Lords Sitting of 2 March 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE IN 1967–68
3.6 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government

(i) why the increase of £660 million in their planned expenditure for 1967 over that of the previous year, which is an increase of 8·5 per cent., is stated to be an increase of only 5 per cent. at constant prices;

(ii) what is meant by "constant prices"

(iii) whether the 3½ per cent. difference between 8·5 per cent. and 5 per cent. is a measure of the ineffectiveness of the Government's prices and incomes policies, or of the degree to which Her Majesty's Government have been blown off course.]

LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the increase of £660 million (after allowing for classification changes) in the Supply Estimates for 1967–68 as compared with 1966–67, represents a rise of 8·5 per cent. in money terms. Of this increase of £660 million, some £261 million is directly attributable to identifiable changes in costs. The remainder, £399 million, or 5 per cent., represents the extent to which the total of the Estimates has risen for reasons other than changes in costs. It is in this sense that it has been described as an increase at constant prices. The significance of this figure is that it provides a broad measure of the extent to which the 1967–68 Estimates represent, an additional claim on the nation's resources of manpower, materials and equipment.
The answer to the last part of the Question is, "No". The greater part of
1170
the £261 million rise in costs is attributable to developments before the standstill in prices and incomes. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the comparable rise in the previous year of some £378 million.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether the ordinary citizen may follow the example of Her Majesty's Government and make appropriate adjustments, for instance, in the amount of his income or pension, in returns to the Inland Revenue?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I followed the noble Lord's question, but if I did I would say that what we are seeking to do, after a good deal of pruning, is to provide some of the services which the State obviously requires.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether "constant price" means a price which is constantly going, up?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord should read what I have said, and then perhaps he might understand.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question?—but before I do so perhaps your Lordships would allow me to say, on behalf of all of us in the House, how very glad we are to see the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, back, looking, if I may say so, very well.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CARRINGTON: Would the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, agree that increased social expenditure should be financed out of the growing expansion of British industry and that we should not cash our cheques until the money is in the bank?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is a great deal of wisdom in what the noble Lord has said. What the Government have sought to do is within what the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the other place in a Statement which I repeated in your Lordships' House: to contain the increase in public expenditure at constant prices, taking one year with another, at some 4¼ per cent.

1171
In 1966–67 we had an increase of 1·8 per cent. at constant prices, and in 1967–68 we propose an increase of 5 per cent., which shows an average of 3·4 per cent. over the two years. I should have thought we had achieved the objective which the Chancellor set out in 1965.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, is it not a fact that when the suggestion was made that this kind of increase might take place each year in public expenditure, it was against the background of an increase in the gross national product of this country of about 4 per cent.? Now that the norm is zero, is everybody else to stick to the norm of zero except the Government?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have, as the noble Lord says, a norm of zero for this particular year, but I can assure him that it will not continue.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my first supplementary question was a direct quotation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that those were the very words he used? Where is this increase in expansion in British industry?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agreed with what the noble Lord said, because I recognised what he quoted. What I said to his noble friend was that at the present moment, for various reasons, which the noble Lord knows as well as I do, we have had to hold back the increase in production, but we do not anticipate that this situation will continue much longer.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, since this increased expenditure is to be financed largely from taxation, and since a very large part of taxation is levied on company profits, can the noble Lord tell us whether the trend of company profits at the present time is up or down?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think I can anticipate what my right honourable friend will be saying in some weeks' time.

CONTROL OF DANGEROUS DURGS
3.13 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether legislation is proposed, and if so, on what lines, for the more effective control of dangerous drugs.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, may I first be allowed to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, for his extraordinarily kind personal references to myself? And may I also thank noble Lords in all parts of the House who during the last three months have sent me most kind and encouraging messages, which have been all the more gratifying because they have been almost wholly undeserved.
To answer the Question of the noble Baroness, dangerous drugs are already closely controlled under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, which reflects the requirements of the international Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, to which the United Kingdom is a party. Further legislation is being prepared to implement the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on Drug Addiction, whose Chairman was the late Lord Brain. This will provide for the compulsory notification of addicts by doctors; for limiting the general authority of doctors to prescribe or supply heroin or cocaine to cases in which these drugs are required for the relief of pain due to organic disease or following injury or operation; and for authorising doctors at treatment centres to prescribe or supply these drugs to addicts.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask him two questions: first, whether this legislation is to apply to only the drugs he has mentioned, cocaine and heroin, or whether it will also be applied to certain non-narcotic drugs; and, secondly, whether high priority will be given to this Bill in the legislative programme?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's first question, it is the intention to draft the legislation so that the restrictions on prescribing for addicts can be applied, if necessary, to dangerous drugs other than heroin and cocaine. With regard to the timing of the legislation, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes to be in a position shortly to make an announcement about when the new legislation will be introduced. He has already expressed his intention to introduce a Bill during the present Session.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that while an innocuous drug, taken in a prescribed dose, can do no harm, the same drug, taken in an excessive amount, can become dangerous? Would he not agree, therefore, that our policy should be wider than the one he suggests and should not be applied only to these drugs—in fact, it should limit excessive prescribing?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would agree with my noble friend that so-called innocuous drugs taken in excess can be dangerous, just as alcohol can be dangerous if taken in excess. The legislation we have in mind refers to "dangerous drugs", and in the main they are drugs of addiction. If we find later that there is a need to extend the field and restrictions further, of course we will consider it. For the time being the legislation will be concerned with dangerous drugs, meaning drugs of addiction.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may we take it that when the legislation is introduced it will contain a list of dangerous drugs, which the Minister will have power to add to, by order, so that if a new dangerous drug is produced he can put it straight on to the list?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord from his own experience will doubtless be aware, when this legislation is framed it will of necessity have to apply to named drugs, as indeed the present legislation does. But the point he has made about leaving the door open for additions I will certainly refer to my right honourable friend.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the mounting revul-
1174
sion and anger that is expressed by the majority of the population against the pushers and peddlers of drugs? Most normal people of this country feel that such a crime is akin to murder? Will a reassessment of the penalties be made accordingly?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships all share the revulsion and horror to which my noble friend has referred. But, with regard to penalties, I would remind your Lordships that, under the 1965 Act, for a conviction on indictment the maximum penalty is £1,000 or ten years' imprisonment, or both, which is a substantial penalty. On summary conviction the penalty is a fine not exceeding £250 or imprisonment for a term of twelve months, or both. It seems to me that the main problem here, apart from the attitude of the public, is the hounding, finding and conviction of these persons; and it may well be that when we have caught them, and they have been convicted, the penalties are adequate for the purpose.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, following upon the noble Lady's question, I would ask, in view of the recent events: is there not a strong case for limiting the amount of drugs that can be prescribed at any one time? Could not the noble Lord say that consideration will be given to including in this Bill a provision limiting the amount that may be prescribed on any one prescription?
LORD STONHAM: If the noble and learned Viscount is referring to dangerous drugs, this is precisely one of the considerations which will be taken into account regarding the new legislation.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend feel that the excessive, and in some cases hysterical, publicity that is being given to drug-taking in the Press and on television is probably doing more harm than good? Does he not think this is probably arousing a feeling of curiosity in the minds of young people, and leading them into drug-taking, when otherwise they would not embark in that direction? Is not the real remedy first of all the speeding up of the necessary legislation, and the direction of more police activity to the scene?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I know the view is expressed, which may well be a valid one, that the publicity which my noble friend has alleged borders in some cases on hysteria may excite curiosity and persuade young people to try these drugs. But it is beyond the present powers—I think quite rightly—of Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the Press and other organs of publicity in this matter, which are quite rightly concerned about what is obviously a growing menace.
With regard to his suggested remedies, I would submit, with respect, that the evidence is that we are already actively taking steps in both these fields. Lastly, I think it is well to remember that the more we regulate by law, as we must, the greater the attractions of the black market and the more the prices are forced up. So there are two arms to this: first, the legislation; and, secondly, the active steps which are being increasingly pursued in order to bring these ill-doers to book.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if all this means that, in the near future, I shall be unable to get a prescription for tincture of heroin for my laryngitis?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, provided the premises of his claims are, as they must be, correct, need have no fear. There is no present intention, as has been advocated in some medical quarters, to prohibit altogether the prescription of these drugs. Therefore, I do not think he has any reason to fear.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is there not a danger that by continuing this discussion we are providing exactly the publicity which we do not wish to provide?
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, at the risk of displeasing my noble friend, may I ask my other noble friend the Minister whether it is not a fact that there is a considerable connection between drug distribution and gambling; and is not this another field in which Government activity would be welcome?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble friend is right. There is a connection, just as there is between drink and gambling. As, no
1176
doubt, my noble friend will be aware, it is the firm intention of my right honourable friend to introduce legislation with regard to gambling so soon as Parliamentary time permits.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, if a separate Question is put down, will the noble Lord be willing to tell the House what new measures have been devised to make it less easy for young people to get access to the milder drugs, the consumption of which sometimes leads in due course to the consumption of the more dangerous drugs?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should be most happy to answer such a Question from the noble Viscount. But I should point out that such drugs as amphetamines and LSD, which are not addictive, are not included as "dangerous drugs", and therefore they will not be dealt with specially in the projected legislation. But I would assure the noble Viscount that, although there are no immediate plans for the revision of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, by which they are covered, we have the matter very much under review.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
3.24 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Borough of Colwyn Bay be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Borough of Colwyn Bay be approved.—(Lord Bowles.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like briefly, with the permission of the House, to ask the Government one or two questions in connection with this Order and some of the results that flow from it, and also to raise some matters. I must declare an interest in the film industry. I speak for no one particular company, but for all exhibitors, particularly the small independent exhibitors.
As your Lordships are aware, this Order, which permits the borough of

1177
Colwyn Bay to allow its cinemas to open on Sundays, is being passed under the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932. This Act contains three conditions on which Sunday opening is permitted. One is that local opinion must be in favour; the second is that Parliamentary approval must be granted—and I believe that this has never been withheld; and the third is that the local authority has the right to levy a certain amount for charity from the profits received from this Sunday opening. This is called the Sunday charity tax or levy. The Crathorne Committee, in my view rightly, recommended, in paragraph 72 of their Report, that this charity tax should be abolished. I should make it clear that the estimation of the profits and the amount of the tax is determined by the local authority and not by the cinema proprietors. The local authority also nominates the charity. Neither the cinema proprietor nor his patrons have any control over this.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what relation this most interesting topic has to the simple question whether this Act should be extended to the borough of Colwyn Bay?
LORD STRABOLGI: In reply to the noble and learned Viscount, I should like to say that I am going to raise some of the matters which flow from the Order, as I thought I said at the beginning of my short speech, and to ask the Government some questions on what policy they adopt to Orders of this kind. We have had similar Orders presented to the House before and no doubt we shall have them again. I have spoken on them over a period of nearly twelve years to successive Governments, including the one to which the noble and learned Viscount belonged, but so far we have never had any definite answer about what future policy is to be.
As I was saying, nearly £135,000 was paid to charity in 1963–64. In my experience, this must be the only instance of charitable payments by Statute, rather than by voluntary donations, as they should be. The film industry, like any industry in this country, is not opposed to charitable payments—I do not think anybody would be. The industry has an excellent record of raising money voluntarily for charities
1178
—as good a record, I would say, as any industry in this country. But those concerned in it object to being singled out, and to having to pay a charity tax for Sunday opening by law. Fifteen local authorities have abolished the tax. Some, I am glad to say, have reduced it to a nominal amount, but others, I regret to say, "soak" the cinema proprietor to the full. But whether they are lenient or stringent, all local authorities have the right to bring this tax hack at any time, or to increase it, and there is no appeal.
How can this tax be justified to-day? The Crathorne Committee said they found it difficult to see that it had any moral justification; and even if it was justified, on grounds of expediency, in 1932 surely that is no longer the case to-day, when the position has changed so much, particularly with the advent of the television, and television films are shown on Sundays in the home. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support the new Sunday Entertainments Bill of my noble friend Lord Willis when that Bill goes to another place. But if they do not, may I ask them whether they will either amend the 1932 Act, to make charity payments by Statute for Sunday cinema performances no longer applicable, or will they at least fix a national rate as recommended by the Crathorne Committee in paragraph 71 of their Report? At present this is left to the individual local authorities.
May I also ask the Government whether they will allow the right of appeal to quarter sessions against a condition of a cinema licence granted under the Cinematograph Act 1909, that was permitted, by Section 6 of the Cinematograph Act 1952, to be extended to include Sunday performances under Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932. This again was recommended by the Crathorne Committee in paragraph 74 of their report.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi was good enough to intimate to me some of the problems which he has just brought to the attention of the House, and which arise under the present arrangements by which cinemas, unlike theatres and music-halls, are allowed to open on Sundays. These arrangements, which are laid down in the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932.

1179
amount to a system of local option coupled with provision for payment to the licensing authority of a sum, related to the estimated profits of Sunday performances, to go partly to charity and partly to the Cinematograph Fund. The level of this payment, commonly known as the "charity tax" is fixed by the licensing authority, but the proportion which has to go to the Cinematograph Fund, namely 5 per cent., is prescribed in the Cinematograph Regulations 1932.
Neither the arrangement for local option, nor the provision for the charity tax, could be changed except by amendment of the 1932 Act, and I think that at the moment the Government cannot see their way to find time in their programme. However, both these points are covered by Lord Willis's Sunday Entertainments Bill, under which the 1932 Act would be repealed, including the provision for a charity levy, and cinemas, theatres and music-halls would all be free to open after 2 p.m. on Sundays. There would be no local option procedure and no charity tax for anyone.
This would, I think, meet all the points of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, except the last one. I think, although I am not quite certain, that the question of appeal to quarter sessions is covered by Lord Willis's Bill. The Government's attitude towards that Bill was shown by my noble friend, Lord Stonham (whom I am particularly pleased to see back in his place), who said that this matter, namely, Sunday observance, was something which so closely affects the consciences of individuals that it should be left to a free vote. The Government's attitude is therefore one of neutrality towards the Bill. My noble friend's Bill completed its Committee stage on February 10. No date has yet been fixed for Report and for Third Reading. In the circumstances, I am sure the House would not want me to say more at this stage.
On Question, Motion agreed.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Walston, who is on urgent public business in North
1180
Africa, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 3a; and passed.

FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the Consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [166] as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1–5]:
Clause 15, page 13, line 11, at end insert—
("(8) In this section 'the Minister', in relation to England means the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.")
Clause 19, page 15, line 22, at end insert—
("(4) In subsection (3) above 'the Minister' in relation to England, means the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.")
Clause 49, page 35, line 7, leave out from first ("Minister") to ("as") in line 8 and insert ("except as provided by sections 15(8) and 19(4) and Schedule 3, means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.")
Schedule 3, page 41, line 21, at end insert—
("4. In this Schedule 'the Minister', in relation to England, means the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.")
Schedule 6, page 47, line 33, at end insert ("or of Article 2 of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order 1967 (which dissolved the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and transferred its principal functions under the said Acts to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food).")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, unless any noble Lord disagrees, I propose to ask your Lordships to consider these five Commons Amendments together, because they all raise the same point, and I will then put them together to the House. This is not a case in which the Commons have made Amendments because they disagree with anything that your Lordships have done.

1181
The common cause of these five Amendments is simply this. At the time when this Bill was before your Lordships' House we had a Ministry, to which we were all devoted, called the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. When this Ministry was constituted there were transferred to it certain functions relating to forestry, which had belonged to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and certain other functions, of a planning nature, which had been the concern of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Those several functions were transferred to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources. Since the Bill was before your Lordships' House, that Ministry, amid general lamentations, has been dissolved, and the Dissolution Order accordingly re-transferred these functions to the two Ministries from which they had previously come. But that meant that this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill of our Statute Law relating to forestry, was now inaccurate and no longer reflected the existing law. Accordingly, the sole purpose of these five Amendments is to put that right.
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments Nos. 1 to 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT BILL [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Royal Assent Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The facts relating to this Bill are as follows. Until 1541 there was only one way of giving Assent to Bills; namely, by the Sovereign in person. The Sovereign came to the Upper House, the Commons were sent for, and the Clerk of the
1182
Crown in Chancery, as to-day, stood on this side of the Table and read out the Title of each Bill. The Sovereign said "Yes", or nodded, and the Clerk of the Parliaments, as to-day, standing on the other side of the Table, turned to the Commons and said, "Le Roi le veult", or the alternative form, if it was a Money Bill, or if the King had said, "No", "Le Roi s' avisera".
In 1541 there was a Bill of Attainder against Katherine Howard the Queen, and although Henry VIII was perhaps not the most delicate Monarch we have ever had, he still felt some delicacy in coming to this House to give the Royal consent to a Bill which he knew would result, and did result, in the Queen's execution as soon as it became law. He therefore had an Act passed called the Royal Assent by Commission Act, which provided:
"Be it declared by authority of this present Parliament, that the king's royal assent, by his letters patent under his great seal and assigned with his hand, and declared and notified in his absence to the lords spiritual and temporal, and to the commons, assembled together in the high house, is and ever was of good strength and force as though the king's person had been there personally present, and had assented openly and publickly to the same. And he it also enacted that this royal assent, and all other royal assents hereafter to be so given by the kings of this realm, and notified as is aforesaid, shall be taken and reputed good and effectual to all intents and purposes, without doubt or ambiguity; any custom or use to the contrary notwithstanding.
Accordingly, a Royal Commission was appointed for that Bill and another Bill.
Three years later, there was another occasion when there was a Royal Commission; and four years after that, when there was a Bill of Attainder against the Duke of Norfolk, there was another Royal Commission. The King died the day after, having given authority to someone to sign the Letters Patent, but not having signed them himself, in consequence of which the Duke of Norfolk contended that the Bill had never become law. After some five years, he obtained a Bill from Parliament declaring that to be right—and, fortunately, he had not been executed meanwhile.
To start with, the Royal Commission usually consisted of one Commissioner, the Lord Chancellor; but after some years it usually comprised three or five. Of course, in those days the Royal Assent was given only at the end of the Session,

1183
or, more often, at the end of the Parliament—because Parliaments were usually called for a short time only. Indeed, in 1625 it was necessary to pass a special Act to provide that Parliament might continue, notwithstanding the fact that a Royal Assent had been given. The Long Parliament introduced a change—a change, that is to say, from a Royal Assent being given only at the end of a Session, at least—partly because it was the Long Parliament, and partly because that Parliament did not give Charles I more than a month's money at a time; so, of course, a number of Royal Assents were necessary. But it was still unusual to have a Royal Assent except at the end of a Session, and still unusual for it to be given otherwise than by the Sovereign in person.
Charles II gave his Assent in person 30 times out of 33; James II 3 times out of 3; William III 62 times out of 64; Queen Anne 39 times out of 56—so there we see a change, because in her reign there were 17 Royal Commissions. It is not until we come to the Hanoverians—I suppose, partly because of their not extensive knowledge of English, and partly because of the number of local and personal Bills—that we find the Sovereign more often having a Royal Commission than coming to give the Royal Assent in person. The last Royal Assent in person was given by Queen Victoria in 1854. There is, of course, no reason why Her Majesty should not at any time give her Royal Assent in person.
Since then, times have changed, with a general recognition of the fact that power resides with the Commons rather than with this House, and some cause of friction in this field has developed between the Houses. It is, I suppose, possible to think that in the conditions of to-day there is something anomalous about the representatives of the elected Chamber coming and standing at the Bar, rather like waiters, while the Members of the hereditary Chamber loll in their seats. But what, I think, has caused more friction is the fact (and I suppose that most of us have had experience of this, when we have sat in the Gallery of the House of Commons while an interesting debate was going on; I remember one such occasion myself during a debate on housing) that, just as
1184
everybody is getting very worked up, there is a bang, and everything has to stop for this very old procedure.
Another cause of the difficulties, I think, has been the increasing frequency of Royal Commissions. There is, perhaps, something to be said for the old phrase about familiarity breeding contempt. In the last three years we have had respectively 10, 9 and 10 Royal Commissions a year—that is, more than one every Parliamentary month—and one has observed noble Lords who had been engaged in the debate here going elsewhere (I shall not speculate where to) and returning after the Royal Assent was over. There have been practical reasons, of course, for this increase in the number of Royal Assents: the Gas Board has run out of money, or the rebuilding of New Street station, Birmingham, would come to a dead stop unless the Post Office Subway Bill was passed; or Botswana was becoming independent, But, my Lords, however sensible the reasoning may be, I should be inclined to suggest that regard for this very old ceremony might be increased rather than diminished if it were held rather less often, and if there could be some shorter and simpler alternative way of providing for the Royal Assent.
I think that most of us would probably agree on two things; first, that no change ought to be made unless those who represent all political Parties in both Chambers agree, and unless, of course, Her Majesty agrees; and, secondly, that we should retain both of the existing methods of giving the Royal Assent. No one, I think, would want to effect any change in the position, which is that the Sovereign can at any time give consent in person; nor, I think, should we like to lose the ceremony of the Royal Commission. It is, after all, full of historic interest.
I always like best the way in which, when there is a Money Bill—because I have to wait for this—the Clerk of the Parliaments goes to the Bar and receives the Money Bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Commons being apprehensive that, if the Bill came here in advance, your Lordships might mess about with it in some way or other. But these incidents of the ceremony are of considerable historic interest, and therefore what, with good will, has been sought to be done

1185
is to find some alternative and simpler method of giving the Royal Assent, but a method which departed as little as possible from history and, at the same time, would avoid this increasing cause of friction between the two Houses. That I think this Bill does.
The terms of the Bill are simple enough in themselves. It is intended that the actual Assent of the Sovereign should be given, as now, by Letters Patent. The form of the Letters Patent does not substantially depart from that in use now:
"Elizabeth the Second"—
and so on—
"Forasmuch as in Our said Parliament divers Acts have been agreed upon by you Our loving subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons the short Titles of which are set forth in the Schedule hereto but the said Acts are not of force and effect in the Law without our Royal Assent and forasmuch as We cannot at this time be present in the Higher House of Our said Parliament being the accustomed place for giving Our Royal Assent to such Acts as have been agreed upon by you Our said subjects the Lords and Commons We have therefore caused these Our Letters Patent to be made and have signed them and by them do give Our Royal Assent to the said Acts willing that the said Acts shall be of the same strength force and effect as if We had been personally present in the said Higher House and had publicly and in the presence of you all assented to the same commanding also Our right trusty…Chancellor of Great Britain to seal these Our Letters with the Great Seal of Our Realm and also commanding that this Our Royal Assent be notified separately to each House of Parliament pursuant to the Royal Assent Act 1967 and after this Our Royal Assent shall have been notified to both Houses of Parliament the Clerk of Our Parliaments to endorse the said Acts in Our name as is requisite and to record these Our Letters Patent and the said Acts in manner accustomed and finally We do declare that after this Our Royal Assent given and notified as is aforesaid then and immediately the said Acts shall be taken and accepted as good and perfect Acts of Parliament and be put in due execution accordingly in witness"—
and so on. That, as your Lordships will observe, follows very closely, with only minor adaptation, the existing form of Letters Patent.
Then it is proposed that there should be a Certificate to the Speaker in some such terms as the following:
"These are to certify that Her Majesty being unable to be personally present in Parliament at this time has been pleased to cause Letters Patent to be issued under the Great Seal and has thereby signified Her Royal Assent to divers Acts which have been agreed upon by
1186
both Houses of Parliament the Short Titles of which are set out in the Schedule hereto and by the said Letters Patent has commanded that Her Royal Assent be notified separately to each House of Parliament pursuant to the Royal Assent Act 1967. Given under My hand"—
and so forth. That Certificate will be signed by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and sent to the Speaker of the other place.
It is then proposed that on the same day, at a convenient time, each Speaker should say:
"I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts."
This is a convenient ceremony which will take up no time in either House, and will, I hope, remove the friction to which I have referred.
Of course, we cannot bind our successors. I understand, first of all, that what I have said so far has been agreed by all Parties in both Houses; secondly, that the intention is that the Royal Assent by a Royal Commission shall always take place at least at the end of each Session; that it may be that we shall have three or four during the first year, perhaps at what are called in other contexts "natural breaks", but that, probably after the first year, it will be reserved for the end of the Session as, in a sense, an "end-of-term" ceremony. I have no doubt that for all concerned it will be a ceremony of rather more interest, perhaps, than it has been in the past, by reason of its being carried out in future rather less often.
My Lords, alternatives have been suggested. I say this because I remember an alternative suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, when my noble friend the Leader of the House mentioned the question to the House a few weeks ago. On that, I would say that I am satisfied that every conceivable alternative has been suggested and discussed. We have considered having Royal Commissions at half-past twelve; we have considered having Royal Commissions immediately after Question Time in the other place; we have considered having them on particular evenings. Then, we have considered a plan by which only one or two chosen Members of the other place would come up here; we have considered having a Royal Commission in the Queen's Robing

1187
Room, or in some other place where it could take place without the proceedings in either House being interrupted. I am quite satisfied that the proposal which is contained in this Bill, and which I have outlined, is the only proposal that stands any prospect of being agreed—and it has been agreed—by the representatives of all political Parties and by Her Majesty. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.52 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the explanation he has given of this short Bill. As he has explained, all the Bill does is to provide an alternative means of signifying the Royal Assent. It does not mean that our old procedure of the Royal Commission disappears, and I, for one, am very glad that that is so. Whatever may have happened in the past, the Lord Chancellor conducts the ceremony with great dignity and in excellent English—which is more than can be said for the Clerk of the Parliaments.
I do not think that we should dispose too lightly of our old traditions. They are an important and colourful part of our past, and a continual reminder of the gradual development of Parliamentary government in this country. At the same time, there is no doubt that the rather frequent interruptions of business caused by Royal Commissions have tended to cause difficulties, more particularly in another place. I think that on one occasion in the not-too-distant past, after Black Rod had been to summon the House of Commons, a sort of informal debate was continued in that Chamber by some of its Members—a sort of lawlessness which would not be tolerated in this House, with its absence of Rules of Order.
But I believe that, on the whole, in the interests of the relationship between the two Houses, and because of the fact that these Royal Commissions seem nowadays to occur rather more frequently than in the past, we should try the procedure outlined by the Lord Chancellor. There is nothing binding on anybody to continue the experiment if it does not succeed; and certainly I hope that,
1188
whether the experiment is successful or not, we shall always continue to have a certain number of ceremonies under the old pattern. It seems to me that the question of how often they should occur should be a matter for discussion among all of us. Having said that, perhaps in a way rather regretfully, but comforted by the thought that at any rate this is only an alternative procedure, I should like to support the Bill which the noble and learned Lord has moved.
3.54 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like, very briefly, to give the support of noble Lords on these Benches to the Bill which is before us now. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a certain regret that the old customs and traditions have to change. But I am pleased to see they are not being entirely removed from us, and that we shall still be able to enjoy from time to time the ceremony of the Royal Assent by Royal Commission. I am pleased, also, to find that no change is made in the position of Her Majesty, in that if Her Majesty chose to come to this House, she could do so. As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack knows, it has always been a hope of mine that one day Her Majesty would come in person to take part in our proceedings.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT FURNESS: My Lords, I think it would be pity if this Bill were to be passed by your Lordships without a single word being spoken by a Back-Bench Member of your Lordships' House. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on producing a simple Bill which even an out-and-out layman like myself can understand. I am also particularly grateful for his excellent historical exposition of the system under which the Royal Assent is given under the 16th century procedure. I am sure that many of your Lordships were not aware of the details. I certainly was not.
It would be a pity, I think, if the system of pronouncing Royal Assent to Bills were to be quietly abolished, but I gather from the noble and learned Lord that this will not be the case. He has set my mind at rest on that point. On the other hand, I can quite see that the old system could interrupt business in another place, and

1189
also in your Lordships' House at a most inconvenient time. But it would seem to me to be not wholly impossible for that usually most efficient of all institutions, "the usual channels," in both Houses, to get together so as not to cause what the Television Act and the Lord Chancellor would regard as an "unnatural break" in the middle of an important debate.
Another possibility occurs to me now, but I gather that it has been considered and rejected. It is that, now that another place has taken to sitting in the morning on occasions, the customary Royal Assent procedure should be carried out during a natural break in one of their morning Sessions. This would of course necessitate that your Lordships' House also met on the morning of that particular day, but surely this would be a small price to pay for retaining a ceremony which has come over the centuries to indicate Her Majesty's relationship to the work done by the High Court of Parliament.
3.57 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long, but there are two points which I should like to mention in connection with this Bill. Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and my noble friend Lord Carrington, I think it is important that this old ceremony should not fall altogether into desuetude. As the Bill is drafted, it is possible for that to happen. The reason why I say that—and here I speak rather as an old House of Commons man—is that it always seemed to me, whenever there was a Royal Commission and Black Rod arrived and had the door slammed in his face, that it was a reminder of the struggle of Parliament for supremacy; and, as a House of Commons man, I thought it was a good thing that there should be that reminder. There is also, I think, the tradition that ever since Charles I came down to arrest the five Members of the House of Commons, no Sovereign has been allowed to enter the Chamber. It was also a reminder of that. I should therefore like consideration to be given to whether something could not be put into this Bill to ensure that the ceremony takes place a certain number of times. But, apart from that, I quite see the reasons for this Bill—
1190
the inconvenience which is caused by having very many Royal Commissions.
There is another point that I should like to put to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and I would put it like this. Drama, atmosphere, and so on, play a part in our proceedings, and I think Parliament would be the poorer without them. I well recall the occasion when the Abdication Bill went through this House. It was passed through all its stages in one day in both Houses, and then we all came along to hear the Commission read. There was a pretty big attendance by both Houses on that occasion. I well remember that, as the words fell from the lips of the Clerk of the Parliaments, "Le Roi le veult", that was the precise moment at which the reign of Edward Viii ended. It was a dramatic occasion, and one which I personally shall never forget. If those occasions go out of our procedure, I think it will be a pity.
There arises from that just one question which I should like to put, and it is this. Under this new procedure, when does a Bill acquire the force of law? Is it when Her Majesty signs the Letters Patent, or is it when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has announced the fact in this House? It is just a matter of detail on which perhaps the noble and learned Lord could inform me. Apart from that, I support the Bill; but I hope that some consideration will be given to writing into it something which will ensure that this procedure does not fall into complete desuetude.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree and to other noble Lords for the reception they have given this Bill. If I may, I will reply to the two points which have just been mentioned. On the first, when I said "natural breaks" I meant Easter, Whitsun and Christmas; and I think that the usual channels have taken the view that, for the first year, there should probably be a Royal Commission at those times and always, in every year, at the end of a Session. I will consider whether or not the last should be written into the Bill.
On the further point raised, the day when a Bill comes into force, is not, as one might think, the day on which it is

1191
passed by the second House. After a Bill has received the Royal Assent, the Clerk of the Parliaments writes on the Bill both Le Roi le veult and the date; and it is the date which he writes on it that is subsequently incorporated in the Statute. As we all know, just after the Title there is a date. As I say, that date is the date which the Clerk of the Parliaments writes on. I am not suggesting that the Clerk of the Parliaments would ever write on the wrong date; but if he did, the date in law would be the wrong date that he wrote. As to the moment of that day on which the Bill takes effect, under the Acts of Parliament Commencement Act, 1793, an Act comes into force on the first moment of the day of the date which has been endorsed on it by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Jurisdiction of county courts in undefended matrimonial causes]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the Committee will allow me to say so, I have received a letter from my noble friend Lord Silkin, saying that he regrets that he will not be moving his Amendments to-day as he is unable to be here. In the circumstances, there being no other Amendments, although in the ordinary way when the House is resumed one would move that the Report be now received, I do not propose to do that, so
1192
that Lord Silkin may have an opportunity of putting down the same Amendments on Report stage.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has been prevented by ill-health from being here and moving his Amendments to-day. I am sure that he will be glad, as indeed I am, that he will have a further opportunity to do so. But, between now and then, I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider whether it would not be an improvement of this Bill—I am not suggesting that we extend it as far as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wants to do by these Amendments—to take power to extend its scope by Order in Council at a later date, to what we commonly refer to as "short defended cases". I suggest that because, in the light of experience, the trial of these undefended divorce cases in the county court is thoroughly satisfactory, it may be that the time will occur when it is considered desirable that further duties in this field should be entrusted to the county court judges. It would be very tiresome then, if that were the view, to have to come back to Parliament and introduce a special Bill for that purpose. That is why I am asking the noble and learned Lord to give consideration to the question whether power to make that extension, should the case for it arise, should be contained in this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall certainly be glad to consider that. Of course, the noble and learned Viscount knows that the Lord Chancellor may always appoint a county court judge or an official referee or a barrister of sufficient standing to act as a Commissioner, therefore having power to try High Court cases; but one would not want to do that in the ordinary way without the approval of Parliament. I will certainly consider the suggestion that he has made.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, without amendment.

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
4.8 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN LORD GLADWYN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what was meant by the terms "Europe" and "Europeans" used by the Prime Minister in the thirteenth paragraph of his statement on Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country; and what were, broadly speaking, the political objectives which he then had in mind. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper to-day is not, I need hardly say, inspired by semantic or even geographical reasons. It is rather my hope that any Answer which the Government may see fit to give to it this afternoon may throw some light on their attitude towards what I believe is the greatest political issue of the day. As I see it the attitude of the Government on this great issue is the reverse of clear. And what I rather fear is that, when they talk about "getting into the Common Market", and "meaning business", the Government may, no doubt unwittingly, leave differing impressions on the minds of those with whom they are now discussing the possibility, in certain circumstances, of signing the Treaty of Rome.
For, surely, my Lords, in these great matters it is, above all, necessary to be clear as to the objective. The means of attaining it, the tactical approach, so to speak, may be shrouded in mystery; but the end itself should be clear and constant. Seeing that we are a democracy, it should be defined for all to judge, and not be in any way a secret du roi—which was hardly a satisfactory way of carrying out a foreign policy, even under an absolute Monarchy. I do not say that it is so; but I feel there is a certain danger that it may be so.
Let us then approach the passage in the Prime Minister's Statement to which I have referred in my Question. It appears in the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT for February 13, at columns 109–113, and in the OFFICIAL REPORT of your Lordships' House for the same day at columns 34–38. It refers to his talks with Mr. Kosygin. It is preceded, we note, by a passage which also deals with Europe, but which is absolutely clear, and, I should have thought,
1194
generally acceptable. In this preliminary passage the Prime Minister says that he explained to his guest the policy as regards nuclear consultation within NATO and the intention of our partners and ourselves
"to develop positive contacts for easing tension within Europe as a whole."
All that, we are told, led up to Anglo-Soviet agreement on the desirability for
"closer bilateral relationships between individual Western and Eastern European countries."
Well, my Lords, so far, as I say, so good.
However, in the next paragraph we soon reach the equivocal. After saying that he and Mr. Brown explained to Mr. Kosygin the purpose of the visits which they were paying to the capitals of the six member countries of the European Economic Community (and one would have thought perhaps that this purpose scarcely needed explaining), the Prime Minister then, apparently,
"emphasised the economic importance of the discussions we are holding there"—
that is, in the various capitals—
"and particularly the contribution that Britain could make to the greater technological effectiveness of Europe."
My Lords, that is an ambiguous statement. There is no mention here, you may note, of Europe as a whole, as in the preceding paragraph, which, presumably, means geographical Europe. So it could mean that Mr. Wilson hopes, by joining the European Economic Community, that this Community will become, in itself, more efficient technologically; indeed, we understand from the Press that this was an argument favouring our entry which he developed in talks with the Germans and the French. But, my Lords, it could mean, on the other hand, that by joining the European Economic Community, Mr. Wilson believes that he could, in some way, also increase the technological efficiency of the Communist States of Eastern Europe, and even that of the Soviet Union. If, indeed, this is his intention, it is not at all clear how, in practice, he would go about it.
Judging by previous statements, one had thought that the first thing the Government would do, if they did join the E.E.C., would be to encourage the emergence of some "European Technological

1195
Community" which would have to be limited to the membership of some enlarged European Economic Community, and indeed be part of it. Are we then going to argue that the Communist States of Eastern Europe should also, in some way, join the European Economic Community for technological purposes? Or is it our intention even to put at their disposal our nuclear know-how—that is, know-how for peaceful purposes, and not, naturally, for war-like ones? If so, it is a little difficult to see how this could be reconciled with EURATOM—Of which presumably we should by then also be a member, having come into the European Economic Community—unless EURATOM had been wound up and merged in E.E.C.
But on the assumption that the first interpretation is correct, namely, that we want to place our great technological resources primarily at the disposal of some enlarged European Economic Community, it is rather difficult to see how this could have appealed to Mr. Kosygin, with what appears to be his almost pathological dislike and distrust of our democratic allies, the Western Germans.
But, my Lords, it is when we come on to the next sentence that the obscurity thickens, and even a possible "doublethink" appears. Mr. Kosygin was told, so we read, that the Government had in mind political as well as economic objectives, in that
"one of the main purposes of our approach was not only to strengthen European unity and thereby to help to reduce European tension, and work towards a wider, fuller unity in Europe as a whole, but also to enable Europe to exert amore powerful influence in world affairs."
What exactly, we may well ask, do the Government mean by "Europe" and "European unity" in this particular context? Do they, or do they not, mean that such unity should include the Soviet Union? If so, then the conception goes far beyond geographical Europe. It might, indeed, almost be said to imply a construction of Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific! Or have they, perhaps, been persuaded by General de Gaulle that what they want to aim for is Europe united only "from the Atlantic to the Urals," though naturally with the participation of the United Kingdom—
1196
a development, of course, to which General de Gaulle now seems to be markedly lukewarm?
It is important to know how far, if at all, the Prime Minister went in this direction in his discussions with the Soviet leader. What the Government, in their search for some important new world role for these increasingly isolated Islands, do not seem to realise is that the European unity which they very rightly say they want (and which it would seem is now their supreme political objective) can come about only on some basis other than that of a completely independent nation State. For if attempts to form it on this last basis are made, there will clearly be no question of any greater unity than that which has already been achieved in such bodies as Western European Union or the Council of Europe; unless, indeed, one nation State takes the lead and effectively operates some kind of hegemony, in which case it is pretty obvious (always supposing, ex hypothesi, that America is excluded from Europe for geographical reasons, which is the Soviet thesis) who the leader of this European State would be.
What those who really believe in the European idea had been hoping was that the Prime Minister had been genuinely converted to the notion that (always supposing that, as he says, Europe must play a more powerful part in world affairs) it must be first created in a political sense by forming institutions in which a European unit, a European will, can be made manifest, and decisions increasingly taken in common. The only area in which such a development could possibly take place at the present time, and probably for quite a long time, is Western Europe, where a beginning has already been made, as we know, with the formation of the European Economic Community. The simple reason is that here we have a collection of medium-sized and smaller nation States all at more or less the same stage of social and political evolution, all with long common histories and cultural links, and all, of course, very much weakened by the last of the terrible European Civil Wars.
It is therefore possible for these States, provided they have the will, to come together in some form of union,

1197
and notably in the new and genial form of a Community. But it is not possible for such a union to include other European States which either have not reached the necessary level of industrial and social development or possess directed economies based on a denial of individual freedom, that priceless cultural heritage of Western Europe and, indeed, of what is called the whole Western World. Thus, in practice, unity—that European unity of which Mr. Wilson spoke in his talks with Mr. Kosygin—can be achieved only between the members of the present E.E.C., Britain and certain other members of EFTA. To suggest that there can be any other kind of European unity in a political sense is, either consciously or unconsciously, to delude the people.
How could we possibly have a European Community, with centralised institutions and a common social, transport, agricultural and even monetary policy, directed from one centre—which is what we are in for if we sign the Treaty of Rome—which included the vast totalitarian Soviet Empire, or Communist Czechoslovakia, or even Franco Spain? Any State which cannot join the Community for any reason could, of course, be associated with it—there is no question about that—but to suggest that the so-called "wider Europe" is something that can possibly emerge in a positive sense in the next ten or twenty years is either to have misconceived the entire situation or to accept the Gaullist philosophy of a "Europe of States", which is effectively a return to the "non-Europe" of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Mr. Kosygin, of course, is strongly in favour of a "Europe of States", of which a prominent, and indeed an essential, member would be the entirely sovereign and independent so-called "Deutsche Demokratische Republik". For his idea, quite clearly, is to keep down the Germans by splitting off their Eastern wing, and, by destroying the Western Alliance, of which their Western wing is now an important member, to create a situation in which the Soviet Union has a reasonable chance in the long run of dominating the Continent. With a weak collection of fellow-travelling régimes in his immediate rear, he would then be in a strong position for
1198
containing any expansionist tendencies on the part of China or, indeed, as he would no doubt put it, of America.
But, although one can discern Mr. Kosygin's policy and, indeed, understand his motives, there is no reason, from our point of view, why we should do anything to facilitate his aims. For if we do, we presumably vitiate our own primary objective—the gradual construction in Western Europe of a community which will ultimately be a thing-in-itself, and thus be capable of conducting a common foreign policy.
As soon as we get to this point, there is no reason, in theory at any rate, why the Americans should not leave the defence of Western Europe primarily to the Europeans, who, we should hope, while still remaining within the Alliance, could then become a valid "partner" of the United States. In such circumstances, it should be possible to arrive at some settlement of European problems—which really means the German problem—with the Russians in the context of some general withdrawal of troops and the institution of some new relationship between the Federal Republic of Germany, which would then be an actual part of some wider democratic entity, and the D.D.R. and the other Communist Eastern European States.
However, to achieve all this, three things are necessary: Britain must first join the E.E.C.; a political community of some kind must be formed; and the Americans must be a partner of it within the general framework of the Atlantic Alliance. If this is the long-term aim of the Government, which I sincerely hope—though I note that we have not been hearing very much from the Government lately on the subject of "partnership"—it hardly looks as if it has been revealed to our Soviet guest, who may conceivably, therefore, have gone home under some slight misapprehension. But we can, at least, derive some satisfaction from the fact that he was told that we could not agree to attend his proposed "Conference on European Security" unless it was also attended by the Americans, or words to that effect.
So, in putting my Question to the Government, I should be most grateful if they could enlighten us on the following points, which immediately flow out of

1199
it. First, do the Government still subscribe to the conception that an expanded and democratic E.E.C., which would include the United Kingdom, should in principle be a partner of the United States within the framework of the Atlantic Alliance? Secondly, do they believe that such a community can, in practice, best be built up by developing the present Brussels machinery, and as soon as possible employing similar techniques in the foreign political sphere, as well? And, lastly, is it their feeling that such a development, by enabling Western Europe over the years to stand on its own feet, is the surest way to arrive at some lessening of tension with the Eastern European Communist States, and eventually at some acceptable solution of the whole problem of the division of Germany?
4.28 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I intend to detain your Lordships for only a short time. I think that I can agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about the proper aims of this country. He described them, broadly speaking, as, first of all, that Britain should enter the Common Market; secondly, that we should then play our part in building up a united Europe; and thirdly, that all this should be done within the framework of the Atlantic Community. I agree with him on all these points. But he made rather a wide-ranging speech, and the point which seemed to me to be the important one, on which I want to say a word, is the danger of some misunderstanding arising from the rather indiscriminate and loose use of the words "Europe" and "Europeans".
When the Prime Minister speaks of "meaning business" about our going into Europe, he is clearly talking about our membership of the E.E.C., and I do not think there is any doubt on those occasions. But when he and other Government spokesmen talk about a wider unity in Europe, I take it that they mean the kind of unity which we can foresee; that is to say, a European Community widened to include such countries as the Scandinavian countries, Austria, Switzerland and perhaps Ireland. When the Prime Minister speaks in the communiqué about "Europe as a whole", I presume that he means something like Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals.
1200
Of course, all of us would wish to see better relations across what used to be called the Iron Curtain, between Eastern and Western Europe, and particularly between Western Europe and the Soviet Union. We all wish to see an increase in contacts of every kind with Eastern Europe and with the Soviet Union, but I think it is most misleading to imply that there is the faintest practical possibility of any political or economic unity between Eastern and Western Europe under existing conditions; and in so far as some of the phraseology seemed to imply precisely this, I think it could have caused quite considerable concern to our friends and may have been to some extent misleading to the Soviet leaders.
Finally, I do not accept the view that if we join Europe and help in creating a stronger Western Europe we are thereby diminishing our chances of better relations and more contacts with Eastern Europe. In fact, I believe precisely the reverse. I think if they see a flourishing, stable, peaceful Western Europe, with Germany well embedded in it, these are the kind of conditions which are likely to lead to a very much greater contact and a better understanding between East and West.
4.31 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I feel very much in sympathy, as I am sure do all Members of the Government, with the objectives stated by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who I was glad was able to intervene. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whose services to our own country and to the cause of Europe are so distinguished, for giving us once again the benefit of his views on Europe. Despite his disclaimer of any semantic aspirations, I cannot help feeling that he used the Prime Minister's Statement as something of a peg on which to hang a most interesting speech. I did not feel that that kind of cross-examination, which would perhaps have been suitable for delivery by a university don to an undergraduate, was necessarily the best way of clarifying the Prime Minister's meaning. Be that as it may, it gives me the opportunity, which I will venture to take, of setting out the authentic views of the Government. If I adhere rather closely to my notes I am

1201
sure the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will realise that that is a tribute to the zeal which I am trying to show in answering his main points.
If I may deal in a few words with the particular questions which initiated our discussion, I should like to make it clear that when he was speaking of the contribution that Britain could make to the greater technological effectiveness of Europe and our wish to strengthen European unity, the Prime Minister was referring to the possibility of British entry into the European Economic Community. I should like to make that quite plain. When the Prime Minister explained that our objectives included the reduction of tension in Europe and progress towards a wider, fuller unity in Europe as a whole, he was referring, of course, to that wider Europe which has been so unhappily divided by the conflicting pressures and interests of its Eastern and Western parts. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, put three particular questions on points flowing from this central problem of what is meant by "Europe", and while I will not admit of any ambiguity in the words of the Prime Minister, I agree that I myself, and most other noble Lords, do occasionally use the word "Europe" in more senses than one. As I say, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, put three particular questions on what is meant by "Europe", and he asked how we envisaged the future of our Continent and its relationships with the world at large. To the first question, whether the Government still subscribe to the conception that an expanded European Community, which would include the United Kingdom, should in principle be a partner of the United States within the framework of the Atlantic Alliance, I have no hesitation in returning the answer, Yes. So I hope the noble Lord will not accuse me, as occasionally he does, of lack of clarity or decisiveness or some similar virtue. I hope he will realise that this is as emphatic and affirmative an answer as I am capable of giving.
There can be no doubt whatever about our loyalty to the Atlantic Alliance. It is indeed our view, and it is clearly the view of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who himself has rendered so much service to
1202
the Atlantic Community, that an expanded European Community, approaching or in some respects rivalling the United States in the size of its internal market, its population and level of technological achievement, would provide a surer foundation for that equal partnership between the great democratic States of the Atlantic Community and for the gradual breaking down of the divisions between Eastern and Western Europe which, in our view, must be the cornerstone of the more peaceful and united community of nations which we hope to build. So I am sure the noble Lord and the Government are entirely at one in regard to the first question.
The noble Lord's second question concerned the developing of the present Brussels machinery and using similar techniques in the foreign political sphere as well. I was surprised there that the question relates to the future development of a Community of which we do not at present form part. The Prime Minister has repeatedly explained that so long as we are not members of the Community it would not be appropriate for us to offer an opinion on what one might call the Community's "institutional" problems; such questions as majority voting, the power of the Commission, and "supra-nationality". We do not think that, standing at the moment, as we do, outside, it is appropriate for us to say how these things should be settled by those who are still inside. However, we have made it clear that if we do become members we should fully participate in discussions on these questions. That is really the essential answer to the noble Lord's second point. Indeed, as members of the Community we should wish to participate fully in every aspect of the Community's work and, of course, we should carry out loyally all the obligations we assumed.
During the discussions which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been engaged on, in the capitals of the E.E.C. countries, the structural aspect (if that is what the noble Lord had in mind) of European political co-operation has not featured at all and there has not been discussion of such proposals as those contained in the "Fouchet Plan". So that issue has not arisen up to now as between us and the Six. But we have made it plain that we attach importance

1203
to this whole question, and in particular that we should want to be associated in any discussions which might take place on this subject, and be associated right from the start.
The third question was one where again I found myself in full sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and also the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the prospect of arriving at some lessening of tension in Europe, and eventually at some acceptable solution of the whole problem of the division of Germany. The sort of structure which we should favour in Western Europe would, in our view, help to maintain balance and security in the Continent as a whole. It would certainly not damage—and here I entirely agree with both noble Lords—the legitimate political or economic interests of Eastern Europe. Indeed, it would serve to provide for Eastern Europe an assurance of stability and of more prosperous markets.
I am not going to suggest that there is no other road to improved relations with the countries of Eastern Europe. We and other countries in Western Europe have succeeded in recent years in securing very important and valuable improvements in our relations with the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe, and it is our purpose to develop these relations further. We believe that in this way we can make a substantial contribution to the reduction of the tension, but—and I repeat this because the noble Lord said that we do not say these things often enough or clearly enough, and I hope I am saying it at any rate clearly enough and perhaps often enough now—the contribution which a more united Western Europe would make to the whole process would, we believe, be much greater than if we were not included in Western Europe. It would open up a wider and more hopeful prospect, not only of a détente but
1204
of a more fruitful East-West collaboration. It would enable us to look forward to the time—I am not putting any particular year on it—when the existing divisions and barriers in Europe would soften and the resources of the Continent as a whole might be employed for the general benefit of the people.
Finally, in his original Question the noble Lord was concerned with the political objective which the Prime Minister had in mind when he spoke of our approach to Europe in his Statement of February 13. I have said something about that in the course of my remarks, but our purpose is not confined to Europe. It is our belief that a united Western Europe can play a much greater role in the Councils of the world, and that the individual countries of Western Europe will speak with greater authority within a framework of economic and political unity. In other words, given this unity, Western Europe could make a much greater contribution than it has so far been able to do to the most challenging problems of our times, the conflicts of race, colour and ideology, the poverty and misery of the peoples of so many nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the divisions and wars which up till now we have not found the means to prevent or settle.
It was this vision of a more united Europe transcending divisions between East and West that the Prime Minister had in mind in speaking of our political objectives. He referred to a Western Europe which we should like to see, not only advancing in power and prosperity, but exercising an ever stronger and more beneficial influence on the affairs of Europe as a whole and on the world outside. It is, I believe, a concept which must commend itself to the great majority of the British people; I am sure it does to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and, I hope, to every Member of your Lordships' House.