EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)

HC Deb 25 April 1977 vol 930 cc961-92

10.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson)

I beg to move, That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if with this we also consider the next motion relating to the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1977.

Mr. Tomlinson

I seek the approval of the House for both orders. In the normal way, treaties create rights and obligations for us at international level only. However, in the case of Community treaties it may be necessary to ensure that some of the rights and obligations which they create can be invoked before the courts in this country. Some provisions of Community treaties entered into before 22nd January 1972, the date of Britain's signature of the Treaty of Accession to the Communities, apply in this way by virtue of the European Communities Act. However, the effect of the Act, and in particular Section 1(3), is that provisions in agreements entered into by the United Kingdom after this date generally cannot have direct effect in our courts unless they are designated as Community treaties by means of the special procedure provided there.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, in its report on these two orders, has drawn attention to the difficulty for Parliament in understanding orders of this sort on the basis of the information which the orders themselves contain. Because this report had only just become available—and the minutes of evidence given by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials on 22nd March had not yet been printed—the Government decided to withdraw the motions from debate as originally proposed on 24th March. Coming as I do to this procedure for the first time, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the Committee has said. It will never be possible to do away with such difficulties entirely. The Department will provide fuller explanaby memoranda to accompany future orders so as to help the House to the best of our ability.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am grateful that my hon. Friend has made that statement so early in the debate, because we were very concerned about that. However, will the explanatory memoranda clearly set out the purposes of the treaties that are referred to in the orders and the way in which they affect the United Kingdom, in much the same manner as the memoranda that are given to Members in respect of EEC regulations which are also debated in the House?

Mr. Tomlinson

I am sure my hon. Friend will understand if I say that I promise that that suggestion will be given the fullest consideration and that I shall communicate with him about it. I am not sure precisely of the legal problems in these matters, but I promise to give the suggestion full consideration and to come to it as soon as possible.

Mr. Spearing

That is not good enough.

Mr. Tomlinson

Well, that is what I suggest at present. As I was saying, we shall in future provide fuller explanatory memoranda to accompany future orders so as to help the House to the best of our ability.

The European Court has said what kind of treaty provisions are directly applicable as law in the member States. But the court's criteria are not always easy to apply in practice. It is not possible for the Government to state authoritatively which provisions might be so held. This is a matter for the courts to decide if and when cases come before them, and the last word on whether any particular provision is directly applicable lies with the European Court of Justice.

We bring these treaties before the House under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act to avoid the possibility that the European Court might at some future date decide that a particular article in a treaty is directly applicable and our own courts might be unable to follow suit. In such a situation the United Kingdom would be in breach of its international obligations. It would also deny the individual the rights he ought to have in our courts.

The first order relates to five treaties, three of which relate to Community agreements with Turkey. The EEC's original agreements with Turkey date back before United Kingdom membership. An association agreement was signed at Ankara on 12th September 1963 which sketched out in general terms the steps to be taken towards a customs union to be attained in the 1990s and envisaged, without setting any date, that Turkey should ultimately become a member of the Community. The Six signed an additional protocol to that agreement on 23rd November 1970 setting out measures to implement the second stage of the association agreement.

The original Six and Turkey signed an agreement to cover the ECSC field in 1970. The first two supplementary protocols we are dealing with today provide for the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland to become parties to all these agreements. Similarly the third item provides for the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland to become parties to the internal financial agreement concerning the EEC/Turkey Financial Protocol signed by the Community in 1970.

These three protocols bringing the new member States in were signed in June 1973. Since then the Government have been keeping the situation under careful review. The Government are now satisfied that the commitments involved are acceptable to the United Kingdom and have therefore decided that it is time to ratify the agreements. All the other member States have already done so, but Turkey itself has not.

The trade provisions of the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement and its additional protocol are already in force for the new member States as a result of an interim agreement signed on 30th June 1973.

A considerable amount of work has been completed between the Community and Turkey since United Kingdom accession to the Community in implementing the other provisions of the various agreements. In particular, the Community and Turkey agreed last December on measures to begin implementation of the provisions relating to free movement of workers. Because of the difficulty in current economic circumstances of providing for a fresh influx of Turkish migrant workers into the Community, the agreement reached on 20th December, to last four years, concentrates on improving the conditions of life and work for those migrant workers already within individual member States of the Community.

The main effect of the Supplementary Financial Agreement, the third treaty on our list, is to commit the United Kingdom to contribute 41 million units of account—£18 million—to the money already committed to Turkey by the Six. This will be paid in the form of direct contributions from the Government to the European Investment Bank, which will call upon the money from the Government after it has approved projects qualifying for these funds submitted to it by the Turkish Government.

The financial protocol for Malta, the fourth of the treaties, is one of a number of such protocols recently negotiated by the Community with Mediterranean countries. The protocol provides a sum of 26 million units of account—£10 million—to be used for capital projects. The Maltese will submit details of all projects to the Community, which will handle them in the same way as for Turkey.

The fifth treaty on our list concerns the Community's relations with Canada. A framework agreement for economic co-operation between the EEC and Canada was signed on 6th July 1976 and entered into force on 1st October last year. The EEC/Canada Agreement is the first to provide for economic co-operation between the Community and a developed country. It was signed on behalf of the EEC by the Council and on behalf of Euratom by the Commission, but not by individual member States. It is therefore already a Community treaty within the meaning of the European Communities Act. The present protocol extends these provisions into the ECSC field and, unlike the parent agreement, the individual member States are parties to it. It therefore requires to be specified as a Community treaty under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act.

The No. 2 order is split into two parts. Part I refers to several decisions of the member states of the ECSC. The first offers tariff preference for products originating in the overseas countries and territories associated with the Community. When the Lomé Convention with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States was signed in 1975 it was agreed that similar provision should be made in respect of the OCT.

The ECSC decisions establishing supervision of imports of certain products originating in Austria and Sweden follow from the ECSC agreements which were approved by the House in December 1972. The Agreements provided, inter alia, for the progressive dismantling of tariffs on iron and steel products by the original member States over a period of years. The two decisions proposed in the present order oblige member States to monitor imports of the sensitive products in 1977 and to keep the Commission informed of the tally.

Part II of the schedule contains protocols for the third extensions of the Wheat Trade and Food Aid Conventions of 1971. These conventions together constitute the International Wheat Agreement 1971. The conventions have been extended twice already and the House agreed to the specification of those extensions under Section 1(3).

The Community proposes to agree to the extension of the Wheat Trade and Food Aid Conventions for a further two years, pending progress in negotiations on a new Wheat Trade Convention. When the outcome of those negotiations is known, consideration will be given to the advisability of renegotiating the Food Aid Convention.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South)

We have before us a number of important treaties, but I suspect that hon. Members will want to discuss not only the substance of the treaties but the way in which they are presented and the kind of debate we are able to have on them. I should like to start by dealing with the latter aspect, because I feel that the time has now come, having had half a dozen or more debates on orders of this kind, to take a fresh look at the methods we use to consider such treaties.

The Under-Secretary of State referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which drew the special attention of both Houses to these two orders on the ground that their form and purport called for elucidation. I think that the Joint Committee was absolutely right to do that.

The hon. Gentleman has given the House what I think it would be right to call a fuller explanation on the content of the treaties than we have been accustomed to having in the past. He said that he would see what could be done to give the House more information in explanatory memoranda in future.

I think that there are two questions here. The first concerns the giving of general information to the House about the nature of the treaties that we are discussing. That is necessary, because 1 note that the explanatory memorandum on the first of these two orders summarises the content of the treaties referred to more briefly than the schedule to the order itself. Therefore, the explanatory memorandum does not help us very much, and I am glad that more information will be provided in future.

There is also the question of explaining to the House what aspects of the treaties are likely to be directly applicable in our own domestic law. In evidence to the Joint Committee, officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office suggested that there would be difficulty in covering this point in the explanatory memorandum because of the problem of forecasting what decisions a court might take. Therefore, the Committee said that it considered that this factor placed a responsibility on the Minister, when moving the necessary approval motion, to supply the elucidation which the instruments cannot provide.

With respect to the Committee, I wonder whether it is necessary to leave it to the Minister to supply that elucidation when opening the debate. Would it not be more useful to the House if that elucidation about what aspects of the treaties might be held directly applicable in our domestic law were provided in the explanatory memorandum? That would give us the opportunity beforehand to consider these issues, which are sometimes extremely complex and have legal aspects which some hon. Members require time to consider, rather than to wait for the Minister's opening speech, which would allow very little time to consider the matter. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will assure the House that the Government will consider that aspect of the question.

I have a second procedural point. It concerns the number of treaties that we are asked to consider in 90 minutes. I think that we have before us the worst example yet of the overcrowding of the programme. The next worst example was the case when the House, or perhaps a Committee upstairs, was asked to consider seven treaties in two orders together. Here we are being asked to consider 10 treaties in two orders. I suggest that that is excessive.

I understand from the evidence given to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that it is now the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see how far it can place in the same order treaties that have a common thread. We have in the first order treaties relating to Turkey, Malta and Canada. I am not entirely clear what the common thread is between these five treaties.

I must be frank and say that I strongly suspect that the only common thread is that a Minister takes a view at a certain point about how many treaties the House is prepared to swallow at one gulp. If, however, there is another common thread, perhaps the Minister will explain what it is. If there is a common thread in the first order, the Leader of the House makes nonsense of that by asking us to take two orders together. There cannot be a common thread between all 10 of the treaties in the two orders. To be asked to consider 10 treaties in 90 minutes is too much.

I wish to refer to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in a previous debate on a similar order. He mentioned the practice which was known to the Roman Senate of dealing with legislation per saturam. He explained that it was a practice known to the Roman Senate but disapproved of by the Senate, at any rate, in its better days. Here we have an example of per saturam with a vengeance, and I hope that we shall not have it again.

Another problem posed by considering so many treaties at the same time is that of finding a Minister who is able from his experience and responsibility to answer questions that may be put to him about all 10 treaties. It would be a remarkable feat if the Minister was able to do so tonight. I suggest that we should be taking these two orders on different occasions. That would at least reduce the difficulty for the House. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give an undertaking that he will discuss with the Leader of the House the points that I have made and see whether an improvement can be made for the convenience of the House in debates on future orders.

As to the substance of the orders, I wish to refer to the treaties on Turkey. These are important treaties. The protocol that we are considering first, enlarges the association agreement, and was signed in 1973. Certainly its importance has not diminished since 1973. I believe that this treaty alone would merit one and a half hours of debate in the House.

The House is well aware of the delicate position in the Eastern Mediterranean and is well aware of the sensitivity of relations between Greece and Turkey. It is also aware of the desire of Turkey that Greece's application for membership of the Community should not prejudice the position of Turkey. The Treaty of Association is relevant to all these important matters and to others that I have not mentioned.

When the Minister replies, the House will want to know what is the latest position on the progress of the association agreement in rather more detail than the Under-Secretary was able to give the House in his opening speech. The association agreement provides for preferential trade arrangements, the reduction of tariff barriers, financial aid, investment by the Community in Turkey and, eventual freer movement of labour, and it casts its eye towards eventual Turkish accession to the Community.

It is true to say that, at any rate late last year, relations between Turkey and the Community were not what we wanted them to be. I recall that last year's meeting of the Association Council was twice postponed, and the Turkish complaints were that concessions offered to them in the association agreement on tariffs were being devalued by the Community's concessions to other Mediterranean countries, that nothing significant had been done about the free movement of workers—although the Under-Secretary has explained that something was subsequently agreed on that score—that financial aid offered was not significant and that Turkey's trade deficit with the Community had risen to a substantial level.

I hope that the Minister who replies will be able to reassure us that relations between Turkey and the Community are not being prejudiced or are not likely to go on being prejudiced by disagreement on progress in the association agreement.

I must pass over intervening treaties, not because they are unimportant but because hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak and I do not want to take up too much time. I turn to the protocols on the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us the latest position on these protocols, which renew basic agreements for two years up to the middle of next year of until a new basic convention is signed, if that occurs earlier.

What progress is being made in the working out of new conventions under both headings, and what is the British position here? I understand that it was the Government's view in October that it was too early to replace the Food Aid Convention. It that still the Government's position? If so, why? I found the reasons given by the Government not very convincing. Indeed, they seemed to me to be reasons for a new convention on a different basis.

The protocol on food aid included in the second order states that the Community will have a minimum annual contribution of 1,287,000 tonnes of cereals. That looks pretty impressive because it is second only to the contribution of the United States and is very much bigger than the contribution of any other country.

However, the House would be unwise to assume that everything is well here. The Commission proposed in 1974 and in 1975 an increase in the volume of cereals to be provided by the Community under the food aid programme to match the efforts of other donors in response to the request made to them by the World Food Conference in 1974.

Even now those recommendations have not been approved and, according to the latest information I have been able to obtain, the Community is alone among major donors in not having responded to the conference's call for more aid. Is that still the case?

In September the Commission produced a three-year programme for food aid and suggested a minimum figure for cereals—the most important item—of 1,650,000 tonnes, which was a substantial increase on the figure in the protocol, and a maximum figure during the three years of 2½ million tonnes. It recommended that for 1977 the minimum figure should be adopted. As I understand it, that has still not been approved by the Council. This is against a background in which those who ought to know are forecasting that the cereal deficiency in the developing countries is likely to increase. I have seen one estimate suggesting that the potential net cereal deficit of all the developing countries by 1985 is likely to exceed 100 billion tons. That will be five times the deficit of 1972–74. This is a serious situation which, according to the best estimates, is likely to become even more serious.

What is the position of the Government with regard to approving the recommendations of the Commission for increased aid in cereals? I understand that last month's meeting of Development Ministers adjourned without taking any decision on the amount to be provided. Was this at the urging of Her Majesty's Government, and, if so, why? Does not the Minister agree that the time has come to take a decision on this matter?

I hope that the Minister will answer my questions on these two subjects and will assure us that he will look again, with his right hon. and hon. Friends, at the arrangements for the conduct of these debates so that the Government will never again ask us to approve 10 treaties in 90 minutes.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

It is no bagatelle that the House is debating in this hour and a half. The whole matter goes back to Section 1 (3) of the European Communities Act 1972. Some hon. Members will remember that when that measure was passing through the House it was described as legislation by prerogative, because the exercise of the prerogative in its treaty-making power had the incidental effect of directly creating laws applicable in the United Kingdom. As the Minister explained, that is why these two orders have to be brought before the House tonight under Section 1 (3) of the Act.

It is, therefore, a matter of great importance both as to the change which is being effected in the law of the United Kingdom and as to the setting, background and reasons for the change.

I entirely associate myself with the spokesman of the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), in saying that, although the Minister did his best to comply with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee in its Fifteenth Report, the Committee itself was, with respect, not recommending the most convenient procedure. It said that there is a responsibility on Ministers, when moving the necessary approval motions in either House, to supply the elucidation which the instruments themselves cannot provide. However intently one listened to the Minister reading the brief—and it appeared to be a clearly-expressed explanatory brief on the background to these treaties—it would be no substitute for providing Members with the opportunity beforehand of studying the explanation, deciding whether there were matters which they wished to raise with the Government and bringing them up on the Floor of the House.

I hope that the Government will do better or will undertake to do better than they have done tonight. I hope that they will do better than the Joint Select Committee requested and that in future, when orders of this kind come to be presented, the order on publication will be accompanied by what amounts to a brief White Paper setting out broadly the background as the Minister gave it tonight and, secondly, embodying the specific areas in which it is possible that the making of the treaty has altered directly the law of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tomlinson

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way as it gives me a chance to comment both to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, which has largely been echoed by the right hon. Gentleman, that there should be a further detailed explanation of the treaty in the explanatory memorandum. I am happy to give the assurance that that can be done and that it will be done in future, although it is not possible to do it in the explanatory note in the order itself as treaties are not part of the order.

Mr. Powell

I was about to say, taking issue perhaps marginally with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), that an explanatory note to an order is a rather clumsy and inadequate vehicle for the kind of explanation that is desirable in these cases. I think that we shall have to have some form of accompanying document that is not as cramped as the letterpress that is printed at the foot of Statutory Instruments.

Mr. Spearing

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, unlike a regulation, which we may debate on a purely advisory basis, a document that we may have for a definition of treaties is legislation under the treaty, and a memorandum duplicated for our own purposes inside the House will certainly not be good enough for the United Kingdom electorate? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the explanation should be on the note itself?

Mr. Powell

Whether or not it is on the note itself—perhaps this is a matter of detail—I agree that the explanatory memorandum of a sometimes rather ephemeral character that accompanies our normal EEC operations at this time of night is not appropriate. Further, the explanation should be fairly discursive and full. Whatever is the convenient vehicle for that purpose is the one that I hope the Government will adopt. At the same time, I believe that it should be the vehicle for the indication of the area in which direct applicability is or may be involved.

One takes the Government's argument that in the last resort—this is also true of a Bill that is presented by a Government—it cannot be known until a court has given a decision exactly where the boundaries lie, but that has never deterred Governments from explaining the effect of a Bill. It should not deter them from explaining what they believe will be the relevant areas.

I believe that the Government will find that, by taking the long way round, their journey will be shorter. I appreciate that unless the treaties involved the possibility of direct applicability of Community law the Government would not be bringing them before the House in this form. I am sure that they will not make the mistake of saying that we should not be getting explanations of these treaties but for Section 1(3) and, therefore, it is unreasonable for them to be expected to give the sort of background for which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South was justifiably asking. I think that this evening we are doing good work for the future.

I turn to grouping. Again, this is a matter where the Government will find that the longest way round is the shortest journey. As has been said, we have not two orders on five treaties; we have one order on 10 treaties as we are taking the two orders in one debate. We are, in effect, proceeding per saturam in the manner of a salad with different items mixed up together in it. We are doing so on the scale of taking 10 treaties at once.

There is only one rational way in which treaties can be arranged for this purpose—namely, by grouping according to their content and according to no other criterion. That, tonight, would involve five separate orders, three covering order No. 1 and two covering order No. 2.

There is a very entertaining answer in the minutes of evidence taken before the Joint Committee from one of the Foreign Office witnesses who, when asked why these treaties were lumped together for the purposes of an order, said: There has always been a problem about this, to be honest"— words which always should be taken as sounding a warning. One of the problems has been consciousness of … Parliamentary time. The practice has been to attempt to group together, as in this case, a fairly manageable group of treaties and designate them in one Order I do not know whether the official concerned was meant to be as honest as that, but he revealed what is before the House this evening.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

It was a female.

Mr. Powell

I did not know that I had indicated the sex or implied that honesty was restricted to the female sex. But, male or female, he or she was honest with the Committee and has been useful to the House.

I repeat that there is only one way in which these treaties can be presented in these orders. It is that each order should contain either one treaty or a group of treaties which are connected in their subject matter—and closely and integrally connected. I do not believe that in practice this will cost the Government very much, if anything, by way of extra time. It is the very suspicion of being shortchanged on time which often results in prolonging debate.

These orders can be sent upstairs under our procedure if the House is agreeable, and no doubt the minor orders involving treaties where no ground of controversy arose could be dealt with in that way. Several could be dealt with in one sitting of the Statutory Instruments Committee.

I hope that tonight we have established a new order of affairs for dealing with the kind of instrument which is bound to come before the House from time to time and which we are under an obligation to treat with due solemnity since it is indirectly but nonetheless effectively a piece of legislation for the United Kingdom.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

It is indeed legislation, and, although the matter we are discussing may not be of front-rank importance, important though it is, it could be that at some future stage another treaty designated a Community treaty might have very important and profound implications for the United Kingdom, yet the procedure would be precisely the same as that which we are going through now.

Not only does this procedure ratify future treaties which may come; it also makes their application directly applicable in law in the United Kingdom. Many of these treaties have been made already, some of them before our own accession. But it could be that future treaties had the same effect.

The procedure is extremely controversial and it one which was disapproved by many hon. Members present tonight at the time of the European Communities Act itself. It is worth recalling, especially in view of our earlier debate, that on 8th December 1975 this House approved a treaty which amended the Treaty of Rome itself. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I were the only Back Benchers to take part in the debate.

It is doubtful whether the House, still less the country, knows that the Treaty of Rome has been thus amended. The Order Paper said nothing about it. It simply said "Definition of Treaties Order". The order itself said nothing about it. The appendix at the back did not even mention the Treaty of Rome. It referred merely to the foundation treaties of the Community. The explanatory note did not mention the Treaty of Rome. Again, eight or nine treaties were involved, including a pre-accession treaty with Greece. They thus went through with inadequate debate and scrutiny. This was largely because the nature of the treaties and because the decision that the House was asked to make was hidden. This is not just legislation by treaty. Under our present procedures, it is legislation by stealth as well.

We come now to these definitions of treaties, and our dissatisfaction must be put on record. These Statutory Instruments went to a Joint Committee with their Lordships to be dealt with, but the House was asked, by a motion on 14th March, to send them upstairs to the Statutory Instruments Committee before the Joint Committee's report had been printed. That report was duplicated and made available to hon. Members, but the evidence from the Foreign Office officials was neither printed nor made available. This is the sort of thing that annoys even strong supporters of the Government on the question of the powers of this House in relation to the EEC. There was no need for such a situation.

It was only because 20 hon. Members rose in their places at the right time that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House. Otherwise, the debate on the substance would have taken place upstairs and the only way in which one could have found out what the treaties were about and the possible effects on legislation in this country would have been to read the Hansard of the Statutory Instruments Committee. I suggest again that that would have been legislation by stealth, and it is not good enough. That is why the procedural aspects of this matter are well to the fore tonight.

I want to deal with some of the evidence put by officials of the Foreign Office. They were in a difficulty, as the House is, because of this procedure. They could not tell the Joint Committee with accuracy the way in which the treaties could or were likely to be legislatively binding. They pointed out that the circumstances were unforeseeable, particularly on the commercial side, and that the case law on which any future applicability would be based would not be the determinations of our own courts but the determinations of the European courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) asked whether they meant the European Court. The answer was "Yes".

Had I managed to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in the debate on direct elections to the European Parliament, I would have shown the extent to which we are already bound up with the legislative machine in Brussels and with the European Court, but this debate provides an illustration of the extent to which the House has already lost power in dealing with the Community's grip on legislation in this country.

The Joint Committee's report said that it would be a good thing if on the motion for approval the Minister explained these treaties and the way in which they were binding on the country, but that is still not good enough. The explanation should be on the face of the order itself, or at least in the explanatory note. My hon. Friend said that it might be possible to provide an explanatory memorandum such as that which is attached to regulations, but our debates on regulations are not of the same standing. They are a discussion in which we tell the Minister what we think of a draft regulation or directive. We are not legislating per se.

That, however, is not the case with the procedure upon which we are here engaged. With a Statutory Instrument defining a European treaty, the purpose of the explanatory memorandum is to spell out what that treaty does, what its relations are with previous treaties and the ways in which it is likely to impinge on the commerce or the law of this country. It is designed also, without being exact—it is impossible to be exact—to show how it might affect proceedings in this country.

I understand that that may not be possible for a technical reason that we may hear about. If that is so, it shows just how defective is the procedure under Sections 1(2) and 1(3) of the European Communities Act. We said at the time that it was defective, and my hon. Friend the Minister will prove that tonight by saying that it is impossible to put on the explanatory note what the instrument is about. We are not legislating for ourselves here. We are legislating for the citizens of the United Kingdom on their behalf. When a citizen reads a Statutory Instrument which affects him, he has the right to read in it what that instrument does. Since that is not possible in this case, it shows that, arguments about sovereignty and so on apart, the original Act is sadly wanting technically.

I hope that there will never be a repetition of my Government putting on the Order Paper a motion to send a document to a Committee upstairs when the House cannot tell, since that document has not been printed, whether it merits a debate on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking on that score even if he cannot give other undertakings.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. He took the point made by the Joint Select Committee that there should be some form of further explanation of these orders to make clear to the House and those who wish to debate the orders which parts of them will become part of the law of the United Kingdom. The recommendation of the Joint Select Cornmittee has been criticised in the debate tonight. I take that criticism. This debate has proved that that recommendation was not enough.

The Minister did his best to explain the treaties. He did not explain the one thing with which we are concerned—the parts of the treaties which by the orders will become part of United Kingdom law. If that is not to be done from the Dispatch Box, the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee is no good as it stands—I say that as Chairman of the Committee—but should perhaps go further.

When the United Kingdom joined the Community in 1972, all the treaties into which members of the then Community had entered before 22nd January 1972 bound this country as if we had made the treaties and had ratified them. Behind the orders there are half a dozen pre-accession treaties. Such parts of those treaties as can be part of United Kingdom law are part already, but the treaties have now been amended, and the orders contain the 10 amendments.

With a metaphorical towel around my head, this afternoon I tried to examine the amendments to the pre-accession treaties and to guess what parts of those treaties were now part of United Kingdom law, or would be after the orders were passed. Obviously, in certain cases—where we are bound to reduce tariffs over a period, where we are bound to make certain contributions for aid to Turkey, Malta or other countries—that is possible, but it is the Government's obligation to tell us, rather than for Back Benchers to try to guess through research in Command Papers.

If I understand how the 10 items came into the orders—and they are a mixed bag—I imagine that when the treaties are made, dated and signed they then arrive on the desk of a civil servant in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They do not affect our law until they are ratified. I imagine that the official gets the treaty in one hand and the case of Defrenne v. Sabena in the other and asks himself "Is there anything in this treaty—and if so, what—which, first, imposes a clear and precise obligation on the United Kingdom?" If it does prima facie it becomes part of our law after we have passed the orders. He next asks "Secondly, if it is clear and precise, is that obligation unconditional and without limitation? Thirdly, is it not subject to the adoption of any subsequent rules or regulations by the Community or the United Kingdom? Fourthly and finally, does it leave the United Kingdom with no real discretion to get out of it?"

I have thus summarised the rules laid down by the European Court in Defrenne v. Sabena for the parts of the treaty which can become part of United Kingdom law. If one line of a treaty complies with those requirements, the whole treaty should be an item in the orders, designated as a treaty one part of which comes within our law. What part? This is where we are in difficulty with the orders as they stand.

Surely at that stage, when the Minister's adviser has Defrenne and Sabena in one hand and the treaty in the other, he writes a memorandum to his Minister saying "This treaty must be designated because", or "This treaty does not need to be designated because it makes no alteration in our law. It does not comply with the criteria laid down in this case." But somebody must advise the Minister, and the Minister must decide.

The Minister must decide on some reason. Why should not the House be told that? Does the House need to be kept in the dark over the reason why the Minister has been advised and has decided that these 10 treaties should appear in these two Statutory Instruments tonight? They appear here only because one line, perhaps, of the whole of the treaty will affect the whole of the law of the United Kingdom. We ought to be told at an early stage "We are designating these treaties because we are of opinion that such-and-such becomes the law of the country once we have ratified the treaties."

If I can be rude about it, it is cowardly rubbish to say that the courts have to decide this. The courts have to decide the effect of every Bill. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, the courts have to decide the effect of every Statutory Instrument that we approve. To say "Sorry, we are not going to tell you why we are discussing these treaties, why we think they affect the law" is not good enough.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Why cannot the Select Committee, established by this House, demand copies of such minutes from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Mr. Page

I am not sure that we have the right to demand. I shall look up our terms of reference to see whether the House has given us that right. We usually rely on the officials who give evidence before us to be frank about matters, and I think that they were frank in this case. Whether they had considered it sufficiently I do not know. They were not prepared to commit themselves to which parts of these treaties became part of United Kingdom law. All I am saying is that they must have advised the Minister on this at some stage, and I see no reason why the House should not be told that.

It is a question of the form in which the House should be told. It has been said that the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee that the House should be told in the course of the debate, first, has been proved wrong tonight and, secondly, is unsatisfactory in that it does not give hon. Members time to prepare their arguments or to consider the matter fully before the debate. The alternative is to put an additional memorandum in the Vote Office, rather as one does on EEC documents when we are debating EEC matters. I do not think that that is satisfactory. It does not put the matter sufficiently on record.

The alternative that has been proposed tonight is to enlarge the explanatory note at the end of the Statutory Instrument. There are certain principles about explanatory notes. The first is that they should not argue a case. The second is that they should not express opinions. If we disobey those rules, which have been recognised for many years, we might have all sorts of strange explanatory notes to Statutory Instruments. I should rather leave those rules and let it be a brief statement of the effect of the Statutory Instrument.

An explanation should be given at a much earlier stage. In the schedules to these Statutory Instruments we are referred to Command Papers. Those Command Papers merely print the treaties and a few letters that follow the treaties. Taking the Command Papers that are mentioned in the schedules, I notice that No. 5548 deals with the treaty in June 1973 and was laid before the House in March 1974—quite a long lapse. No. 6640 deals with the treaty in March 1976 and was not laid before the House until November 1976. No. 6632 deals with a treaty in July 1976 and was laid before the House in October 1976. There is plenty of time in which to consider the treaties and what effect they will have on our law before they are put in a Command Paper.

I see no reason why the Minister should not also print in the Command Paper a statement that the Government are of opinion that a treaty ought to be designated because it will affect the United Kingdom law and such-and-such. That would be completely on the record in the Command Papers—they are not ephemeral pieces of paper that are put in the Vote Office, duplicated and lost the next day—and it would not breach the rules about explanatory notes. Command Papers are published well in advance of debates. We would not be relying on the Minister to explain at the time of the debate.

That is my suggestion for enabling the House to discuss these treaties and how they affect the law of this country. I see no reason at all why such statements of the Government's opinion should not be made. We all know that the courts may come to a different decision. Time and time again we have had ministerial statements in Committee or on Report expressing an opinion, and later we have found the courts decide completely contrary to them. That is not unusual.

If when printing a treaty in a Command Paper the Minister was prepared to state that the Government thought that the treaty ought to be designated because certain clauses would become part of United Kingdom law, we should all be clear, we should be able to debate the matter clearly and our debates would have far greater purpose.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Frank Holey (Sheffield, Heeley)

This is the most preposterous exercise that the House has ever been called upon to do. It is not merely a question of ratifying 10 treaties in 90 minutes—that is, nine minutes per treaty. There is also the question, if I understand Part I of the schedule to the second Order correctly, that it affects our agreement under the Lomé Convention. That is an agreement with 49 other countries. In effect, in the space of 90 minutes, we are being asked to debate matters that will affect the relationships of this country with about 54 other countries. In addition, food aid treaties are added which will certainly affect our relationships with more countries than that. We are effectively being asked to ratify treaties that will have a bearing on the relationship of the United Kingdom with about half the countries of the world. I can hardly imagine a more preposterous suggestion than that.

I share the views of hon. Members who think that there should be a proper explanation of the substance of these documents. It should fall mainly in the explanatory note. I take the point of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that explanatory notes are not supposed to be arguments in favour of a particular policy, but surely it is perfectly feasible to set out substantially the effect or substance of the treaties that we are expected to ratify.

I am also rather attracted by the suggestion that in the original Command Paper there should be not only the text of the various agreements and protocols but also a preliminary or appendixed statement by the Government of the day as to how they see the effect of these agreements in relation to the United Kingdom. That is a useful suggestion which ought to be followed up. I certainly believe that the explanatory note to an order of this kind ought to state clearly what the main substance of the treaty or agreement represents. It is quite outrageous to have what is called here an "explanatory note" which in effect explains nothing and tells neither the House nor our constituents what the effect of these various treaties is.

I also object most strongly to the lumping together of things as disparate as agreements between Turkey, Malta and Canada on the one hand and the Lomé countries and agreements with Austria and Sweden on the other. Paragraph 5 of the schedule to the first order makes a passing reference to Euratom. I am intrigued to know whether this has any bearing on the nuclear policy of Canada and this country, and, if so, what. I do not know.

More seriously, paragraphs 2 and 3 of part I of the schedule to the second order apparently have some relationship to imports of certain products from Austria and Sweden. My own city, Sheffield, is currently very much exercised about imports of steel from those two countries. I am intrigued to know whether those two decisions, agreements or treaties, which we are now supposed to ratify, have any bearing in the import of steel and whether they give to us or take away from us powers to restrict, control or otherwise determine imports of steel from Austria and Sweden, which are very important competitors of ours within Europe. We ought to have some information from the Minister about that.

I was very much taken by the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) about the Food Aid Convention. This is something at which the House should look very closely. In this matter the record of the EEC has in some respects not been all that should be expected of it. We are entitled to some comment from the Government as to the exact effect of these two protocols.

However, my general point remains. The House is being treated in a quite ridiculous fashion in the presentation of 10 agreements of this kind, covering relationships with 54 countries and probably as many as 100 countries. That we should be expected to debate them in 90 minutes is an insult to the procedure of the House.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

I apologise for the fact that I was absent from the Chamber for the first few minutes of the debate. I am, therefore, sure that I missed some very significant remarks by the Minister.

It seems to me that we owe a debt of gratitude to a number of people for the very fact that we are now debating this matter at all. That debt is owed partly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), for his diligence as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and partly to hon. Members who insisted that this debate should be deferred until such time as the report from that Committee was available.

When the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments takes evidence from witnesses on very important Statutory Instruments, the House owes it to the Committee to defer the debate until its evidence is available. The very fact that initially it was proposed that this draft Statutory Instrument should be put to the House before any report was considered was placing the Joint Committee and the Select Committee—without any intention, I am sure, on the part of the Government—in a position that was not intended. The Joint Committee is an important Committee which considers these Statutory Instruments in some depth. If the House is to consider delegated legislation properly, it should wait for the reports before considering these matters.

Therefore, we should thank hon. Members whose pressures have resulted in at least a deferment of the debate. The deferment in itself has been very valuable. From the tenor of the discussion, I gather that we have had at least some undertaking that in future there will not be this lumping together of the number of treaties with which we are faced tonight and that we shall be given a greater explanation in some form.

In that respect, it seems to me that the best possible form that the explanation could take—here I disagree slightly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby—is that it should be attached to the Statutory Instrument itself. Normally, that is the document that the House considers. As we know, there are explanatory memoranda attached to Community regulations, but they do not have a legislative form. At least in the case of the draft Statutory Instrument before us, the explanatory memoranda forms part of the same document. It is relatively easy, therefore, for any hon. Member at a glance to see—one hopes that he can see—the significance of a particular document.

As it happens, we might well have had some 10 treaties or protocols or amendments to treaties to pass tonight that would have had practical applicability in United Kingdom law. That is why we owe a debt of gratitude to hon. Members for the fact that that is not so. Nothing could be more deplorable than enacting 10 items of United Kingdom law which are almost incomprehensible to hon. Members in the House, let alone to people outside. Although these items may seem meaningless, they may have a considerable impact on the lives of United Kingdom citizens.

We must not accept this sort of situation in future, and the Minister has indicated that this will not be done again. I hope that we shall have separate orders for treaties of this kind, even if some of them seem insignificant. They should be separated and accompanied by an explanatory memorandum in printed form. That would allow the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments to consider the matter properly and would enable the House of Commons to take full cognisance of the new law as part of United Kingdom law.

I do not in any way criticise the civil servants for drafting the order in the way it is presented to us tonight. In the evidence given before the Select Committee, it seems to me that there was no intention whatsoever to rush these things or disguise the difficulties. The civil servants were frank and helpful. These treaties are dealing with things that have not yet been decided in law and there are enormous areas of doubt. On page 2 of the minutes of evidence, one civil servant, responding to questions, said: I may perhaps illustrate our hesitancy a little by mentioning one case before the European Court, the case of Defrenne v. SABENA where we all thought that a particular provision in the European Economic Community Treaty itself was not directly applicable, and we argued so before the Court. The Court held us to be wrong in that case. So we cannot always be sure that we have come to the right answer. In a number of cases there is a great area of doubt. Personally, I do not think these doubts should prevent Ministers from drafting a proper explanatory memorandum on the document itself. If there are areas of doubt, it is not impossible to mention that fact in the explanatory memorandum. After all, that is the reason for the document being brought before the House. Even if it is a departure from past practice, in the case of these very important treaties the explanatory note should incorporate the areas of doubt where there might be applicability of the treaties to our domestic law.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)

I shall take only two or three minutes as I understand that the Minister wishes to reply. If the House should make the mistake of approving these orders, It will do so without any knowledge of what that approval is about. Not one hon. Member on either side of the House has the slightest idea about them. [Interruption]. That is a plain and simple fact. I listened very carefully to the debate, and the bone of contention is that the nature of the orders is understandable but that the specific details are not known to us.

Mr. Graham Page

We know exactly what is in the treaties that is in the Command Paper. We are in doubt about what parts will become United Kingdom law.

Mr. Leadbitter

Yes, that is precisely the problem, and those are the parts referred to in the orders.

From time to time we have an important Common Market debate in this House in which we make pleas for explanations and clarity. We have had promises about this which have never materialised. It is no good the Minister nodding his head tonight, because it is as certain as we are complaining about it that there will be another occasion when we make the same plea and we get the same nods. The House of Commons is not aware of the danger which exists in having virtually no control over matters coming from the EEC.

My complaint is serious. I represent a steel community. A number of these treaties and amendments refer to steel. They refer, in effect, to the future employment of people working in the steel industry in this country. The amendments to these treaties—the arrangements have been made by the representative Governments of the Nine—make certain firm undertakings regarding imports, tariff preferences, protocol and financial arrangements.

There is a danger that, unless we are alive to the fact, the shape, size, nature and marketing possibilities of the British Steel Corporation will come more under the control of the European Coal and Steel Community and under the Treaty of Rome than has been made known to the House of Commons. Unless this is made clear once and for all, we shall be moving towards a situation where one day the Government will have to admit that they have no real control over the large issue of the shape and size of our own industry.

Before we approve a document of this kind and these treaties, we have a right to know what effect they will have on the iron and steel industry at a time when there are large-scale proposals for rationalisation involving closures and reductions in manpower.

I have a right to put my complaint to the House. Therefore 4,000 steel workers in my constituency. Unless some change is made, there could be a serious addition to the unemployment level there which is now very high. I hope that the message has got across to the Government. Of course, they may say that I am aggravating the situation. I am not. This is a matter about which I have complained for some years, and hope that the Government will take note of it.

There is no reason why the Government should not listen to views expressed in the House of Commons. They should explain matters fully in an explanatory note, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), so that hon. Members may possibly make more informed contributions in the exceptionally limited time that is given to the House to debate these matters.

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher)

We have had an important and valuable debate in which some substantive points have been made. I shall try to answer them in the time available to me.

I want to start by putting in perspective the nature of the debate, because it may be that some hon. Members have not seen it in the appropriate context. The House is being asked to approve whether any directly applicable provisions of these treaties should be given effect as United Kingdom law by virtue of Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act.

Technically, a Community Treaty is one of the pre-accession treaties listed in Part I of the Treaty of Accession or any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities with or without any of the member States. But sometimes a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom, as a result of membership of the EEC, does not automatically qualify in that way—in particular, decisions of the Council sitting as representatives of the member States of the European Coal and Steel Community. Such decisions certainly settle international obligations and authorise Government action to implement tariff changes.

But such treaties, because of the legal position of the Council under the Treaty of Paris, are not Community treaties as defined in the European Communities Act. However, Section 1(3) of that Act provides that such a treaty can be specified in an Order in Council, and if approved by both Houses of Parliament it becomes defined as a Community treaty. That is the very narrow purpose and the context of the debate tonight.

The definition of those treaties has the very narrow objective—I say this with care—of ensuring that any possible rights or obligations of, for example, private citizens which are created by the treaty can be invoked before the United Kingdom courts. Without definition, the treaty would create rights and obligations on the international level only. To that extent we are not ratifying treaties. We are solely securing the purpose that I have outlined. If a treaty does not contain provisions which, it is thought, might give rise at some time to such rights and obligations, there is no point in such definition. We thought it right to play safe in this respect.

In answer to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who asked for a precise definition of the parts of the treaties that might be enforceable in the United Kingdom as a result of the approval of this order tonight—if it is approved—I say that it is difficult even for legal advisers to say for certain that a treaty must or need not be so defined. I believe that the only course that the Government can take in such cases is to play safe in the way that we have done.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) made a point which was reiterated by several other hon. Members. He said that the Government should provide fuller memoranda in future. We have certainly taken that point fully on board. It has been strongly emphasised tonight. The Member quoted an extract from the Fifteenth Report, which said that it was the responsibility of Ministers to supply the elucidation that the instruments themselves cannot provide. I accept that that is not enough and that more information must be provided.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who insisted that it should be part of a fuller explanatory note, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already indicated that it is not appropriate to have a fuller explanatory note, simply because the explanatory note can only spell out what an order is about. These orders have a very precise and technical purpose, quite apart from the argument of the right hon. Member for Crosby about explanatory notes not engaging in argument.

Mr. Spearing

I am grateful for the explanation. It may mean that we shall have to change the legislation about the area that explanatory notes can cover. Nevertheless, it means that the procedure as such is wholly wrong. We feel, therefore, that we may need to demonstrate that tonight, to draw attention to the completely wrong way in which notification of this legislation to the British public it being achieved.

Mr. Meacher

It is for my right hon. Friend to decide on the appropriate longterm response that we should make in the House to the position in which we find ourselves.

I hope that we have fully met my hon. Friend's requests that there should be fuller information provided about the nature of the treaties that are to be defined and the purpose of the order. I agree that it is technical and that it is difficult for many ordinary people to understand and that it should be spelt out.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Is my hon. Friend giving an assurance that in future the Government will publish some form of memorandum simultaneously with the order, giving the information for which we have asked? Is that definite?

Mr. Meacher

I am very sympathetic to the request that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South made, which has been voiced on both sides of the House. I hope that he will leave it to us to examine the best way in which that can be done. I believe that it may best be done by explanatory memoranda, but I am sure that he does not want me to try to answer him immediately. We shall examine the matter and come back to the House with an answer on that point.

The other main point about the procedure to be adopted concerned the number of treaties that we are asking the House to consider. There are 10 treaties and the hon. Member for Blackpool, South doubted whether there was a common thread running through them. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the Government should bring forward only orders that were closely and integrally related in terms of their subject matter.

If we divided up these matters as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it would make considerable demands on parliamentary time. He suggested that the orders should be taken in Committee upstairs, but my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South pointed out that it was as a result of the action of 20 hon. Members—which I respect—in standing at the appropriate time and insisting that these matters should be taken on the Floor of the House that we are dealing with them now. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways.

It is not true to say that there is no common thread. All the orders are about reduced tariffs and free trade arrangements or about aid to developing countries. Three of the treaties in the first order concern Turkey and the other two relate to EEC bilateral agreements. Three of the treaties in the second order are ECSC treaties and the other two are extensions of treaties which have already been extended previously. Therefore, it cannot be fairly said that this is an indigestible salad. There is a certain gastronomic thread there.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South asked about the agreement with Turkey on free movement of labour. The Community and Turkey have agreed that, because of the difficult economic circumstances, the first stage will concentrate on improving conditions of living for Turkish workers and their families who are already within member States rather than on providing for a fresh influx of Turkish workers. I accept that there may be two more stages, but their content will depend on circumstances at the time. I cannot say more at present, but their content cannot go beyond the provisions of Article 36 of the additional protocol to the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement. It will certainly be relatively restrictive.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South also asked about the Wheat Trade Convention. Discussions on formulating an internationally acceptable arrangement have been proceeding for the past two years, but the issues are rather complex, and diverse interests have to be satisfied. More time is needed to work out the provisions to be included and their technical operation. We believe that two years is necessary to complete negotiations for a new agreement.

The question of whether the Food Aid Convention, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred, should be renegotiated or even continued after June next year is still open and there must be discussion within the Community. I do not accept that renegotiation of that convention represents the only, or even necessarily the best, way of honouring our undertakings to the World Food Conference. I should be glad to discuss this matter further, but I do not have the time now. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue it in correspondence, I shall be glad to try to assist him.

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) about Canada and Euratom, I can assure him that this has no bearing

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

Resolved,

That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

on nuclear policy but is concerned with mutual guaranteeing of most-favoured nation treatment in trade terms.

In regard to the treaties with Austria and Sweden, the ECSC decision on indicative ceilings gives us some protection since it limits the tonnages of special steels—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley is particularly concerned in Sheffield—exported to the EEC and thus to the United Kingdom.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 71, Noes 21.

Division No. 109]	AYES	[11.30 p.m.
Archer, Peter	Harper, Joseph	Rodgers, Rt Hon W. (Stockton)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Bates, Alf	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Rowlands, Ted
Beith, A. J.	John, Brynmor	Shepherd, Colin
Bishop, E. S.	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Small, William
Blaker, Peter	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Judd, Frank	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Snape, Peter
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Luard, Evan	Stallard, A. W.
Cockcroft, John	McCartney, Hugh	Steel, Rt Hon David
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael	McElhone, Frank	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Cohen, Stanley	MacKenzie, Gregor	Tinn, James
Coleman, Donald	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Tomlinson, John
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Trotter, Neville
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Marks, Kenneth	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Cryer, Bob	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Meacher, Michael	Ward, Michael
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Weatherill, Bernard
Doig, Peter	Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Dormand, J. D.	Montgomery, Fergus	Whitlock, William
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Eadie, Alex	Penhaligon, David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES;
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Price, William (Rugby)	Mr. David Stoddart and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Rathbone, Tim	Mr. Ted Graham

NOES
Allaun, Frank	Kerr, Russell	Skinner, Dennis
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Lambie, David	Spearing, Nigel
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Loyden, Eddie	Watt, Hamish
Canavan, Dennis	Madden, Max	Wise, Mrs Audrey
English, Michael	Mikardo, Ian
Evans, John (Newton)	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Flannery, Martin	Richardson, Miss Jo	Mr. Ted Leadbitter and
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Rooker, J. W.	Mr. Frank Hooley
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas