EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (Hansard, 24 July 1974)

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This motion does not appear on the Order Paper under anybody's name. It did appear as Government Order. but since there is no Government Whip on this, I assume that the Government—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I can resolve the hon. Member's anxieties at once. In fact the name "Mr. Walter Harrison" is or should be on the Order Paper, and that is enough for me.

§ Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household)
It is.

§ Mr. English
I do not think this matter can pass without some remark. The motion is only technically laid by the Deputy Chief Whip of the governing party as a convenience to the members of the Opposition, who requested it. They were so keen on it that the motion was put down for 5.30 p.m. on Friday when they hoped that nobody would notice. I said on Friday that I regard this as too important a matter not to be discussed. The reason it should be discussed is simple. We are replacing a group of people whom the electorate in some cases chose not to put back into the House and who in other cases decided to retire from the House, and who sat in the European Parliament, as they were technically entitled to under its rules.
They sat there for most of the six months during which they were entitled to sit after the last election. They had not the decency, any of them, knowing that they had ceased to be elected Members, to resign from the European Assembly.
They know, of course, that that Assembly is not a real elected body, that it has no power. What has it got? It has large and considerable expenses. At this point we might mention that it is true also that every—[Interruption.] That cannot be said of me. I have no outside interests like some hon. Members.
When the Liberal Party first created a register of outside interests, one hon. Member promptly refused to sign—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Name him."]—and their Leader was found not to have revealed one of his.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
Order. It would be appropriate if these charges and counter-charges were not made.

§ Mr. John Pardoe (Cornwall, North)
The hon. Gentleman should withdraw.

§ Mr. English
I am obedient to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that 1744 the House will regard my last statement and the statements made by Liberal Members as not having been said. They were in any case irrelevant to this debate.
What is important is that we should not create distrust in the minds of the electorate in all Europe, distrust of parliamentary institutions and the European Assembly. Such distrust is bound to be created if people collect so-called expenses that are greater than their actual expenses. It is a well-known fact that that happens. It was published in the Sunday Telegraph, which is not exactly the most anti-Common Market journal of my acquaintance. The details have been given many times.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)
May I make two points to the hon. Gentleman? First, he will know that it is a decision of the tax authorities of this country that all persons, including myself, in receipt of expenses from the European Parliament have to declare them, balanced against what has been spent, and pay tax on the difference under Schedule E. Secondly, we are the only country in the Community which takes this step. The other countries regard the expenses as in a sense a substitute income for the task undertaken.

§ Mr. English
I am always ready to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because, unlike some of his colleagues who intervene from a sitting position, he does it properly and courteously. The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe that it is also right that many members of the delegation to the European Assembly from the Opposition benches objected most strongly to—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the subject. We are not discussing the expenses of members of the European Parliament. We are discussing the designation of members.

§ Mr. English
Six months after the last election the Members first named in the motion will cease to be Members. Thereby, the taxpayer will save a considerable sum, provided they are not replaced. If they are replaced, my point is relevant.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is correct, put in that way.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are debating a motion, and we have to adduce reasons why we should either support or not support it. I hope to catch your eye to add that one of the reasons why we object to any Members going to the European Assembly is that, rightly or wrongly, we think that too much money is being spent on the expenses they will incur. If we are to argue that one of the reasons why we are opposed to the motion is that the taxpayer may not want to pay the expenses—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
There is a slight misapprehension on the part of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was in order in making his last comments. I suggest that we go on along those lines.

§ Mr. English
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The main point at issue is not whether the additional emoluments are taxed. The main point at issue is the matter of truth and the saving of the taxpayers' money.
I wish to ask two questions of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) who, I take it, will be replying to the debate as leader of the Conservative delegation to the European Assembly. First, why is it that, so far as we know, no member of his Assembly has seen fit to repay, or not to take, money over or in excess of his expenses? The second question is whether any of the persons to be appointed to the delegation have said that they will refuse to take all the money to which they are entitled and will merely take the actual expenses that they incur.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). If the European Assembly were saying that it should pay these people a salary over and above the salary they get in their own country, that would be honest. But it is dishonest to pay to somebody expenses which may be twice as much as the expenses he actually incurs.
We had this problem in the House years ago—although the reverse way round, so to speak—when our salary was not a salary paid as such but had to include all sorts of expenses. We tried to cure that. We say "There is the Member's salary, and these are his expenses out of which 1746 he pays his secretary and so on". It is dishonest of the European Assembly to say, as the hon. Member for Inverness said, "We know perfectly well these expenses, so-called, are greater than your actual expenses, but we are paying them to provide you with additional emoluments". I might add that most legislators in Europe are paid more than we are and do not need additional emoluments.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston
Why is it dishonest, which was the word used by the hon. Member, for individual Members of Parliament at the European Parliament to be paid sums of money that are quite easily ascertainable? There is no secret about it; those sums can be found out easily. They can be related easily to expenses. It is quite open. I should have thought the definition of dishonesty—and the hon. Gentleman is rather good at definitions—is that it is something concealed.

§ Mr. English
The hon. Gentleman says the method of calculation can be easily discovered. But when various journalists—and the Sunday Telegraph has been mentioned in this connection—have tried to find out these things at the European Assembly, the secretariat there has refused to give the information. Therefore, it is not easy to find out these things.
The travel allowance, as the hon. Member for Inverness must be aware, is based on the distance from one's home to Brussels—measured in kilometres, of course. I shall not raise the question of Inverness in relation to London, but it is said that many Italian members—and I do not know how true or otherwise this is—immediately discovered that they had cottages in Sicily. Hon. Members will understand that Sicily is rather farther away from Brussels than is Milan, but it has been impossible to discover that information since the secretariat of the Assembly will not reveal it. I hope the hon. Gentleman will check his facts. What he says may be true now, but it was not true a few months ago.
I return to the main subject of my argument. I noticed in the newspapers the other day someone saying that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was criticising his own salary he had a simple course of action 1747 —not to accept it. That was a Conservative, not necessarily a Member of this House. I hope that we can apply the same argument in reverse. Our delegates—because they are not representatives in the sense that they are elected by the people—to the European Assembly had a splendid opportunity.
They could have made a genuine headline for Britain all over Europe by the simple process of going along for the first time and saying, "Look, in Britain we happen to believe in honesty, at least in financial dealings. We will take our actual expenses incurred in travelling and our secretarial costs, but the additional surplus we will not take, or we will pay it back if it has to be paid to us." [Interruption.] They did not do that. Since they did not do it I should like to know whether any of these new Members being proposed tonight have had this thought and have possibly given their Whips the assurance that if they are appointed they will not take this additional emolument. Or do they propose to take the money irrespective—[Interruption.]—of whether they are expenses? If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) wishes to intervene I will gladly give way.

§ Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)
I believe in honesty. I do not believe in secrecy. I would rather the information was readily ascertainable than that it had to be dug out by some newspaper—whether it relates to politicians in the North-East or politicians attending the European Parliament.

§ Mr. English
The hon. Lady, as is well known, is getting a little obsessive about one subject.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Honesty.

§ Mr. English
May I suggest to the hon. Lady that she votes with me later this evening? Honesty, like truth, is indivisible. The hon. Lady cannot have the views she claims on one subject and not on another. Here we have an example of people claiming expenses that are not expenses—taking money, putting it in their pockets—which the Inland Revenue will not accept as expenses, much to their surprise.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Was the £250 paid to the Leader of the House declared to the Inland Revenue?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That was not a very appropriate remark by the hon. Lady.

§ Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthorpe)
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think the hon. Lady should reconsider that remark.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
I was asked whether I believed in honesty. The answer is "Yes, I do."
I believe in honesty in the proceedings of this House also.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No imputation should be made against an hon. or right hon. Member of this House. I think that the hon. Lady should reconsider her words.

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
I will withdraw what I said if the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will withdraw any imputation of dishonesty against Conservative Members attending the European Parliament.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The difference is that the hon. Gentleman was referring to a practice whereas the hon. Lady was referring to a person.

Mrs. Kellet-Bowman
On that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will withdraw the remark.

§ Mr. English
I think we all feel strongly about these issues. The point I am trying to make is that these issues cannot be divided and singled out as to individual persons. I have not named one individual in this delegation. I am concerned about additional money being claimed as expenses when it is not expenses, whether for travelling, secretarial purposes, costs in Brussels or whatever. I suggest that Opposition hon. Members who claim to represent Britain in that Assembly should represent what I believe to be the basic feeling of the, British people. They should say, "We will not claim expenses to which we are not entitled." I suggest that it is more than sufficient if they claim the costs that they incur.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)
I shall not detain the House for long, but I think that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) requires a reply. I do not in any way doubt his honesty. We have talked about this matter between ourselves many times. Let me just lay it on the line quite straight from me to him.
First, it is true that Members who go to the European Parliament are paid expenses which are in excess of their outlays. That is true. There is no argument about that. Second, I personally see nothing wrong with that in the absence of any pay that is offered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?".] I shall tell hon. Members why. It is all very well for some Labour hon. Members sitting on the back benches and opening and closing their mouths. We can argue for and against whether it is a useful exercise to go to the European Parliament. There is disagreement not just between the two sides of the House but right across the board.
I regard it as a worthwhile exercise to go to the European Parliament. In the past year I have spent a great deal of time there arguing about regional policy. I thought that that was a matter of importance and of consequence and—[Interruption.] Let me finish. Consequently, I have spent a great deal more time travelling away from home and doing extra work than would otherwise have been the case. I regarded that work as useful and important. I regard it as perfectly proper to be reimbursed for such travel and work if that is the system which has been set up.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West failed to mention that when we entered the European Community we entered as the end result of an application made from the Treasury Bench of the Government led by the present Prime Minister. If we had not entered on Tory terms, as Labour, hon. Members claim, but on Labour terms there would have been Labour representatives going to the European Parliament. They would have gone on the same basis as anyone else and no one would have say "Nay".
With respect to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, who I do not regard as trying to accuse me of being some 1750 sort of twister who is seeking to get the maximum out of the Treasury, I would only say to him through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if he is putting up an argument against tonight's selection of extra Members to fill the gap left in the Conservative delegation because certain members of the delegation lost their seats, he should not base his argument on the ground that those who are filling the gaps are inspired wholly by cupidity. He is thereby advancing an argument which a man of his honesty should not pursue.

§ Mr. English
Before the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) sits down, may I say that I entirely take his point. I am not disputing that hon. Members who go to the European Assembly should be paid a salary, although I think it is a matter relevant to the determination of their salary in this House if they are so paid. If they are in Brussels they cannot be in Westminster at the same time. I can quite understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not think it is honest to say that some hon. Members should get this money although we do not care to subscribe it to the people of Europe as a salary. The hon. Gentleman suggets that if—it would have been with the consent of the British people—we had joined the Common Market there would have been a Labour delegation to Europe and that Labour hon. Members would have gone on the same basis as anyone else. But I would hope that some of my colleagues would have made the point that I am making in the European Assembly.

§ Mr. Johnston
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that when we made the application the existence of the European Parliament and the rules governing it were known, and nothing was said about them. I do not deny that members of the European Parliament spend time away from their constituencies, but when an hon. Member becomes the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he receives extra money and his constituents and opposition parties, not excluding the Liberal Party, often unfairly criticise him because he is never here. I do not see much difference between an hon. Member fulfilling a job in Government which involves his going out of the country 1751 and an hon. Member fulfilling a job in the European Parliament.

§ Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, South)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I consider that the European Parliament is a completely worthless, unnecessary and useless assembly. I wonder whether you could tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there is any fund to which I could contribute to ensure that I am never sent there?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)
The motion begins with these words: notwithstanding the Order of the House of 8th February 1974". When that motion of 8th February was surreptitiously dragged in late on Friday just before the House adjourned in anticipation of prorogation for the forthcoming election, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and I opposed it. I did so because several hon. Members who were nominated by the Conservative Government had declared that they would not stand for election and therefore knew that they would not be Members of Parliament.
I said then, and repeat now, that those former Members would either have to be replaced after the election or would hold office and draw their expenses although they did not represent the House. Since then, Sir Tufton Beamish has been elevated to the peerage. We know how susceptible are the Opposition to Members of another place, because the so-called European Parliament is loaded with them. But I stand up for that former Member. If he was doing such good work that he deserved to be elevated to another place why did not the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), knowing that he would not be a member of the House but was in the pipeline for elevation to another place, retain him on the list? The hon. Member represents somewhere in Essex. So do I. What right has he to come to the House and say that he decided that he would withdraw this man's name and put in another instead? 1752 We are coming to something when an insignificant back bencher who occasionally attends can tell the House of Commons that a noble Lord has decided that he does not want to stand again and that he has kindly apologised to the noble Lord and told him how sorry he is and that he will put in Mrs. Peggy Fenner in his place.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is reading, but if he is referring to a lady who is a Member of this House he should refer to her in the proper manner.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was in fact reading her name from the motion.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I am not disputing the fact. I was merely inquiring of the hon. Gentleman whether it was so.

§ Mr. Lewis
The motion, from which I am reading, gives the names Sir Tufton Beamish, Mr. John E. Hill, Sir John Peel, Mr. Rafton Pounder and, later, Mrs. Peggy Fenner. I see nothing in Standing Orders giving the hon. Member for Saffron Walden the right to tell us that he has made a change.
I pay tribute to Mrs. Peggy Fenner. She was one of the best Ministers in the Conservative Government, which shows how bad the others were. But where are we getting to this evening when a back-bench Member purports to tell the House and the Government that he is making a change like this? Who is pushing this? Is it the official Opposition? Indeed, I cannot understand whether we are discussing a Government or an official Opposition motion. The Opposition Front Bench have not said whether they support these names. Nor do we know whether the Government do.
No matter who are in power, we know that arrangements are made through the usual channels for these people to be paired, no matter what the business of the House is. I have been to both Whips' offices and have been told by both that Mr. X or Mr. Y has been paired because he is at the Assembly of Europe, or, as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden would euphemistically call it, the European Parliament. They have been paired when there have been three-line or two-line Whips or no Whips at all. Yet when 1753 I or some of my hon. Friends want to go to important constituency meetings we are refused a pair. I have been barred in this way from going to my constituency for a political meeting. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Peter Kirk (Saffron Walden)
rose—

§ Mr. Lewis
I will give way in my own time, but not at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman, who occasionally flies into here and flies out again and who lives in the European Assembly, spent more time here he would know that in this place an hon. Member gives way when he is ready to do so.
It seems to me that there is a slight being made on the former Member for Lewes. He is not related to me. It so happens that he represented a good area with a good name, but he is now a member of the other place. Why is it being proposed that Sir Tufton Beamish—now the noble Lord for somewhere or other—should be left out of the European Parliament? We should have an explanation—

§ Mr. Kirk
rose—

§ Mr. Lewis
The hon. Gentleman must be patient. He is not in the European Assembly at the moment. He cannot dictate to me. He must attend here more regularly—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
There appears to be a fair amount of confusion. It must be understood that if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) does not wish to give way he need not do so, but perhaps at an appropriate moment he might give way.

§ Mr. Lewis
You must have heard what I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even if the hon. Gentleman did not. I said that would give way in my own time, when I am ready. I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman that if he came to the House more often, instead of spending all his time in the European Assembly, he would know that here hon. Members give way when it suits them, not when it suits the Member who wishes to intervene—but I will give way now.

§ Mr. Kirk
Having been a Member of this House for nearly 20 years I can remember a time when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) was not attending here at all. My noble 1754 Friend Lord Chelwood, formerly Sir Tufton Beamish, has represented to me, much to my regret, that he does not wish to continue as a member of the delegation. This is his own request, made for personal reasons.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. But what right has a back-bench Member to come to the House to say that he has decided that he would accept the request of the noble Lord who has said that he does not want to continue as a member of the delegation? The hon. Gentleman is not—so far as I am aware—a member of the Government, and I do not think he is even a member of the Opposition Front Bench. Therefore, what right has he to come along and tell me, and the House, about what some noble Lord—I do not even know the name of the noble Lord—has said to him?

§ Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)
Leipzig.

§ Mr. Lewis
I shall give way to the hon. Member if he wishes to speak.
Hon. Members sit there mouthing revolutionary slogans, but they do not have the courage to rise. They say something about "Leipzig". I have not been there for 12, 14 or 15 years, but when I went there I went at my own expense.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member has a right to defend himself, but he should stick to the subject under discussion.

§ Mr. Lewis
You might ask the hon. Member to do what I asked him to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—get off his backside to make his point. Then I could deal with it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I did not hear what the hon. Member said.

§ Mr. Lewis
That is a pity, because I could have dealt with him. You probably divined from my reply, Mr. Speaker, what his interjection was.
As far as I am concerned, any hon. Member, on either side of the House, is quite free to go where he likes, when he likes and how he likes, under whatever auspices he likes—but if he does so with the authority of the House I have a right to know who is backing his action, and who is pushing it. At the moment, I do not know. [Interruption.] I hope that 1755 the Sunday Telegraph will be able to go into the question in more depth. I do not know who is paying. My hon. Friend says that it is the British taxpayer. I suppose he is right.
Here we have a back-bench Member committing us to expenditure. The Treasury is laying out money. Whether it is good, bad or indifferent, I do not know. Whether it is too much or not enough, I do not know. Whether it is a lot of money, I do not know.

§ Mr. English
I have received a letter from the International Affairs Section of the Library. It has been working on this problem all day. My hon. Friend will recollect that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that it was easy to find out what amounts were paid. The Library says: It has not proved possible to obtain from the European Parliament Office this information". It advises me that the most reliable way to get at the facts is simply to ask one of the delegation.
May I, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask that all Members who speak and who are members of the European Assembly should declare these secret sums?

§ Mr. Lewis
As usual, my hon. Friend raises a valid point. That is why I am always pleased to give way to him.
My point—it is a vital one—is that I have always understood that hon. Members are not allowed to raise money or incur expenditure except through certain procedures. Yet we have a system here under which a back-bench Member gives notice that he will reply. I do not know how or why he is able to do so. I do not know whether he has arranged it with the Chair—whether he has "fixed" it. I should have thought that a Government Minister should reply—or an Opposition spokesman. But the hon. Member has said that he will explain the position. He says that he has been told by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, that the noble Lord does not wish to stand again. I want to know by what authority the hon. Member reports that fact to the House. He has no right to report that certain members of the European Assembly are to be replaced by Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mrs. Peggy Fenner, Mr. Ralph Howell and Mr. Michael Shaw.
1756 This is a serious matter. I want to know whether we are to have a situation where any back-bench Member can commit this House to expenditure for some assembly about which many of us doubt whether there should be any representation. But if that is agreed, at least let us have the Government of the day putting down the motion.
When I opposed the February motion, I prophesied that there would be a General Election within a very short time. There was. It came within a matter of days. I said that some of the hon. Members whose nominations the then Government were trying to push through the House would not be Members of Parliament after the election. I said that I knew that some had declared that they were not standing again for Parliament. I knew that others would be defeated. Every one of those mentioned, who are now being dropped, came within one or other of those categories. I am not sure whether their suggested replacements will be in the same position. I remember asking Sir Tufton Beamish, as he then was, whether he intended to stand again. He had the honesty to say that he was not standing.
I should like to know from the hon. Members named in the motion—Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mrs. Peggy Fenner, Mr. Ralph Howell and Mr. Michael Shaw—whether they intend to stand for reelection to this House and whether they are sure that they will be re-elected. I have my doubts. I do not want this House to be put in a position where hon. Members return after the next election only to find another motion to replace Mr. Hugh Dykes because he has been defeated, to replace Mrs. Peggy Fenner because she has not stood for re-election and to replace Mr. Ralph Howell and Mr. Michael Shaw. That might happen. I should prefer to see the name of the right hon. Member for the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people. He should be nominated, because he may well get back.
This is not good enough. I am against this motion, as I was against the earlier one.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) reminded us that, just before Parliament prorogued on the 1757 last occasion, there was this very important debate in which hon. Members were selected to represent us in this so-called European Parliament, which is little more than a parish council, except that parish councils tend to do more good work—

Hon. Members
Clay Cross?

§ Mr. Skinner
In Clay Cross, we have been elected in the first place, and we have provided many essential social services for the citizens of Clay Cross. That is not the case with this Assembly.
The real problem that we face carries on from where my hon. Friend left off. He said that there is a problem about these four people who are to replace the four who, through the offices of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), have decided to finish—at least, that is true in respect of one of them.
I have taken the matter a little further than my hon. Friend, and I find that there is more than a distinct possibility that the hon. Members whose names appear in the motion will no longer be Members of this House, even supposing that they apply for re-election.
A close scrutiny reveals that the majorities of those four hon. Members are very slender. We may have a situation in which the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner), resting on a majority of about 1,000—possibly 2,000—will almost certainly be defeated by the prospective Labour candidate in that division. In that event, we shall face the same problem, except that the hon. Lady, under the terms of the Standing Order, will be able to continue until the end of the Session.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has a relatively small majority. It is possible that he will not be re-elected if we get an overall majority of about 28, which I suspect we shall, somewhere about 19th September.
The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) has a different problem. Word has it that whereas we could be replacing the two hon. Members to whom I have referred, it is possible that Scarborough might be replaced with a Liberal. Of course, after tonight's proceedings that seems highly unlikely. Yet, set against the argument that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) is now searching for a reasonable spot to fly the 1758 Liberal flag, I can visualise the Liberals, having run second at Scarborough at the General Election, sending him north. [Interruption.] I am asked: what has Scarborough done? It has always returned a Tory Member. It would be returning a junior Tory Member on this occasion if what I suspect happens.
We shall have the ludicrous position of sending to the European Assembly four representatives who might be there for only five or six weeks, or perhaps a little longer.
We should then have the position, with the negotiations now taking place and a hardening position on these benches with a full parliamentary majority, of the Labour Government perhaps withdrawing the whole lot, even before the referendum was put to the British people for them to decide the issue.
With a pretty reasonable overall majority of 28 Members, we might decide that there is little purpose in keeping about 19 Members in Europe and paying them, according to the national Press, the heavy Press—the Daily Telegraph, for instance—£27 a day. Of course, it is calculated in units of currency. It is not calculated in simple measures. It is done to confuse people so that they do not know precisely what is being paid. The amount varies with the position of the pound related to the weighted average of the European currencies. But it is about £27 a day.
In addition, these Members manage to make a few bob on the side by using the well-known system of charter flights. They can charge up to £120 for a return flight. But they combine together and go on a charter flight for £46 each return. Rumour has it that they are keen to have another four Members at the Assembly because they are having to pay somewhat more, as four Members have decided not to go. What is more, the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), having realised the scandals that were taking place, has got out quickly, making five Members who do not go. So the costs can be reduced slightly, despite the increased charges resulting from the European inflation from which we are suffering. Those who go will pay less, and they will be able to pocket more. This is not something that has been dug out of the Library; this is true. It has 1759 been in the heavies, the Telegraph and The Times.
The other swindle which takes place has been curbed to some degree. This is the funny system of "nodding through". Although, here, some hon. Members may be only a few hundred yards away and be nodded through, in the European Assembly, it has been said by the President himself—Berkhouwer—people have been nodded through when they were on cruises or at home in their various countries. They managed to operate a system whereby one member with different coloured Biros signed several different names and claimed £27 a day several times over.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
My hon. Friend said that he got this information from the "heavies". Will he say which papers he means?

§ Mr. Skinner
In this scandal or fiddle of claiming expenses, according to The Times, the top people's paper, people were getting £27 a day—or someone else was claiming it on their behalf. Someone was certainly taking the money but who was receiving it was not quite clear from The Times. Even in the other place they only get £8.50 a day, and they have to attend to get that.

§ Mr. Russell Johnston
There is no doubt about the veracity of what the hon. Member is saying, but will he make it clear that there has never been the slightest suggestion that this was done by British Members of Parliament?

§ Mr. Skinner
The Times did not imply that the people concerned were Members of this House or of the House of Lords. But it did not say which country they came from. There was no specific indication whether they came from France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands or, indeed, Great Britain. So although it is true that there was no specific reference to hon. Members of this place, the implication was drawn across the lot, including those who supposedly represent the British Parliament.
The result of this investigation has not been to save money; they have had to employ attendants to see that this scurrilous practice does not continue. So not only do we have to pay £27 per head in 1760 attendance fees and the additional expenses of charter flights, and so on: we also have to pay, along with the other eight countries, for these extra attendants on the door at every sitting.
That is the situation as described in the newspapers. It has not been adequately discussed in the House. I should have thought that it would have been incumbent upon the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, the so-called leader of the delegation, to have explained in the House, in relation to this instance, whether he could give a categoric assurance that no British Member was involved. Such an assurance that no British Member was involved in this travesty has not been given.

§ Mr. English
I am fascinated by my hon. Friend's argument, but does he see any specific difference in morality between people who are claiming expenses when they are not there and people who are claiming expenses greater than their actual expenses?

§ Mr. Skinner
I do not see any difference. However, I see in the newspapers recently that certain Opposition Members have been criticising councillors for claiming expenses when they have lost work, and that certain hon. Members have tried to use ratepayers' organisations on their behalf when at the same time they are supporting a system which allows certain Tory Members of Parliament, a Liberal Member of Parliament and, I believe, a Liberal Lord, to claim expenses in this fashion. The fact is that they have not been totally cleared from the allegations which arose a few months ago and which have not been properly cleared up.

§ Mr. English
We are not even allowed to know what they are claiming.

§ Mr. Skinner
One would be reasonably assured about sending people to this Assembly if they were bringing anything back—not bringing back money for themselves but something tangible for this country. One thing which has been witnessed and reported upon in recent days is that after these few short months of Common Market membership, these 19 gentlemen, lately 14 gentlemen—

An Hon. Member
"Honourable Gentlemen."

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
They are not honourable Gentlemen.

§ Mr. Skinner
Whatever they are—I do not care. They have assisted in bringing back a £2,000 million trade deficit for this country. That is what they have managed to achieve already. I do not know that they have said a great deal about that in the European Assembly during their appearances.

§ Mr. Michael Ancram (Berwick and East Lothian)
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be an inquiry into this sort of allegation when his party refuses to have an inquiry into similar allegations related to the North-East?

§ Mr. Skinner
I see no connection between—[Interruption.] I see no connection between the North-East and the Poulson activities, and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who said in the House a few weeks ago that arising out of allegations from the North-East he would be issuing a writ against Granada Television, and as yet he has not issued that writ. That is what I notice in respect of what the hon. Gentleman referred to.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting very far away from the subject of the debate. I shall be grateful if he will confine his remarks to the motion.

§ Mr. Skinner
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Ancram) decided to use the analogy of the North-East in connection with the scandals to which I am referring. I am pointing out that in the North-East there are many matters yet which have not been uncovered—without doubt.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)
Order. The hon. Gentleman will, I know, come back to the subject of the European Parliament and leave the North-East for the time being. I think that that will be in the interests of us all.

§ Mr. Skinner
I shall leave the North-East with the first President.

§ Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)
Who?

§ Mr. Skinner
I said I shall leave the North-East with the first President. [Interruption.] Well, think about it.
1762 Therefore, for the reasons my hon. Friends and I have indicated tonight, we cannot support the idea that these four hon. Members should be added to the list. In our view the British people should be consulted on this matter, and they will be consulted. After that, if, by some strange quirk of circumstances, the people decide that we should stay in the Common Market, I have no doubt that there will be many other hon. Members clamouring to go to the Assembly. I shall not be among them. Until that time, however, I believe that we should not be a party to sending four more Tories with the 15 who already go, and unless we get a satisfactory answer on this matter we shall need to consider how we vote.

§ Mr. Peter Kirk (Saffron Walden)
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been kind enough to volunteer to attend the European Parliament in certain circumstances.

§ Mr. Skinner
Not me.

§ Mr. Kirk
He said that in certain circumstances lie would be glad to go—

§ Mr. Skinner
Oh, no.

§ Mr. Kirk
He said that he would go, and I can assure him that we should be glad to have him there—

§ Mr. Skinner
Not me. I do not even have a passport.

§ Mr. Kirk
—because it would teach some of our colleagues in the Socialist group there what we have to put up with. It would also show them what they will have to put up with, and that would be quite a good thing.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) asked under what authority the motion had been laid. The authority, technically, is that of the Government and the Deputy Chief Whip, and it appears in his name. Perhaps I may tell him tonight—if it will not do him too much damage on his side of the House—how grateful I am to him not only for laying this motion but for staying here last Friday in circumstances which I know were of great personal and family inconvenience, so that we could try to get the motion through then. I am deeply grateful and I hope that he will accept that as coming 1763 from the heart, because I know what it meant to him personally.
Out of this rather confused debate, if that is the right word for what has happened in the last hour, two points have been made. One is that we should not replace the four Members who were appointed to serve as Members of the European Parliament. The fact that they are all members of the Conservative Party is not my fault or that of the Opposition Front Bench. It results from a decision consciously taken by the Government party—one which they have a perfect right to take and which I do not dispute in any way. But hon. Members cannot complain that the only names which appear in the motion are Conservative names. What they perhaps could complain about would be the quality of the four hon. Members concerned, but I have heard no complaint on that score—perhaps only a little lip-smacking anticipation by the hon. Member for Newham North-West about the prospect of the Labour Party's winning those four seats from the Conservatives. He made exactly that remark about myself on 8th February this year. One of the members of the delegation—Mr. Rafton Pounder—lost his seat at the election. His work in the European Parliament, particularly in connection with the setting up of a public accounts committee and getting an effective system of public accounts going within the Assembly, has been praised. No one could possibly say that he lost that seat because he was a member of the European Parliament. One has only to look at the circumstances of the election in Ulster to see why that seat was lost.
There is no objection to the four names put up. The only objection is the touching concern of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West about the role of Lord Chelwood. I intervened to explain that Lord Chelwood, for reasons I fully understand, had explained to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and to me that he felt he should not continue as a member of the delegation, for purely personal reasons. I regretted that, and had he not felt that way it would have been the wish of the delegation—and, I think, of the other House, whose responsibility it would then have been—to consider whether his name 1764 should not have been submitted as a delegate from the other House.
Otherwise, the argument has turned on two matters only—the first, that we did not represent anyone. I do not accept that.

§ Mr. English
It is the people you are replacing.

§ Mr. Kirk
They will represent the House of Commons if the House chooses to nominate them. It is for the House to decide.

§ Mr. English
We do not say that the hon. Member, for example, does not represent anyone, but that people not elected at the last election survived in the Assembly by its rules even though they ceased to be members of this or any other European legislature. It is only now that the motion has been brought forward. We have been sitting since the February election.

§ Mr. Kirk
I have not brought it forward. The hon. Member should vote for the motion because it gets rid of the people who do not represent anyone.

§ Mr. English
The hon. Gentleman knows that the reason he brought this forward is not that. By the rules of the European Assembly, six months after the 28th February election these people will cease to be members. That will happen without this motion.

§ Mr. Kirk
That is perfectly true. We could have left it. It was not my choice that it was left this long, but the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and his hon. Friend should vote for it with enthusiasm, because it gets rid of those who are not Members. In so far as we are representative, we are as representative as any other members of the European Parliament.
I fully accept that we are not as representative as any Parliament should be. If, therefore, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West or the hon. Member for Newham, North-West have advanced the argument that we need a directly elected Parliament, they would not find a great deal of opposition among the members of the delegation.
Their work is such that it involves them in travelling of a kind which no reasonable person should have to do. For example, during the last plenary session, 1765 a fortnight ago, my hon. Friends had to be in Strasbourg on Wednesday morning, had to be here to vote on Wednesday evening—unfortunately, we did not win that time—and had to be back in Strasbourg on Thursday to vote on the European company statute. They had to be back on Thursday afternoon. We did or did not win that time because of some dispute about nodding through. On Friday morning they had to be back in Strasbourg.
If the hon. Member talks about direct elections, I shall support him, and if he puts down a motion he will find no more fervent supporter than me—and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will bring in the Liberal support.
At the moment, this is not the position. We are members of the EEC. That has been confirmed time after time by the Foreign Secretary. We intend to remain members—and that has been confirmed by the Foreign Secretary in this House. We are negotiating in good faith, within the treaty, to remain members and it is right that we should remain members of all organisations covered by the treaty.
Here we have the curious fact that there is no objection from the Government side of the House to the representation in the Council of Ministers.

§ Mr. English
Which has power.

§ Mr. Kirk
Certainly. There may be objection from the Government side of the House to representation in the Commission, because I do not think that Labour Members are terribly fond of their former right hon. Friend. They refuse, for reasons that are their business and not mine, to take part in the third of the institutions, which has power and to which their Government are giving greater power—the power to reject the budget, the power to set up a public accounts committee, the power to vet the accounts and to have a conciliation committee with the Council of Ministers when there is a disagreement between the two institutions. All those are powers that my right hon. and hon. Friends have fought for over the past 18 months. How much quicker could we have achieved them if we had had a few Labour Members with us!
Therefore, let not the hon. Gentleman tell me that we do not have power. We 1766 have not got the power which, perhaps, this House nominally possesses, and which it has been displaying over the past few months, to the great chagrin of the Government Front Bench. That power we do not possess; that power we shall possess. If the Government are serious in their intention to stay in the Community—and I believe what the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said—they will wish to make the Community work, and if it is to work it must have an effective representative institution. Therefore, pending direct elections, Members of this House must be a part.
The second part of the argument is about expenses. It is understandable that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said that he would not talk about expenses, because the expenses he draws as a member of the Council of Europe are roughly the same.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
rose—

§ Mr. Kirk
The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me. I understand that he gets—I, too, have been to the Library today—250 French francs a day. He may tell us that he gives them all back, or that he gives them to the poor, or to a charitable organisation, but he draws his allowances. Therefore, what we are discussing with the hon. Gentleman is the question of the travel allowances and not the daily allowances. The travel allowances were deliberately designed, as I have said in the House before, to cover every eventuality. The daily allowance is the one that the hon. Member for Bolsover was talking about when he was spraying about his dirt about members signing in and not attending.

§ Mr. Skinner
Deny it.

§ Mr. Kirk
The hon. Gentleman asked for a categorical assurance that no British Member was involved. I give him, solemnly, that categorical assurance. I have personally checked the records for the whole period since Britain has been a member.

§ Mr. Skinner
Let the House see them.

§ Mr. Kirk
Certainly the House can see them, if hon. Members wish. They can also see, if they wish, the audited accounts of the Conservative Group, which have been prepared by Cooper Brothers, who I do not think even Labour Members 1767 would suggest would fiddle the accounts—and the Inland Revenue has the accounts of every hon. Member of this House who has been a member of the European Parliament. The attack made on the hon. Member for Inverness and on my hon. Friends and my noble Friends in the other place is an attack that has never had any substance at all.

§ Mr. Skinner
Sue The Times then.

§ Mr. Kirk
It is an attack which one would expect only from the three hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) is right to say that after 25 years I am now a member of the Council of Europe. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to explain that the full details of all the expenses as paid by the British Government to those members over the last 25 years have been properly recorded and are available in the House—not through any private auditor, but through the normal custom and practice of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I never dealt with that matter. My hon. Friend pointed out that The Times and the Telegraph had great difficulty in getting the facts, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) went to the extent of explaining that our Library could not get the details from the Council of Europe. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making my point for me.

§ Mr. Kirk
There is a reason why the detailed accounts are not easily available. It depends on the number of committees, the number of members attending, the place of attendance and the number of days on which a member attends. The situation differs in regard to every hon. Member. The Council of Europe—I was a member for a long time—is paid on a straight per diem basis, whereas allowances in the European Parliament are not.

§ Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)
I hope the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) will recognise that he is being less than fair to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), because not only is 1768 the hon. Member a diligent member of the Council of Europe; he has been pressing for increases in the allowances. That is quite proper, because it is a long time since they were fixed and they have fallen behind with inflation.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has made a false statement and he knows it. I challenge him to produce one word, one document or any witness to show that any word has been said by me to lead him to make the statement he did to the House.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The House is getting too excited. The hon. Gentleman's statement is a matter of debate. The hon. Gentleman has put on record that he considers it is not an accurate statement.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
The rules of the House are clear. If an hon. Member makes a statement which he knows to be untrue, unless he can produce evidence to prove it—and I challenge him to prove it—he must withdraw. I have never at any time, either in writing or orally, made any such statement. I therefore challenge the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles to produce his evidence or to withdraw that statement—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This is no way to conduct our debates. If the hon. Member wants me to give a firm ruling on the issue I am prepared to do so. There was no imputation cast on the hon. Member's honour, as I understood it. It is a common experience in this House that people disagree on statements.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier—[Interruption.] Earlier—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is upset he is entitled to put his point of order.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Late last night, when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, the Leader of the Opposition called my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a liar because he said he had made a statement that was untrue. He had to withdraw that statement. Therefore, I say that if the hon. Member persists in making a lying statement he must produce his evidence or withdraw.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
There is no need to pursue this across the Floor of the House. There is an obvious disagreement. There has been no breach of the rules of the House by the making of any personal charge which casts a reflection on the hon. Member's honour. The House has heard his complete assertion.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but I must persist and I will persist. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), rightly, is entitled to question the matter of expenses and expense allowances. He is entitled to say that the Council of Europe pays expenses, which are there to be examined. What is not true, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) knows it, is that I have asked for increases in those expenses. He knows that I cannot do it. I see that now he is shaking his head. I ask him to be good enough to get up and admit that I have never at any time—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have given my ruling on this, and the matter is now closed.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
The hon. Member is a liar and he knows it.

§ Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)
Withdraw!

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. There is so much noise I cannot hear what is being said.

§ Mr. Kirk
I almost hesitate to intervene. If the hon. Gentleman has done what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) says he has done, he deserves credit for it.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
Whatever hon. Members may say against me, or for me, I care not. They will, however, give me credit for this: I am not afraid to come here and say to any Minister, or ex-Minister or Whip or whoever, just what I think. When I say that what has been said is a lie, I know it is a lie, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles knows it.

§ Mr. Kirk
The hon. Gentleman has accused me of not coming here. I hope he will agree that I have been here tonight.
I want finally to deal with the travel allowance. It no longer covers travelling expenses. The idea was put up at one time by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), in a splendid statement, that we were living the life of Hollywood film stars. Far from it. I do not say that we are reduced to the breadline, but the allowance no longer covers the use of the charter flights. The charter fare is now exactly the same as the commercial fare. Our charter plane now helps out the commercial airline when it is overbooked, which is very satisfactory. We also contribute to the profits of nationalised industry, because we are using a nationalised charter airliner which would otherwise be flying empty and making no revenue. That is something that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and his hon. Friends would be the first to appreciate. I cannot understand why they complain.
Finally, I say to the four of my colleagues who are leaving—

§ Mr. English
rose—

§ Mr. Kirk
No, I shall not give way I say to the four of my colleagues who are leaving that I owe them a deep debt of gratitude. The four who are coming do not know what is in store for them, but they will regret it when they join.