United Nations Charter in the United Nations. The United

  1979
  Nations has no power to make laws which are directly binding on this country.
  We must acquit the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman of duplicity, but their ignorance is astounding. They must bear the prime responsibility for the loss of sovereignty which is implicit in the European Communities Act. At least we can say of them, charitably enough, that they knew not what they did. But we know differently now.
  We have, for example, the words of the Leader of the House this evening. He said clearly that Parliament had lost its sovereignty. We have the word of Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in the Court of Appeal earlier this year, that
  "The Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back."
  We need not rely on those statements. Our own experience tells us that it is so. Over the past few months we have stood as bewildered and bemused bystanders as the flood of directives and regulations has issued from Brussels. Sometimes we have been able to scrutinise them and bring them to the House, but not always. Sometimes we have been able to express an opinion on them, but not always. The difficulties are enormous. There are difficulties not only of volume but of parliamentary time. For example, we had only one and a half hours in which to discuss the EEC document on energy. There are difficulties of synchronising our timetable with that of the EEC.
  The basic difficulty is that the House has no fundamental rôle in these matters. We simply are not a necessary part of the process of legislation. It does not matter a damn whether we discuss these things or whether we do not. It matters not a damn to the legislative process and the law-making effect of the regulations produced in Brussels.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hatters-ley): Does my hon. Friend agree that the crucial decision-making process in Brussels is taken when the Foreign Secretary and eight other Foreign Secretaries give their eventual unanimous consent to a proposition put to the Council of Ministers? If that is the crucial moment, does not my hon. Friend think that what is
  1980
  said and done in this House affects the decision that my right hon. Friend takes, and the way in which he votes?
  Mr. Gould: One would hope so, but I hope to demonstrate to my hon. Friend that one has no confidence that that will always be so, in the inevitability of that process.
  It is true that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been trying to reassert some form of parliamentary control over these matters. For example, we have been trying to develop procedures, precedents and conventions that will enable us to mandate Ministers in the way in which my hon. Friend suggests is done. I understand that the Danes, in their Parliament, do that to some extent. Even if we could get the machinery right, even if we could get the documents to us in the right form at the right time, even if we could tell Ministers what we feel, there remain two major difficulties of principle.
  The first is that what is, in effect, being done by Ministers is an act of the executive. When they go to Brussels they are subject to pressures exerted on them by their negotiating partners on a whole range of issues. The time may not be far away when Ministers will say to the House, in good faith, "We understand you, and we will act on what you say." But when they get to Brussels other pressures are exerted on them and they have to give way on that issue to get their way on another. They will come back to the House, shame-faced and crestfallen no doubt, and say that it was impossible to avoid that outcome, not perhaps on a major issue but on one of middling importance but one on which the House has taken a view and expects the Minister to carry through that view.
  The second major difficulty in principle is that the whole structure which we are trying to build to assert parliamentary control rests on the flimsy foundations of the Luxembourg Agreement. That agreement, as we have seen in the last week or so, may easily be diluted at the fringes and eventually disappear altogether. There is no guarantee that the agreement, which is not part of the treaty, will remain in force for ever. As far as Commission regulations are concerned, there is no power and no possibility for Ministers to carry out any decisions.

  1981
  It is argued that these defects in parliamentary control can be made good by the European Assembly—and assembly it is. Whatever defect the treaty may have, it is accurate in that respect. The assembly may have some influence on the legislative process, but so much might be claimed for the personal idiosyncracies of individual Commissioners. We are not talking about influence, but about power —legislative power, sovereign power, power to make legislation for the peace and good order of this country. That is what we were sent here to do and not to be a blurred, random and largely unnecessary rubber stamp for decisions taken elsewhere.
  Even if there were to be direct elections to the European Parliament, assuming that the time-table were at least acceptable, that would open the perspective of a Europe totally different from any Europe which has been described in the process of getting us to join the Common Market.
  It seems to me, therefore, that if this Parliament wants to deal with these problems, it cannot deal with them as long as we are gagged and shackled, particularly when the gag and the shackle are imposed on us by our own hand in the form of the European Communities Act, particularly Section 2.
  If we are to avoid the difficulties we have all experienced over the last few months, and which can only get worse, the only solution is to amend the Act. It is not for me to suggest the form of that amendment. There may well be many possibilities. But perhaps we should at least say that no Community regulation can be law in this country unless it has first been scrutinised, debated, or even approved by this House or by a Committee of this House. That may mean that we should develop our Committee procedures, that we may have to sit for longer hours perhaps in the mornings. But the job must be done. We must devise procedures for controlling this legislative process.
  It may be argued that if we were to amend the Act in that way we should be less than fulfilling our obligations under the treaty. I believe that to be true. But let us be clear. Under our constitutional doctrine a treaty obligation is taken according to the prerogative power. It is
  1982
  always for this Parliament to decide how far, in what form and to what extent treaty obligations should be made binding in our own municipal law.
  Derogation from the treaty would be no new thing in Common Market affairs. We have a good deal to learn from some of our partners, particularly the French, in this respect. We might find that if we amended the Act in such a way it would not only be tolerated but even emulated by our European partners.
  It is argued that we need not worry because that will be the position in practice—that political realities will mean that we can always protect our national interest. There is a good deal to be said, however, for making the law accord with the practice. There is always grave danger if there is too great a divergence between law and practice, particularly in important matters of this sort.
  I had hoped to be able to deal with one of the documents which have cropped up in the interstices of the debate—Document R/2829/74. To some extent, it has already been dealt with. Nevertheless, it is worth while to point out that in the prognostications it makes for the form of budgetary contribution that this country will be expected to make once the budget is financed from own resources exclusively, it makes a very important statement. Every hon. Member should read it with care.
  I shall not now go into the details of the calculation. I shall simply say that it suggests that unless some fundamental reform or change in the whole structure of financing the Community budget from own resources is made we shall not achieve the fundamental renegotiation that the Government say is their objective. If the argument is that the renegotiation can be carried through without any change to the treaties whatever, Article 127 of the treaty stands in the way. That article reads:
  "The Decision of 21 April 1970 …"—
  on the provisions setting out the own-resources financing method—
  " shall be applied ".
  That is mandatory language. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that unless that provision is changed there can be no possibility of an effective and permanent renegotiation on that point.

  1983
  I return to the point on which I began. I see that you are getting agitated, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I am not getting agitated. I simply want to bring one or two other hon. Members into the debate.
  Mr. Gould: I shall conclude in three sentences.
  The fundamental issue which must be put to the British people is that of the control over the law-making process within the Community. We have a choice between reasserting our own parliamentary control and acknowledging that that law-making process is beyond democratic control in this country and not subject to democratic control at all. The British people will require satisfaction on that point before they decide on the issue of Common Market membership.
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. Neil Marten: The whole House will wish me to congratulate the hon Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on an excellent speech. I only wish that he had been with us in 1972, when we were on the Government benches and were having great discussions, very much of that nature, on the European Communities Bill.
  In the four minutes remaining before the concluding speeches start, I should like to return to the point of my intervention to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary earlier—the question of deciding what is meant by political union. I realise the difficulties of a quick decision on that, which is one of the most fundamental points the country must decide when it faces a referendum. Whatever the question of economic benefits, the common agricultural policy or anything else, the referendum will in the end come down to a decision by the people whether they want to stay in a grouping of countries which, in the end, can only become a federal Euro-State.
  Therefore, before we have the referendum, if the Belgian Prime Minister and the other countries cannot decide I do not see why the Government should not declare where they stand on the issue. My right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench should also declare where they stand on it. I do not say that to the Liberal Party, because Liberal Mem-
  1984
  bers have always declared that they are basically a federal party. But that matter lies at the heart of what the referendum will be about.
  We saw in the communiqué approval of direct elections to the European Parliament. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary reserved our position until after the referendum. But if we are to have a directly-elected European Parliament, what is it to do? It is supposed to be democratic. Therefore, the directly-elected European Parliament will be set up to control the Council of Ministers. In that way we should be moving towards parliamentary control of the Euro-Cabinet, which is what I call the Council of Ministers. Once one goes on to that, one has the beginning of the march down the road towards a federal State.
  That is precisely why I have always objected, and shall continue to object, to our membership of the Common Market. As a nation, we must think ahead. It is no good being fobbed off with some of the things we were told in 1972—that it will not happen in our time. I do not know how long I shall live. It may well happen in my time. Therefore—to borrow an expression much used by that worn-out organisation subsidised by the Government, the European Movement— we must think not only of our children's future but of our children's children's future, and so it goes on.
  That is why I ask the Government and my right hon. Friends to come clean before the referendum and say where they stand on this fundamental issue. I hope that both concluding speeches will contain the undertaking that that is what they will do, out of fairness to our nation.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been unable to call seven or eight hon. Members who wished to speak. I think that the House must consider, in view of the pressure of time in dealing with these matters, a voluntary time limit to speeches. We really should think about whether we cannot make it possible for more hon. Members to be called in debates like this. The speeches tonight have been quite long.
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: I fully concur with what you have said, Mr. Speaker, although I cannot commit

  1985
  my hon. and right hon. Friends to that. I merely mention, as did the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), that that much-abused body, the European Parliament or Assembly, has a compulsory time limit on speeches, and that does not seem to stop anybody talking. I have always believed that it would be possible to have something of the same kind here. I remember when the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) and myself tabled a motion saying that no speech from the Front Benches should last for more than half an hour and no speech from the back benches more than 15 minutes. The Minister of State and I between us will not take more than 40 minutes. I shall be as brief as I can.
  A number of points have arisen as a result of today's interesting debate, and I have a number of points to put to the hon. Gentleman concerning the communiqué and the White Paper—and, if I have time, one or two others which raise questions of principle.
  In the last half hour the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) have between them come to the heart of the argument. We are not discussing fundamental renegotiation in the sense of the details of the common agricultural policy, or even of the beef régime—though I shall undoubtedly have questions on these matters to put to the Government and to the Commission in another place.
  The House is discussing now—and it has been discussing for as long as I have been a Member, which is nearly 20 years—the abstract question of sovereignty. I say "abstract" deliberately, because I do not believe that there are two Members of this House who could between them produce a definition of "sovereignty" on which they would agree. This is basically the problem that we are up against.
  I would say—and I approved of it when it was done—that probably the greatest abandonment of sovereignty by any Government was by the Labour Government when they were last in office, in recognising the right of individual application to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, thereby completely overruling every court in the country on matters of individual applica-
  1986
  tion. That is my personal judgment. Quite clearly, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test would not agree that that was an abandonment of sovereignty, but it is certainly regarded as such by a large number of judges in this country, because they have said so.
  I merely cite that as an instance of the difficulty of talking about sovereignty. I was not ministerially responsible— happily—for any part either of the negotiations or the passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, although I was a member of the Government at the time and therefore I have a collective responsibility which I do not shirk. But in the course of that year I had the opportunity to address 70 or 80 meetings throughout the country on this point, and I certainly never would have concealed the fact that by signing the Treaty of Accession, and by passing the European Communities Act, we gave up a substantial element of British sovereignty, of sovereignty of this House, of the British Government and of the British people.
  Whether we gave up a greater degree of sovereignty then than we gave up in the past by doing things that other Governments have done is not something I wish to quarrel about.
  Mr. Spearing: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty. Does he not agree that there is often a de facto giving up of sovereignty in entering into the sort of arrangements of which we often hear examples, where there is a balance between whether one should withdraw or go in, whereas a de jure giving up of sovereignty not only means another legislature and another executive, but the fact that the final power has left this House has repercussions throughout the administration of a country, and the attitude of Members of this House to what it can do changes almost overnight?
  Mr. Kirk: I am in no difficulty. I have always been a federalist. This is no problem for me. My personal problem —I am not committing anybody else; if anybody in this House did not always know my aim, he cannot have listened to the speeches that I made on this subject 10 or 15 years ago when the matter was first raised—
  Mr. Cryer: I accept that the hon. Gentleman has individual attitudes, but

  1987
  does he not regard it as a matter of regret that the British people were never given the opportunity of making a decision about an attitude which he may hold dear to his heart but which the British people do not?
  Mr. Kirk: My constituents have been given the opportunity on many occasions and they continue to re-elect me, knowing what my view is. The party which supported entry into the European Economic Community and the parties which supported the European Communities Bill in 1972 have, in the two General Elections since then, consistently scored very much better between them than the parties which did not.
  As I say, there is a problem here, and it is not a problem which can really be resolved because it is one on which there is a fundamental difference of view both on what we mean by what we are doing and, indeed, on what many of us want to do. I accept that the Foreign Secretary does not share my enthusiasm for the type of European solution which I want to see. Therefore, we are bound to be talking short-term. Long-term we do not even agree on what we are talking about. This is the great difficulty which we have had in these debates, not only during the passage of the 1972 Act but even in the late night debates which we have been having, most of which I have tried to attend—and, indeed, at Question Time on these matters.
  Therefore, when we discuss, as we should, the details of the documents with which the Government have provided us, we have to take a decision whether we should discuss that fundamental principle once again or should try to discuss some of the details which, even in the present transitional situation, are of very considerable importance. It is that which I wish the House to allow me to do tonight.
  I have raised the question of sovereignty because I do not wish to burke it; it is absolutely vital. It is a question on which we can argue for a million years without agreeing. However, there are some things on which we can try to question the Government.
  I take first the communiqué, and I ask the Minister of State whether he would elaborate a little on the arrangements now being made for the meetings of what is
  1988
  now to be called the Council of the Communities—meeting, I assume at Heads of Government level, accompanied by Ministers of foreign Powers. It says:
  "The administrative secretariat will be provided for in an appropriate manner with due regard for existing practices and procedures"—
  which is about the vaguest statement I have ever read. If it is provided for from Community funds, I have a direct interest in this, as all administrative expenses provided out of those funds are provided from Parliament. The Commissioners cannot vote them. The Secretary of State will no doubt be communicating to me what his wishes are with regard to the British delegation in this respect. At the same time, it is important that we should know whether this is the secretariat originally envisaged under the Fouchet proposals, and precisely to whom it will be responsible.
  Further on, the communiqué states that
  "These arrangements do not in any way affect the rules and procedures laid down in the Treaties or the provisions on political co-operation in the Luxembourg and Copenhagen reports."
  Does that mean that the quarterly Davignon meetings are also going on? If so, presumably we shall have seven meetings a year, which seem to be rather excessive. I am all in favour of the Foreign Ministers' getting together as often as possible, but we shall not see very much of the Secretary of State if he spends all his time accompanying the Prime Minister or going in his own behalf to these various meetings. A certain amount of clarification is needed there.
  The Council of Ministers would disappear. It would be turned into a mere senate of the Community. It is a legislative body now. It would become a purely legislative body at the end of the day.
  Secondly, I should like to say what the precise position is regarding the financing of the Regional Fund. At the top of page 7 of the communiqué it is agreed that
  "the principal regional imbalances in the Community resulting notably from agricultural predominance, industrial change and structural under-employment"
  will be helped by a fund
  "which will be put into operation by the institutions of the Community with effect from 1 January, 1975."

  1989
  That must mean that it will have retrospective effect, because the Council of Ministers rejected the European Parliament's attempt to write a figure into the 1975 budget. Therefore, any such move must be the subject of a supplementary budget and, presumably, will be something we shall do in January or February.
  Quite apart from the unfortunate order in which these subjects are linked, there is also, two paragraphs later, the statement that
  "This total sum of 1,300 mua will be financed up to a level of 150 mua by credits not presently utilised from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section)".
  Which credits are these? We tried to strike out 100 million units of account for the denaturing of wheat and 20 million units of account for the denaturing of sugar. The Council objected. Those funds were required by virement in order to enable the sugar deal to be concluded with Australia. I am sorry that we have not had time to discuss the order, because there were some interesting things that we should like to have discussed.
  I find totally deplorable the policy that the Council had of writing in funds for one purpose and spending them on another. Such a procedure would not be acceptable in the House. I hope that it will not be acceptable when the Public Accounts Committee of the European Parliament gets functioning towards the end of next year under a very distinguished former Member of the House—Mr. Rafton Pounder, who. I hope, will be in charge of the operation. This procedure is something that the Council of Ministers should look at again.
  When we went through the budget with the Council of Ministers we were told again and again that they must have this amount, even though they had already cut out 1,000 million units of account and we had cut out more because they were needed for something else. As the European Parliament develops its statutory powers, it is important that the British Government should realise—I hope that they will realise—that efforts must be made in the Council of Minister to see that things are properly dealt with.
  Finally, on the communiqué, there are two points that I wish to make. First,
  1990
  it confirms that all the arrangements for renegotiating budgetary powers were already laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) at the time of our accession to the Community. The third paragraph from the end of the communiqué states that
  "The Heads of Government recall the statement made during the accession negotiations by the Community to the effect that 'If unacceptable situations were to arise, the very life of the Community would make it imperative for the institutions to find equitable solutions'."
  The Minister will be aware that I asked the Acting Chairman of the Council, Dr. Fitzgerald, precisely where that quotation came from. I refer to page 159 of the proceedings of the European Parliament of Thursday of last week. Dr. Fitzgerald said:
  "I am asked … on the question of British renegotiation, whether the reference to that in the second paragraph is a quotation from the Treaties of Accession, and of course it is such a quotation. That quotation sets out the principles to guide the Community if unacceptable situations arise. What is proposed now is that the question will be studied to see what mechanism might best be adopted should such situations arise, and this is being done in what one might describe as very good time, before they do arise."
  I have no complaint about that. It should be placed on record, however, as far as the Community is concerned that this was agreed upon as long ago as 1971 and it does not cause the Community any major surprise. [Interruption.] If the Foreign Secretary denies it, perhaps he will get up and say so, because there it is on the record.
  Mr. James Callaghan: Certainly I will. The acting Chairman of the Council of Ministers was not there in 1971, anyway, so he does not know any more than I do what happened then. What he knows, as I know, is the difficulties we have had to try to get that general statement of principle translated into something that will be effective.
  Mr. Kirk: Of course Dr. Fitzgerald himself was not there, but the officials who were with him on the occasion when he made that statement, and who undoubtedly helped him to draft it, were there, and some of them are known to the Secretary of State and to me. They would not have let him make a statement

  1991
  like that unless they believed it to be true.
  In the brief few moments remaining—I want to give the Minister of State plenty of time to reply—I want to mention two other points. One of them, which comes from the communiqué, is the question of own resources, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South and others. There seems to be doubt in the statement made by the Prime Minister last Monday whether we do or do not accept the question of own resources.
  In the section of the communiqué headed "Britain's membership of the Community"—and, therefore, presumably being one to which the British Government paid considerable attention—we read that the Heads of Government
  "confirm that the system of 'own resources' represents one of the fundamental elements of the economic integration of the Community."
  Of course it is. As we all know, the own resources are the products of the levies, which at present are fairly low because world food prices are pretty high, and the products of the customs duties, which will fade away between now and 1978—
  Mr. Roper: Surely the customs duties will not fade away before 1978. There will always be customs duties on the goods coming across the common external tariff.
  Mr. Kirk: That is true, but they will be considerably lower. I meant that the main substance of that section at the moment is the intra-customs duties, which also figure in this, but the major section was always intended to be the product of value added tax, which is up at the moment to 1 per cent. of the total.
  The Secretary of State said in his opening speech that the harmonisation of VAT would, he felt, surely be put off until the Greek kalends. That will be a great relief to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) and me as we are wrestling with the document, "Harmonisation of VAT Structures", sent to us by the Council of Ministers and on which the Council requires an early decision. Therefore, it will be useful if the Minister of State can tell us briefly what is the position on this because it is a matter of importance.
  1992
  If we are not to have our resources harmonised on that level they must presumably be harmonised on something else, because the right to levy direct taxes will exist from within the Community as from 1st January next year and we should know what form the taxes will take.
  On direct elections, I am sorry that the Government are taking so reticent an attitude. I can inform my hon. Friend, as he asked me, that the Opposition intend, with the consent of the Shadow Cabinet, to vote for the draft convention on direct elections within the European Parliament at its next meeting in the third week of January.
  11.39 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) asked a number of questions. Some were important, but some were also detailed. I hope between now and midnight to answer at least a majority of them, but the hon. Gentleman will understand if either time or ignorance prevents my doing so. I shall write to him with the answers to the specific points which necessarily were made at a rather late stage in the debate.
  First, I should like to say one or two general things about the debate. I remind the House that the debate we have just held actually began in the parliamentary mind as a discussion of the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend which described the whole work and life of the Community over the last six months.
  As the right hon. Member for Knuts-ford (Mr. Davies) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) pointed out, the Government's determination to improve the terms of British membership of the EEC has been only one of the Community's preoccupations over the last six months. We do ourselves no credit if we discuss these matters as if they were the only things which had concerned the Community and Western Europe in the six months we have spent on our renegotiation.
  Notwithstanding that, in this House— inevitably and properly—until the British people make their decision one way or another our debates will concentrate on

  1993
  the merits of United Kingdom membership of the Community and the prospects of its becoming permanent. In the light of that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Jay) did the House a service by drawing our attention, not for the first time, to the fact that if we consider the merits and the demerits —as he would describe them—of permanent membership, we have a duty not simply to examine the prospects for Britain if we remain in, but the prospects if we were to withdraw.
  Not for the first time, my right hon. Friend told us to do that and, not for the first time, he told us that our pattern of life and behaviour, if we withdraw, should be modelled on that of Norway. He went so far as to attribute Norway's increasing prosperity to the fact that she had remained outside, but some of us would ascribe part of it to the fact that she had brought oil ashore rather early.
  Putting that aside, let us examine the prospect offered by my right hon. Friend of achieving Norway's relationship with the EEC. She chose not to enter and, having so chosen, partly with the help of the new members who were her old partners in EFTA, she obtained highly desirable trading arrangements with the Community. We should be extremely rash to assume that Britain could do the same in 1975.
  We entered the Community and signed the Treaty. If we did what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South has urged upon us, it would be to say, "We have examined and experienced the Community and we have now decided that we want to leave. We do so in order to avoid the inevitable costs of Community membership—the costs to Great Britain of the benefits to other members", and as we left he would have us say, "By the way, we would like to retain the benefits of free trade arrangements".
  That might be his view of the response we should get from our partners in the Community, but it is a deeply optimistic judgment, I fear, of how they would react. If renegotiation failed and the Government felt it right to recommend withdrawal to the British people and the British people endorsed that withdrawal, we should struggle and strive to obtain that free trade arrangement.
  1994
  Clearly that is the alternative for which we must press, but to talk now, in the middle of renegotiation, as if such a prospect were certain, particularly weighing against the facts I have tried to describe, the evidence offered by my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford (Mr. Luard) and Farnworth (Mr. Roper) would be operating on something very near to a false prospectus.
  Mr. Jay: Does my hon Friend deny that next year this country will already be on near-100 per cent. industrial free trade terms with all the EFTA and EEC countries, and so will all the other EFTA countries? If, therefore, some new obstacle were to be placed in the way of British exports it would be necessary for a country to propose discrimination against this country, as against all the other countries. Does my hon. Friend think it probable that any country in EFTA or the EEC will do that?
  Mr. Hattersley: With respect, my right hon. Friend misunderstands what withdrawal involves. It does not mean that having obtained free trade benefits we can leave the Community and automatically retain them. If we leave, we must start afresh. The countries of the Community will not say, "We will allow the British free trade concession to continue." They must decide whether to pass new legislation giving or denying us that benefit. In those circumstances, my right hon. Friend may feel certain about the outcome. However, I at least say that to work on the prospect that his analysis is correct would be a rash thing for us to do at this time. It may be that at some future date we shall have to attempt to obtain that arrangement, but to talk as though it is there automatically is not to conduct the renegotiation or our analysis of the alternatives in a rational or sensible way.
  Having referred to the prospect of being allowed to enjoy the benefits without paying the costs, I have conceded that substantial financial costs are involved in our membership. I echo the views of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that in previous economic debates there has been reluctance on the part of those who wished for British membership to admit and describe what the costs were. Like him, I believe that is so. Unlike him, I have been guilty of it in the past.

  1995
  The time has now come to talk about not only the financial costs of British membership but the costs which we may have to pay, in terms of our relationship with the world, if we remain in the Community on the terms negotiated three years ago. The object of the renegotiations is so to reduce those costs that the balance of the benefit remains fairly and squarely on the side of Britain's continued membership. That is what is meant by renegotiation in good faith. It is to that task that the Government have attached themselves.
  I hope that the House will concede what many of my hon. Friends have said—that the progress that we have made in various areas of renegotiation has been substantial, if not spectacular. I take only two examples. I believe that the attitude of the Community towards the Third World has been radically and perhaps fundamentally altered by decisions taken by the British Government and carried out in Brussels during the last eight months. I also believe that the Community's view on the budget has been radically changed. What my right hon. Friend said about the need for the budget contribution to reflect in some ways the needs and the ability to pay off individual countries and therefore to act as a stimulus towards the convergence of the economies has brought about a radical shift in thinking within the Community.
  It is important to place on record how successful our attempts to renegotiate the budget have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), in an excellent speech, referred to the second document that we are discussing and suggested that it was evidence of the appalling problems that might face us if we remained in the Community and paid our budget contribution in the traditional way. I remind him that it is also evidence that the case that we made to the Community eight months ago, about needing to change the method of paying our budget contribution, was justified, and that the document produced by the Commission supports the contention that there had to be changes in our budget contribution.
  It is also possible to make those changes within the terms of the Treaty of Rome. That document commits the mem-
  1996
  bers to economic convergence. Article 235 provides that special measures may and must be taken if other articles of the treaty, on which the principles of Community membership are founded, are not being carried out.
  I believe that putting the preamble and Article 235 together helps us to make progress towards making the budget contribution which we believe to be necessary. The treaty helps us, but I point out to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) that it is impossible to argue that anything done by the previous Government helped us at all. However, it is fair to say that a rather vacuous sentence was inserted into a single document saying that if any trouble arose in future there would be a certain obligation on all of us to put it right. Getting a statement of intention in that rather general form is one thing, but getting it carried out is another.
  When we came to office in March of this year there was no evidence that our predecessors had tried to carry out the principle which they had described in this general fashion.
  Mr. Kirk: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the debates in the European Parliament in the summer and autumn of last year, when the case for not proceeding on these lines was deployed by the Conservative group and by our Liberal colleagues.
  Mr. Hattersley: I had given way to the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd).
  Mr. Douglas Hurd(Mid-Oxon): As the Minister has thrown such a douche of cold water on what he described as a rogue phrase, will he explain why that phrase was made the starting point in the summit communiqué to which his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed for the whole discussion and agreement on this subject? That is the pedigree, the starting point, of the arrangement which he is negotiating.
  Mr. Hattersley: I think it was an admirable declaration of intent, but declarations of intent do not often work in practice. What my right hon. Friend and the new Government had to do was to give reality to that description, and I say again that there was no evidence that our predecessors had even begun to do

  1997
  that. Indeed, the basis on which we are attempting to renegotiate our budget contribution was bitterly attacked in this House before it became clear that it would succeed.
  I was told by the Opposition Front Bench that to divulge the figures of British growth rates and comparative British domestic projects for 1980, and later, was undermining the British position. If we had not done that, we should not have been able to change the budget régime. We were accused of selling Britain short by beginning that process eight months ago.
  Mr. Blaker: Surely the date on which our percentage contribution to the budget exceeds our percentage of the Community GNP does not arise for a couple of years.
  Mr. Hattersley: That may be the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of prudence, but, as it arises in a couple of years from now, if we are to commit the British people to permanent membership, or urge it on them, or give them a chance of deciding for themselves, we have an obligation to tell them that we shall do our best to defend their budgetary contribution and their financial rights two years from now. I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman is arguing against this in the first place, unless he is substantiating my point that there has been criticism of the concept of a budget contribution.
  I move to the second area, of sovereignty—the area on which, I suppose, the debate is increasingly likely to focus during the next few months. In those areas of the renegotiation in which our progress can be measured, we can claim to have made progress. I do not believe we can claim to know the outcome, but we can claim that we are on course and on time, but that is essentially a feature of the measurable elements in our renegotiation package. As the hon. Gentleman said, the attitude to sovereignty and the success in preserving the sovereignty of this kingdom and this House are not susceptible to that sort of precise investigation, because we all have different views as to what sovereignty means.
  This evening, sovereignty has largely been discussed in parliamentary and legislative terms. I do not believe that the sacrifice of sovereignty that we have
  1998
  made, and need to make, is anything like as great as the judgment made by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden. He makes that judgment because he hopes that one day it will come about. I offer that not as a criticism but as a judgment based on his description of his position.
  The hon. Gentleman is a federalist, and when he admitted it he immediately raised the worst fears of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). There are only two sets of people—and they are small sets—in Europe who talk about federalism. They are the extreme anti-Europeans, who hate and fear it, and the extreme pro-Europeans, who love and hope for it. Between those two extremes there is much pro-European opinion that does not believe in either the desirability or the prospect of federalism in our lifetime. I do not believe that it is sensible to discuss the prospects in Europe as we realistically see them now as an argument for or against federalism, but it is absolutely sensible, and I believe necessary, increasingly to concentrate our debate on this issue of legislative sovereignty.
  I wish that in all these matters we could keep the Commission's rôle in perspective. The Commission is always brought in as one of the great ogres undermining the power of the Mother of Parliaments. In fact, in legislative terms, it is not the Commission which is important but the Council of Ministers. Let me say again—for I do not believe that it can be said too often—that the essential power of this House, in respect of control of what goes on in the Community, is exercised by its power and influence over the individual Ministers whom it may and does send to Brussels. If the House can influence the Foreign Secretary it can influence what goes on in Brussels. [An HON. MEMBER: "How can it do that?"] It can vote the Government out of office. It has the final sanction against them. Hon. Members can and do argue that the powers of the House of Commons over the executive are not as great as they should be, but that is a different argument. In terms of power over Europe, if the House of Commons can control its Ministers, it can to a large extent control what they do in Europe.

  1999
  It is worth remembering—the right hon. Member for Knutsford sits there to prove it—that the Government have gone to a great deal of trouble to do their best to make it easier for the House of Commons to exercise its influence and control over Ministers. I do not argue for a moment that the present procedures of the Scrutiny Committee approach perfection. The Committee itself, I am sure, is perfect, but the procedures are a long way from that. That is why the Select Committee is examining what alterations should be made. That is why the Leader of the House said, during a series of points of order earlier today, that we are trying a number of techniques to make sure that the will of the House is adequately demonstrated over a whole variety of areas. Clearly, we are doing our best, and will continue to do so, to ensure that the essential ability of the House of Commons to influence Ministers, and therefore the decisions in Brussels, is carried out, preserved and extended.
  Having said all that, I admit that there will be some erosion of sovereignty —not half as great as the hon. Member for Banbury suggests, but some erosion. What we have to decide is, first, whether we have minimised that erosion as much as possible and then, when we are down to the irreducible minimum, whether the losing of that sovereignty is worth it in the end. We have talked about convergence of economies, which I regard as highly desirable in Europe. We have to decide whether, to get more economic convergence, we have to lose more sovereignty as a balancing weight. I do not want us to preserve British sovereignty only to ensure that by 1980 we have half the gross domestic product or wealth of the Federal Republic of Germany and are a rather poorer country than Italy. We have obligations in terms of real sovereignty, and that is not some eighteenth century concept of the House of Commons being able to do anything but change a man into a woman; it is a twentieth century concept of having the economic muscle and the political influence to do the things which are necessary on behalf of the British people and our constituents. If we can obtain the improved terms, the EEC offers us that prospect. I hold the view that those terms are possible.
  2000
  I end—and every debate of this sort must end in this way—by affirming that the Government's position is as it was on the day we were elected, when the Foreign Secretary made his first speech in Luxembourg on 1st April. It is a serious, genuine and fundamental renegotiation of the terms of entry, followed by the equally serious determination to ensure that, for the first time, the British people can make the final judgment on continued membership.
  I say that for two reasons. First, it was a solemn promise of our election manifesto. Over the last few years we have gone through a period when election promises have been too lightly made and too easily forgotten, and we have an obligation to fulfil that one. Secondly, if we arc to succeed in Europe as a proper member of the Community, it can happen only when the full-hearted consent of the British people, which they were always promised would be sought, is actually made a reality. A British people in Europe reluctantly are not a British people who will support their Government in building the sort of Europe which is in their interests. I therefore believe that that, even in European terms, is an essential part of our manifesto.
  I end tonight as I began eight months ago, by saying that this is our policy and will continue—
  It being Twelve o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  Resolved,
  That the Social Security (Contributions and Married Women and Widows) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With the permission of the House, and if there is no objection, I shall put a single Question on Motions No. 3, No. 5, No. 6 and No. 7.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursnuant to Standing Order No.

  2001
  73 A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  That the Housing (Amount of Approved Expense) (Scotland) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Mr. Harper.]

  DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  That the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.— [Mr. Harper.]
  That the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (Immunitities and Privileges) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.— [Mr. Harper.]

  APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  That the Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.—[Mr. Harper.]
  Question agreed to.

  ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE MEMBERS
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the present support facilities available to Private Members in carrying out their duties in this House, in particular research assistance on matters before Parliament, and to make recommendations for such improvements as they consider necessary.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee do consist of Eleven Members.
  And the Committee was accordingly nominated to Mr. Alf Bates, Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody, Mr. Edward Fletcher, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Mr. John Mackintosh, Mr. Anthony Newton, Mr. Arnold Shaw, Mr. William van Straubenzee, Mr. Keith Speed and Mr. Brian Walden.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Harper.]

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Motion made,
  That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments) be amended as follows:—
  Line 41, after the word 'hours' insert the words ' (or, in the case of an instrument or draft instrument relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, two and a half hours)'.— [Mr. Harper.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Objection taken.

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

  GREEN BELT
  12.1 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a development in my constituency which threatens to destroy the whole purpose of the green belt. My constituency of Orpington lies on the south-eastern fringe of urban London, and two-thirds of it consists of farm land, both arable and dairy, and fruit orchards, which are scattered around picturesque villages. The beauty of the local countryside constantly attracts many Londoners from inner urban areas at weekends. It is green belt land in the proper sense of the words.
  One farm, Waldens Farm, St. Mary Cray, of about 72 acres—mainly orchard consisting mostly of apple and pear trees—was sold earlier this year by its owners, who were then working farmers. The price paid was reported to be about £85,000. The purchaser, however, was not a farmer. It was a company named Vemera Limited, whose registered office is in Loughton, Essex. The company's business appears to be that of land development, for the company then began advertising the land for sale, not as a farm but in hundreds of small plots, mostly measuring 100 ft. by 30 ft., with access lanes staked out in between. Each has about 50 fruit trees, and the price asked for each plot is about £450, payable by easy instalments.

  2003
  At this rate, the farm, bought for £85,000, is being sold for a total of well over £400,000—that is, assuming 15 plots to the acre.
  The sale was advertised in a number of publications, including Exchange and Mart. The advertisement ran as follows:
  "In lovely orchard setting, 15 miles from London, own your own orchard, 60 to 80 full bearing trees on a 30 ft.X100 ft. plot, from £450 freehold, terms arranged. Phone 508 6147 weekends."
  Many plots have been sold—according to local reports, more than 800 already—and the once idyllic scene has been transformed. During last summer the scene at weekends was described by one nearby householder as "a fairground", with people picnicking, lighting fires and milling about all over the place. Regular fruit-farming, crop spraying and pruning has ceased. The purchasers have been told by Vemera that the land is sold as agricultural land with no planning permission beyond that of any kind. But they have also been told that they may erect tents, swings and toolsheds. It is true that the purchasers do not gain many other legal rights beyond possession, but that is a danger rather than a safeguard for local residents because the purchasers appear to be relatively unsopshisticated people who have not apparently read the documents carefully and seem to imagine that they have full rights of ownership over their land. Indeed, one said recently that he intends to build a Turkish community centre on his plot. There have been other horrifying stories about the intentions of individual purchasers. We can, naturally, sympathise with them in their desire to own a bit of beautiful Kentish countryside, but the way this is being done is wrong.
  The threat to the amenities and the reaction of the local residents prompted the local authority, the borough of Bromley, to act swiftly. It soon issued a direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1973, which withdrew the permitted development right in respect of temporary developments, including the erection of fences and the placing of caravans on the site without seeking planning permission. The Minister for Planning and Local Government approved that direction.
  2004
  However, the question now is: where do we go from here? A 72-acre fruit farm has virtually disappeared. The food it produced has been dissipated and ruined. The loss to the country's food supplies could be serious if this use of farmland is allowed in other areas. It will also mean the destruction of a green belt amenity, preserved for the benefit of Londoners, which is the purpose of the green belt policy.
  Local concern about the future of this site was increased when it became known that the company, Vemera, had a similar site at the White Swan Farm, near Brands Hatch, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers). What was farm land is now covered with shacks and caravans. I am told that it has become a dirty and insanitary weekend camp site.
  Not only, therefore, have we lost the food potential of the farm, possibly for ever, by its break-up into hundreds of little plots, but the site is likely to become a nuisance of the gravest proportions by its development on the lines of the farm at Ash, because there are no sanitary arrangements at the farm and no public lavatory near by. There is only one water tap situated at the entrance to the farm yard. There is a litter problem.
  The situation has not been helped much by the Article 4 direction, which is the only step the local authority can take under existing laws, as I understand it, to protect the interests of the community. Its effect is inadequate to prevent the despoliation of the site. The restrictions that the direction imposes are comparatively minor. It could be said that theoretically there was very little which could lawfully be done without planning consent even before the direction was made.
  The local authority has powers under the Public Health Act, but here the enforcement problem arises, and enforcement will be a major problem. We have no means of ensuring that the law is magically enforced, and delay in enforcement can extend over two or possibly three years. If, for example, a plot holder on this site were to put a caravan on his plot—and it must be remembered that there are already a score at Ash— enforcement notice action could presumably be taken in the usual way. But that is a process which always takes at least

  2005
  three months. It has to go through the normal processes of investigation by an officer of the local planning department, a report to the committee, a report to the council, and the issue of the appropriate notice.
  If the plot holder then applied for planning consent for his caravan, there would have to be a new process entirely starting from that point, and we all know that this could take another six months. An appeal against a refusal of planning consent could be made thereafter. The time allowed for the appeal—six months—plus the delay in hearing the appeal, which nowadays could be at least nine months, plus the time needed for the decision of the Minister—say, three months—could mean a delay of well over two years, after which, if the local authority were successful, it would have to start enforcement action all over again because the caravan would still be there on the site of the owner of the land.
  What local residents fear most of all is that this site will be an eyesore, a rubbish dump, and a menace to public health, with the local authority helpless for at least two years, anyway.
  If nothing is done about this problem, agricultural land in London and the Home Counties could disappear in large chunks. Yet what can be done? The council is unlikely to have the funds in these difficult times to buy by compulsory purchase, even if the compulsory purchase of nearly 1,000 properties were practicable. The local authority in this case and local residents' associations are doing their best to bring to the notice of individual plot holders the insecurity of their legal title and their general lack of the planning rights which they imagine themselves to have. It may be that the plot holders would be able to rescind their agreements on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, if they wished. A private purchaser of the farm could probably be found if it were possible to buy it back in one unit as agricultural land. But it seems unlikely that the plot holders will voluntarily relinquish the land.
  If, therefore, the Minister wishes to prevent this sore festering in South-East London and spreading all over the green belt, a solution will have to be found to this problem quickly.
  12.13 a.m.
  The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): First, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for his great courtesy in having given me the substance of the matter that he wished to raise tonight well in time for the debate. He has made a point which is not only a constituency one but has some wider validity, and he has done right to draw attention to it. Incidentally, he talked about the need to prevent the break-up of farms in the green belt. But in his own county of Kent I know of four similar cases which are not in the green belt though they are in areas of great landscape value. Perhaps it is endemic in this problem that they should be, when one thinks of it.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if at this rather late hour I have to go into technicalities. I am afraid that a Minister who discusses planning, at whatever hour of the night, inevitably finds himself going into technicalities.
  We are talking about a change of ownership of land from one indivadual or a small group of individuals to a thousand individuals. Unfortunately, planning is not concerned with the ownership of land or the reason for acquisition. It is concerned with the use of the land. The planning law bites only if there is a material change of use. That is under Section 22(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which merely embodies many earlier precedents. Whether or not the change of use of land sold off as leisure plots amounts to a material change of use will depend on the facts of each case. If it can be shown that the primary activity has ceased to be agricultural—and I thought that the hon. Gentleman was perhaps telling us that— and has instead become recreational, the local planning authority might well consider that a material change of use had occurred in respect of which enforcement action could be taken.
  As to the history of the location, Waldens Farm is, as the advertisement fairly disclosed, mainly orchard, and the plots are advertised as containing fruit trees. If owners continue to cultivate them it is difficult to allege that there has been a material change of use. I suppose

  2007
  it might be difficult also to allege that there had been material change of use were they, for example, to grow vegetables. That would still be an agricultural use of the land. It must depend on the facts of each case.
  Development and change of development—for example, the building of houses or the location of caravans—is controlled through the planning system. Even if it is permitted development under Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, it can be brought back into control by a direction made by the local planning authority under Article 4 of the order. Planning permission is then required, but refusals can give rise to claims for compensation against the local authority for loss of permitted development rights. However, as far as I can see from a cursory look—and I do not want to be bound on this—it appears that the kind of development we are considering gives rise to very little compensation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
  Directions under Article 4 require approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if they are to last for longer than six months, although there are certain classes of development where immediate effect can be created by the local planning authority and the approval of the Secretary of State sought for their extension beyond the six months' period.
  What happened in this case was that on 27th August the London borough of Bromley made an Article 4 direction, and this was approved by my Department on 27th September, so not much time was allowed to elapse. The direction withdrew Classes 11(1), IV(2), VI(1) and XXII of Schedule 1 to the General Development Order, thus bringing into control such matters as the erection of fences, walls, gates and agricultural buildings as well as the parking of caravans and the temporary use of the land for camping or for other purposes.
  Directions are approved only after consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where agricultural land is involved, and this was so in respect of Waldens Farm. Each case is considered on its merits, but where there is evidence that such developments as those at Waldens Farm ought to be
  2008
  brought under control we are ready to give our approval quickly.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to delays if the planning application and the enforcement procedures are taken in tandem. It is not necessary for an application for planning permission and any subsequent appeal to be disposed of before enforcement action is taken for the development already carried out or begun, although I have to say that, as a matter of convenience, the Department advises local planning authorities to start enforcement action simultaneously with any appeal, so that the two matters can be pursued together, thus avoiding two consecutive public inquiries.
  The whole question—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be a little relieved by this—of enforcement procedures is at present being considered by Mr. Dobry. We await his final report with considerable interest. I do not think that it will be long delayed.
  I have mentioned that when we are considering approving a direction which concerns agricultural land, as a matter of course we consult the Ministry of Agriculture. Perhaps it would not be out of place to say something about that Ministry's position. The Ministry of Agriculture is concerned with the long-term availability of land for agricultural production. Although, obviously, it is concerned about land conservation, it does not normally interfere in individual transfers of land.
  It is interesting that there are powers, under Section 86 of the Agriculture Act 1947, to control the sub-division of agricultural land, including compulsory purchase powers. But these powers have never been used. They would need to be brought into effect by order, subject to affirmative resolution by this House. They have not been used in 27 years, and it is only fair to say that the legislators in 1947 did not really have in contemplation the sort of thing which has taken place at Waldens Farm.
  The question, of course, is whether the present problem is yet on a sufficient scale for the Ministry of Agriculture to consider bringing these powers into use. I will explain what the dimensions of the problems are at the moment. The use of these so-called leisure plots is estimated

  2009
  to account for about 350 to 400 acres a year in the South-East—that is, about ½ per cent. of the total loss of agricultural land in England and Wales for development of all kinds, a loss which averaged about 67,000 acres annually during the five years up to 1973.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the problem he has highlighted causes me some concern, not least in view of the technicalities, the difficulty of knowing quite how to cure it, and, certainly, how to cure it rapidly.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is at the moment in correspondence not only with the Ministry of Agriculture but with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which
  2010
  Bromley is a member, and we intend to hold fairly urgent discussions with all concerned about the problem and about any further action that might be taken.
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel that his problem and the problem of his constituents, which he has rightly and properly raised, is not being totally neglected by us. We will look into it, hold the discussions, and try to see whether there is any reasonable solution that can, in the not too distant future, be brought to bear on the problem before it spreads too far.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve o'clock.