HC Deb 19 March 1974 vol 870 cc847-9
Q5. Mr. Silvester

asked the Prime Minister whether he will apoint a Minister with responsibility for European Community secondary legislation as recommended by a Select Committee of the House.

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend the Lord President informed the House yesterday of the Government's intention to implement the main recommendations contained in the second report of the Select Committee on European Community Secondary Legislation. Detailed proposals will be brought before the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Silvester

Does the Prime Minister accept the basic proposition of that report, that it is most important to make sure that there is ministerial res- ponsibility for the legislation emanating from Brussels? If he does not intend to appoint a Minister, how does he intend to bring that ministerial responsibility to bear?

The Prime Minister

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman, on his return as a Member of the House, supporting the view that we put when we were in opposition, with little success, against the then Government about ministerial and parliamentary responsibility. The proposal in the report for an additional Law Officer—a Queen's Advocate—will be considered. I should like to see what progress we make in the renegotiations before deciding what ministerial changes are necessary.

Mr. Kinnock

Is my right hon. Friend sure that he has enough Ministers? Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition has appointed no fewer than three shadow Ministers, each without portfolio, for reasons best known to himself? The most recent appointment was that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who, according to The Times of 14th March, has it as his brief to roam around Europe and the world exploring the advantages of the private sector and then to report back to the Leader of the Conservative Party, whoever the leader may then be?

The Prime Minister

I do not think there is any ministerial responsibility there for me. I understand that my hon. Friend's question, referring to Ministers, was to be taken in a quantitative and not a qualitative sense.

We have the interesting situation that my predecessor introduced legislation severely limiting the number of Ministers and then set up a new Department. He had the difficulty I now have of being unable to pay one member of the Cabinet. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will feel that this is unfair and that we are all concerned. If necessary, I shall organise a whip-round for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Marten

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is slightly misleading that the legislation referred to in the Question should be called secondary legislation? Is he aware that it is only secondary to the Treaty of Rome and that in our Parliament it is primary legislation? Cannot we drop the expression "secondary legislation"?

The Prime Minister

I am not responsible for the framing of the Question. I think that the Member who framed it was basing it on the title of the report. I agree with what the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has said. We urged in opposition, when these matters were considered, that, whatever one thought of the terms of entry, changes in legislation which have been hammered out through the full parliamentary process should be made through a similar process.