Lords Sitting of 7 August 1972

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 what, in the last recorded year, was the amount of private financial investment in developing countries from British sources and what, in the same year, was the total amount received in profit, interest and dividend from developing countries by such investors.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, it is provisionally estimated that in 1971 £163 million was invested by the United Kingdom private sector in developing countries. Information on remittances of interest, profits and dividends is not sufficiently complete to make an accurate estimate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl, may I ask whether an investigation can be made, because the estimates in many surveys have been that twice or three times as much is received in profit, dividend and interest as the total aid which we give? Is this not very important in a judgment of the situation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this would be extremely difficult, but I should be willing to look into it in conjunction with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much.

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION: PROPOSED LONDON OFFICE
2.38 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to prevent the use of an office in Great Britain by any of the bodies affiliated to the Palestine Liberation Organisation who have as their declared policy the harbouring, training and otherwise encouraging of persons who hi-jack planes, and the killing of the innocent men, women and children involved in the hi-jacking.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CUL-ROSS): My Lords, my right honourable friend made clear in replies given in another place on July 27 that, while there is no power to prevent an organisation from setting up an office, he would not hesitate to use to the full his powers to keep out or expel any alien likely to engage in acts of violence or to encourage or incite such acts. My right honourable friend also said that the courts had ample powers to deal with any breach of the criminal law.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while appreciating the points that have been made by the noble Viscount, might I ask him whether he is not aware that the organisations which are affiliated to the P.L.O. have declared that they are proposing, as they have done in the past, to hi-jack planes, to commit crimes and to continue to train people for that purpose? Is the noble Viscount saying that if that kind of action is tolerated by an organisation the individuals who run that organisation are not liable to criminal proceedings? If so, does he say that if an organisation were set up for the purpose of committing murders in this country nothing could be done about the setting up of that organisation?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords; as to the setting up of that organisation the noble Lord is quite right. But the noble Lord has a very great experience of criminal law. He has

743
put to me a number of hypothetical situations which he knows well would or could in this country be capable of being dealt with under the criminal law. If there were any question of anybody seeking to come in from outside to take part in these activities my right honourable friend has already explained, and in no mean firmness of terms, what he can and would do about the situation.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount to realise that there is considerable anxiety about this set-up, and that, it is known that in all probability any such organisation will be used as a cover for connections with individuals and other organisations abroad and for the purpose of committing murder? This is exactly what it means. With his ingenuity and ability, is the noble Viscount not in a position to advise that some steps might be taken to prevent an organisation of that description opening an office, or that some steps should be taken to make it illegal for such an organisation to open offices in this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the anxiety is not only well known to me but must be apparent to those who have listened to the Questions on this subject which have been asked both here and in another place. Yes, with ingenuity, with difficulty, with time, with a good deal of controversy and with dubious results it would be possible to pass legislation which would deal with the organisations as such. At the moment there is none. The anxiety is instant, and I have told the noble Lord and the House on past occasions what we can do. I have also told the noble Lord and the House, as my right honourable friend has done in another place, of the urgency and seriousness with which we take this matter and the degree of firmness with which we propose to use our powers.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, if such an office were set up it would presumably have a staff, if only a doorkeeper, and some sort of financial administration to enable it to pay its rent. Would it be possible to charge that office with the cost of police protection for the Jordanian Ambassador who was very nearly assassinated at the end of my street?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is a hypothetical question of the greatest complexity. In the first place, before one can seek to charge any body one must discover whether it is an organisation which is accepted as "a legal person" in this country. I do not know what the legal set-up would be in relation to this organisation. If there was none—and I would think this is likely—one would have recourse against only individuals. What they are worth is something I simply cannot speculate on.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that they will anticipate crime in this matter as well as they will be able to prosecute after the crime is committed?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is an exceedinely important aspect of the matter. I do not suppose that one would ever be wholly satisfied about one's powers to anticipate crime. What I can tell the House is that we are not badly equipped, and that we propose to use our resources to the best possible effect in the direction the noble Lord suggests.

DROWNING ACCIDENTS
2.44 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up an independent commission on water safety in view of the serious number of drowning accidents.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government share the noble Lord's concern at the continuing loss of life in drowning accidents generally. We are urgently studying a proposal for the appointment of an independent commission which we have just received from the National Water Safety Committee of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, but I cannot yet say what the conclusion will be.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his

745
reply. In view of the urgency of the matter, would lie please consider that it should be dealt with very quickly? At present, having regard to the fact that water is being used for additional recreational purposes, for waterways and so on, the likelihood is that the number of accidents will increase; consequently it is essential that the various organisations concerned throughout the country should be brought together to find out the best way of dealing with the situation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I understand entirely the need for urgency which the noble Lord urges upon us. The Report was, I think, dated July 25, and to have made up our minds on it between that date and to-day would possibly exceed even the admirable record of this Government. But the list in Appendix A of the organisations who are responsible shows how widely this information has been put together and the range over which the inquiry has investigated. We ought to take it seriously. I do not in any way disparage the idea of there being urgency, but it is a complicated matter with a large number of interlocking Departments and voluntary and other organisations, as the noble Lords knows, and if I were to say that my right honourable friend is going to make a decision the day after to-morrow it would be misleading.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the ability of the noble Viscount—I am grateful to him for the manner in which he has replied—I am sure he will find ways of dealing with the matter rapidly.

CHANNEL TUNNEL AND BRIDGE PROJECTS
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: 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 when a Statement will be made regarding the Report on the Channel Tunnel prepared by Rio Tinto Zinc and Situmer and whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the rising costs and the apparent increasing incidence of accidents in tunnels throws some doubt on the value of the tunnel project as compared with serious pro-
746
posals put forward by responsible civil engineers for linking the shores of France and Britain by means of a multipurpose bridge capable of taking all types of modern vehicles and trains and with its support piers serving as a series of beacons which would increase the safety of navigation in the overcrowded English Channel.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, on the first part of the Question, a statement will be made as soon as possible. On the second part, the project being studied is for a rail tunnel, which is the only practicable scheme at the present time.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I should like to ask how soon is as soon as possible"? According to the papers, the report by Rio Tinto and Shunter is in the hands of the Department of the Environment. Secondly, the concept of a tunnel is now growing archaic. Is the noble Lord aware that throughout the world great experience has now been obtained in building safe bridges—even the one across the Yangtse for the first time in history—and, furthermore, that a mass of information has been added as a result of oil drilling in the sea? A first-class engineering project was put before the Department of the Environment, and the reply was (and here I finish) that they had studied it. The answer did not seem to indicate that they had studied it Will the noble Lord assure us that they have done so?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is the answer, but what is the question?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, my question was: have the Department of the Environment really studied the project that was presented to them in April and May this year on the possibilities of a bridge?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, if I had been able to tell him precisely when a statement could be made I should have done so, but I am not in a position to do so at the moment. As to the bridge, the study to which the noble Lord refers has been in my Department since April, but at the moment we have considerable

747
doubts about its economic viability, and a good deal of doubt about its technical feasibility, and it seems certain that international agreement would be required for it. Our belief is that it would add to the navigational hazards rather than diminish them.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply may I ask whether he is aware that the bridge, with its 16 piers and beacons, would make navigation safer than ever in the Channel? Further, is he aware that we are never quite sure of a tunnel because of faultage in geological conditions?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, on the last point I would say that that is why studies have had to be so prolonged and careful. But I should certainly argue the view, which I think would be widely shared, that navigational hazards in the Channel are already great enough without this addition to them.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1962—now ten years ago—I was the representative in the City of the French-led Société D'Etudes Du Pont Sur La Manche, and that we put forward a constructive plan for a bridge-tunnel bridge, similar to that which exists in the Chesapeake Bay, but it was turned down by the determined opposition of the steel interests and the railway interests? Secondly, supposing that there is any difficulty about the Channel tunnel, and supposing also that for some reason or another the idea of a bridge similar to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is abandoned, would the Government nevertheless revert to the consideration of a bridge-tunnel-bridge?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was not fully aware of everything that the noble Lord said by way of a preliminary to his supplementary question, but I am grateful to know about it. I confirm that the bridge proposal mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has been studied. The answer I gave him is an indication of our view of it at the moment, but this certainly does not preclude our looking at further proposals which may be put forward. In conclusion, I confirm that the only practical
748
scheme that is receiving serious study at the moment is for the rail tunnel.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, does the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mean that he is now converted and in favour of Britain's entering the Common Market?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am converted to an intelligent contact with the Continent; but the Common Market as it is at the moment construed is not an intelligent activity.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, following the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, giving the French position with regard to this project, will the Minister look up the records from the time when the project first received consideration in another place in regard to a tunnel or a bridge so far as the Channel project was concerned? Further, does not the Minister think that this will take us back a long way and that it would be worth having that information published in Hansard?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I shall be delighted to look into that suggestion.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's Answer that the only project receiving serious study at the moment is the rail tunnel project, will he confirm that the idea of a bridge has not been paled out? Will he also undertake that the Government will study the aspect particularly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek; namely, that it is arguable, and I think demonstrable in certain cases, that a bridge would make navigation safer and would not produce an increased hazard, as the noble Lord suggested?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as I have already said, we have studied this particular proposal since April. We have come very firmly to the conclusion that it adds to the navigational hazards and I would confirm that the only scheme being given serious study at the moment is the rail tunnel.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, should not the Minister exercise a little caution in replying to questions about the Channel tunnel? Has he observed, as I have, that whenever there is a Statement

749
by the Government, or anybody representing the Government, about the practical nature of the Channel Tunnel scheme the shares rise? Is it desirable that the Government should indulge in any propaganda to help the shareholders of this company?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, are not the ideas of both a tunnel and a bridge somewhat old fashioned and out-of-date?

BUSINESS
2.53 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement of their intentions following the decision of President Amin to require Asians holding British passports to leave Uganda within three months.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir will answer the noble Lord's Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. I should also inform your Lordships that before this Question is answered my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will make a Statement on the RB211 TriStar.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which is the standard Motion for carrying over a Private Bill. The purpose of the Motion is to enable the Glamorgan County Council Bill to continue its progress through Parliament in the next Session. A complementary Motion has already been
750
moved and agreed to in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
2.58 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 14 I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 15 to 25.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, may I ask the indulgence of your Lordships before Amendment No. 14 is dealt with? I was also going to ask the indulgence of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, but I see that he has left the Chamber. I think it would be for the convenience of all the Members of your Lordships' House if we could be told, prior to the discussions that are to take place, what powers are still available to the Parliaments of Holland, Germany and the rest of the countries involved in the European Communities. We are going to discuss sovereignty later on and it would be helpful to Back-Benchers like myself if we could compare what powers those Parliaments have with the powers of the Parliaments of the European Communities.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House is now available, but in case he did not hear the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, I must say, subject to anything that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition may say, that we are now in Committee upon the Bill and an interpolated statement of the kind suggested would, I should have thought, be out of order. The stage we have reached is Amendment No. 14. No doubt my noble friends and I, who are handling the Amendments as they come, will be able to give such information as is available to us within the Rules of
752
Order, but I do not think we should be able to make statements like this without any question being put or a Motion being before the House.
LORD SHACKLETON: I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is a little unorthodox, but the fact remains that we are in the gravest difficulty because so few noble Lords have this particular information available to them. I have spent the last hour trying to find the answer to this question. Perhaps it will satisfy both the Committee and my noble friend if, at a suitable moment and possibly during our deliberations on Amendment No. 14, the Government give the information required about which my noble friend has helpfully given advance notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not in a position to give the information now, even if a Question were before the Committee. However, I am sure that what has been said will have been noted and that anything which is available will be given. I must point out that we were given absolutely no notice of this point. If the noble Lord had been so keen to get the information it would have been relatively easy for him either to give us notice or to put down a Question.
LORD BESWICK: Is it not fair to say that my noble friend referred to this matter last Thursday? Unfortunately we do not have in print the OFFICIAL REPORT of our deliberations of that day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My impression, having heard both interventions, was that the questions asked, although similar in the beginning, were in fact different questions. Nevertheless, we would of course seek to provide the Committee with as much information as possible within the bounds of order.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Would it be helpful if I were to walk over to the Cross Benches and ask for this information from there? I am not raising this matter in a Party way. If noble Lords will look at column 575 of the photostat transcript of our proceedings they will see that it was pointed out that this information, if it could be made available, would be of considerable help to us. We were told that the matter would arise on an Amendment, though I cannot

753
be certain on which Amendment the Government thought it would be acceptable for this matter to be discussed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is fully entitled to put his question from any part of your Lordships' House he chooses—it is not a matter for the Government from where he speaks—and we will give him the same attention from whichever part of the Chamber he speaks. We will give whatever information we have at the appropriate moment.
LORD SHINWELL: Does the Lord Chancellor appreciate that we are in some difficulty about certain Parts of the Bill? I assume that what the Government will be expected to do in dealing with Amendment No. 14 is not to explain the nature of the subsection to which it refers but to give the reasons why the Amendment should be rejected. In consequence, noble Lords will be deprived of full information about the precise meaning of the subsection. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will look at the subsection closely he will realise that it refers to a variety of Treaties and that it is somewhat complicated. One assumes that if the Government are anxious to acquaint the Opposition with the facts—those who are in favour of our entry may be quite happy to be without this and other information—they would be prepared to give as much information as possible to that section of the Opposition who, like myself, have considerable doubts about our entry into the E.E.C. If it is simply to be a question of the Government rejecting the Amendment and not giving more information, obviously we shall be in difficulty.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty will cease to arise if the noble Lord will allow Amendment No. 14 to be moved, for that will enable me to give information about subsection (1). Unless it is moved I am unable to help any further.
Clause 2 [General implementation of Treaties]:
3.5 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (1).
The noble and learned Lord said: Speaking with the opinions I hold and to which I have previously given expression, I shall be sorry indeed if the Government omit subsection (1). My object in moving this Amendment, which I do in accordance with well recognised custom, is in effect to ask the Government for information as to how Clause 2(1) will work. I do not want to be unnecessarily technical and I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am embarking on an abstruse and and inquiry which bears no relation to reality.
If one considers the various expressions of opinion which have been voiced throughout the debates on the Bill one must accept that an important clash of view has occurred. Some noble Lords and Members of another place take the view that by entering into the Treaties we are bound automatically to incorporate into our law the actual ipsissima verba of a large portion of the Treaties themselves and the obligations arising under them, such as regulations made in accordance with them. Many noble Lords and Members of another place who have studied this situation closely entirely repudiate that view and believe that by entering into the Treaties we will not bind ourselves automatically to incorporate Community law into our law in the same words as those in which the Community law is framed. All we shall be doing, they say, is to undertake, as soon as we reasonably can through our own Parliamentary processes, choosing our own language and framing the legislation as we think appropriate—so long as it gives effect to Community legislation—to alter our own laws so as to bring them into accord with Community legislation and to give effect to the Community obligations by which we have undertaken to bind ourselves.
That, I hope your Lordships will agree, is not an abstract or arid question of law but a matter which impinges directly on principle. Those who are suspicious of what we are doing say they dislike the idea that by one fell swoop we could make the language of the law of the Community part of our law. They very much object to that on the ground that this would seriously inhibit the freedom of Parliament and abrogate the sovereignty of this country and our Constitutional organs. Some say that we

755
have undertaken to do that very thing and that, by entering into the Treaties, we must go to the full length of doing exactly that. Those are the two conflicting views of principle. They engage very deep feelings and strong speeches have been made on this precise topic. It is for this reason that I think your Lordships will agree that I am not unnecessarily taking the time of the Committee by asking, in the form of the Amendment, for a full statement as to the view the Government take.
Now if I may look at Clause 2 subsection (1) to see how it operates, am I not right—and this is the question I would put—in thinking that it operates as follows? First, you have to take the Treaty in question, the Treaty which is one of the Treaties defined in Clause 1. For the purpose of my argument may I confine myself to the Rome Treaty itself? You then have to go through the various articles of that Treaty and have to ask yourself which of those articles can be said to contain or to create rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, or to bring into being remedies and procedures. And you concentrate on those articles, and on those articles alone, for the purpose of Clause 2(1).
Having performed that process, you then have to perform a secondary process. May I, for the sake of brevity, simply refer to rights? You have to ask, do those rights fall within the scope of the words which appear on lines 27 and 28?
"…as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect…"
If in the case of a given right you find that it does fall within the scope of those words—in other words, that you can say with reference to that right that there is some provision in the Treaty which requires that it should be automatically part of our law—then the result is that it becomes in its own language part of our law.
The first question I would ask the Minister to be so kind as to answer, therefore, would be whether I have correctly analysed the way in which Clause 2(1) works? If I have correctly analysed it, I should then like to put other questions and ask whether in so doing we do not go too far. In the first place, in order to pursue that enquiry I would invite your Lordships to consider
756
for a moment the Rome Treaty and ask of what provision in the Rome Treaty can one say, in the terms of Clause 2(1), that its wording does provide that the right in question is to be automatically part of our law.
Speaking for myself, and whilst I have endeavoured to make the best examination of this Treaty that I can, the only article which I can find in it which complies with that description is Article 189. Having cited it to your Lordships I will submit that that article itself is not very clear in its implication. It uses language which is ambiguous in import and it is not altogether beyond argument that it imposes the obligation on us to make the regulations with which it deals automatically part of our law. The relevant language is in the article which deals with the making of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations, and opinions. With regard to regulations it contains this language:
"Regulations shall have general application. They shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable in each member State."
In the view of Ministers, do those words or do they not, have the result of imposing upon this country an obligation to take the regulation as such without altering its language, without choosing our own Parliamentary language to reproduce its effect accurately and to incorporate it as such in our law?
I have endeavoured to make some research into the Community decisions on this subject to see whether I can find any answer which is precise. A case which is frequently cited on this aspect of the matter is the case of Costa against End. That was decided in 1964 by the European Court and that deals with Article 189. The language which it uses with regard to that article is:
The pre-eminence of Community law is confirmed by Article 189 which prescribes that Community regulations have an ' obligatory' value and are directly applicable within each member-State.' Such a provision which, it will be noticed, admits of no reservation, would be wholly ineffective if a member-State could unilaterally nullify its purpose by means of a Law contrary to Community dictates."
May I say that I cordially agree with the second sentence. Clearly, we should be infringing our obligations if we made a provision in our law which contradicted the regulation. That I accept at once. But it does not seem to me, if I may expressly put the point—and I put it wholly for elucidation to ascertain the

757
view of Ministers—that that analysis in the case of Article 189 goes the whole length of saying that we must take the actual language of the Article and automatically, without more ado, make it part of our legislation. That is the first question.
I then go on to ask a further question. I ask what is the justification in the Community legislation for our making anything other than the regulations themselves automatically part of our law? Where is the justification for the view that we are required to take portions of the Treaties themselves—those provisions of Treaties which we can call rights, powers, liabilities and so on—and make them part of our law in addition to the regulations? I believe that the answer I shall be given is that if you look at the same case, the Enel case which I have just cited, you will find that the Enel case and other cases which are sometimes relied upon decided in a European court do in point of fact put what I could perhaps properly call this "gloss" upon the terms of the Rome Treaties and other treaties, those terms which contain rights, and so on, that they are by implication to be made part of our own law. I hope I do not cite excessively from that judgment. but there are a few lines which are directly pertinent to that issue and I would submit that when they have been read it will be seen that they are again capable of an interpretation which would require us to do no more than by our own Parliamentary process, choosing our own language, reproduce the effect of the provisions of the Treaty to which they apply.
The language is this:
"As opposed to other international treaties, the Treaty instituting the E.E.C. has created its own order which was integrated with the national order of the member-States the moment the Treaty came into force; as such, it is binding upon them. In fact, by creating a Community of unlimited duration, having its own institutions, its own personality and its own capacity in law, apart from having international standing and more particularly, real powers resulting from a limitation of competence or a transfer of powers from the States to the Community, the member-States, albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves. The reception, within the laws of each member-State, of provisions having a Community source, and more particularly of the terms and of the spirit of the Treaty, has as a corollary the impossibility, for the member-
758
State, to give preference to a unilateral and subsequent measure against a legal order accepted by them on a basis of reciprocity."
If I may say so, I entirely agree with the latter part of that quotation. I accept at once that, having entered into the Treaty, we cannot proceed to make enactments in our own legislative system which conflict with the obligations we have undertaken. But I again put the question to Ministers, and I should be most grateful to ascertain their views as it is an extremely difficult question. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is a very important one, whether they think the language I have quoted, or similar language in other cases relied upon, goes the whole length to making it obligatory upon us to frame Clause 2(1) in the form in which it is framed. I ask the question: shall we not be fully implementing our obligations if we look at each particular obligation, choose our own language (many of these regulations, for example, are in extremely ambiguous language and are very difficult to enforce), and have the sort of precision which our own judges would expect to find when they are called upon to administer our laws?
If they are called upon to implement regulations as they stand, I submit that it will be extremely difficult for them to do so as they are so ambiguous, so general in scope. I think our own judges may perhaps be confronted with the difficulty which judges of the Supreme Court of the United States find in having to interpret the written Constitution of the United States. That has given rise to an enormous amount of legislation; I speak after many conversations with distinguished American lawyers who accept that the Supreme Court has to be a policy-making body; you cannot interpret with precision the very general language of the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, the Supreme Court is put in a position in which we do not want our judges to find themselves. That is the importance of this question. Those are the questions which I would put before your Lordships' House in inviting a statement from Ministers as to what their approach is.
I accept that in the Costa case, from which I cited, the result was that they did treat various Articles of the Rome Treaty as part of the law of Italy. But the issue

759
really, I think, that was before the court then was—it is not altogether clear, but I think it was this—whether the Italian Parliament would be in breach of its obligations if it introduced legislation contrary to the Articles of the Treaty which the court was considering. If that is right, if that is really what the court was then considering, my submission is that the somewhat general language in which it couched its judgment does not go the full length of establishing that we are required—I hope I do not repeat myself—to import the actual language, automatically and without more and without inquiry, into our own legislative system. I would be most grateful if noble Lords would be so kind as to furnish me with an answer on that. I beg to move.
3.24 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would be of great help to the Committee if, before the noble and learned Lord answers this direct question, we can put questions—and I have discussed this with the mover of the Amendment—against a certain context. The difficulty about the discussions we have had so far is, to put it mildly, that it has been confused by an inordinate amount of legal jargon. What we really want to see is if these provisions can be put into language that is understandable by all the noble Lords who sit behind the noble and learned Lord. If the Division comes to be called I venture to think there will be another hundred or so who will come in and troop through the Lobby in support of the Government. But it really is essential that the people of this country, including noble Lords opposite, who make decisions on these matters should try to understand what is being done in their name.
I submit to the Committee that, grateful as we are, and I am particularly grateful for all the coaching that I have had from my noble and learned friend, the fact of the matter is that when we get an answer in legal language to what he says there are very few in the Committee who understand its purport. I am grateful especially to my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, that he has moved this Amendment, because it does give us an opportunity of looking at this clause, at any rate at this subsection of Clause 2, against what was said on Thursday. We tried to amend Clause 1 on Thursday with two objectives in mind
760
One was to remove ambiguities, and, secondly, we wanted to strengthen the position of Parliament. The fact is that noble Lords opposite, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chancellor, got up repeatedly and assured us, and stated and re-stated their assurance, that Parliamentary control in these matters was adequate.
On that occasion the two legal authorities, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor himself, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, occasionally waxed a little indignant, not to say impatient, when we ventured to doubt their categorical assurance, and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said, suggests that our doubts were justified. We are grateful to him for bringing our attention to this clause because here the language is a little bit clearer than in Clause 1. Let me read subsection (1) again let us relish the language it employs. It says:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly;…"
I doubt very much whether ordinary readers of the British newspapers know what is put in this clause. They do not know what is being done in their name. They have an instinctive feeling about this, which they express in the opinion polls, but they do not know that the situation is as bad as in fact it is.
Both the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, are really skilful advocates, but they should not be surprised, and the Lord Chancellor really should not be so indignant, if our doubts still remain. My noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill is as qualified as any to state an opinion, but I know that in my own case my own doubts are discounted because it is said I am from the start anti-Market. That is not entirely true, and I have endeavoured on occasions to state what my position is as far as collaboration with Europe is concerned. But still it is suggested that there are some of us who take up an a priori position, and are, therefore, not

761
properly able to consider the meaning of these words.
I agree I may be more against than I realise, but I have consulted my noble and learned friend and other authorities and I have tried to find out what is the net legal effect of this subsection. I emphasise that the net effect is what I am after, the effect after all the consequences are made, all the allowances made, all the cross references followed and all the preceding and succeeding paragraphs taken into account. I have endeavoured to find out what remains. I went to the article by the legal adviser to the Commission and read his words very carefully. He is obviously, in his position, able to say what the effect of Community law will be on the member States of the Community, and he is not in any way, I submit, biased. I quoted from the article in the Modern Law Review by Gerhard Bebr, and it is interesting to be reminded again of what he actually said. Having made the point earlier that there are a number of ways in which the Commission can put forward Community law; that there are different grades of law, he went on:
"A regulation is the most powerful act typical of the Community legal order. It is binding in every respect and directly applicable throughout the entire Community without any intervention whatever on the part of member States. It may impose obligations or confer rights on member States and individuals alike. By its content a regulation is a veritable Community law."
My Lords, let us consider what Professor Wade had to say in an article in The Times on April 10, 1972, to which reference has already been made. He said:
"There is nothing new in abdicating sovereignty—the dismantling of the British Empire was a gigantic exercise in exactly that. But it is undoubtedly revolutionary for this country to accept as law, in advance and automatically, the dictates of the Community's executive organs…"
Or take another undoubted authority, Sir Leslie Scarman. In a lecture to the Royal Institute of Public Administration, he said:
"Community law consisting of a body of law enacted by institutions other than Parliament, will have to be interpreted and applied within the Kingdom by our courts under the guidance of the European Court, which will be the ultimate and authoritative interpreter of the Treaties."
762
So one can go on. In an article in The Times on Tuesday, May 2, T. J. O. Hickey said that Clause 2, which is the clause we are discussing:
"confers on authorities other than the Parliamentary authorities at Westminster—authorities external to the State—confined but undoubted powers of direct legislation and taxation within the United Kingdom. There has been nothing like it since the Pope's privileges and jurisdiction within England were repudiated in the sixteenth century".
So one could go on. But it really does not match the assurances that we were given last Thursday about the adequacy of Parliamentary control of this legislation. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, on Thursday, in what was, if I may say so, a superbly eloquent speech at about 11 o'clock at night, said it was pathetic that we should still go on saying that Parliamentary authority was being undermined. What extraordinary faith the noble and learned Lord has in his own eloquence!;
The final argument of Ministers opposite is that this surrender of Parliamentary control may be inherent in the Bill, but it is what Parliament has agreed. Indeed, this is what the noble and learned Viscount said to me on Thursday when I was querying this particular point. He said: "All right, you may not like it, but this is what it is, and you have got to have it." Ministers say that this is what Parliament has agreed by certain Divisions on Motions—some of which, I may add, were taken before this Bill ever saw the light of day. And they will usually add, of course, that in any case certain Labour Ministers agreed to this surrender in 1967. On this last point, it is interesting to see that Professor Wade said in his article—and I quote:
"… it is obvious, at any rate, that Community Law makes much great demands than were mentioned in the White Paper of 1967."
But leaving that aside it is no less a surrender of Parliamentary control, even though the present Parliament, by the vigorous use of Whips, has agreed to the surrender.
If a man doubtful of his future instructs another to cut his throat, one might argue whether it was suicide or murder, but the result is the same. It really does not help the cause of democracy to be told that Parliament itself has agreed to this cutting off of control which we think is an integral part of a living Parliament. It would be in the best interests of us all if

763
Ministers would refrain—if I may suggest this in good humour and in good faith—in future, from proving to their own satisfaction that this Bill makes adequate provision for Parliamentary control. That really is not the case. What we are concerned with, however, is to see that the maximum possible additional control is given. We have put forward Amendments which do something—not much, as my noble friend Lord Shinwell keeps reminding us—to strengthen the standing of control so far as this Community law is concerned.
I therefore beg the Leader of the House again not to turn down out of hand as the Government have done so far, and as they did on Thursday, the efforts that some noble Lords have made, the pros-and the antis- alike, to improve Parliamentary control. If the Government can give absolutely no indication that they will consider sympathetically some of our later Amendments, the best thing that Parliament can do in its own interests, and certainly in the interests of the British people, would be to accept this Amendment which my noble and learned friend has moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would be convenient, without any attempt whatever on my part to curtail the debate, if I tried to answer the questions put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because they go to the heart of this matter and I cannot help thinking that if we get that part of it right we can discuss the subsequent words and the particular phrases used in subsection (1) with a clearer understanding of what they mean or, at any rate, the meaning which the Government side attach to them.
May I, before I embark upon that, say this to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because I think he still does not understand what I was trying to put to him the other night. Parliamentary sovereignty is one thing; Parliamentary control is another. I personally believe, and I said this the other night, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, was right in the debate on Second Reading of the Bill in drawing attention to the need for greater Parliamentary control through new organs of Parliamentary procedure which are necessitated by the nature of this type of legislation.
764
I accept that wholeheartedly. He also went on to add, and I accept this no less wholeheartedly, that in his view, as it is mine, the right way to do it is by new organs of Parliamentary procedure engendered from within each House or, better still, both Houses acting collectively through a specially devised Committee system. He went on to say, as did my noble friend the Leader of the House—and again I agree wholeheartedly—that if instead of tying oneself into knots with a number of, in my opinion, quite misguided Constitutional conumdrums we should get down to discussing in a constructive way what those particular procedures, and the institutions, would be within the Parliamentary body, we should in fact be making a step forward.
It does not follow from that that Parliamentary control should be established in the pre-accession Statute. I quite agree that we should be extremely slow to abandon Parliamentary sovereignty, but for reasons which I have given now on many occasions I do not think that we have done so. I think it is there and it always has been there. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, this is not only my own opinion, it was also the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and of my predecessors in the previous Conservative Administration. Of course we may be wrong, but it was a view very deliberately arrived at; and in the case of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—or was it the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, in 1962?—it was arrived at after a very close consultation with almost every prominent lawyer in the country. So far as Parliamentary control is concerned, I have never said that if we do nothing about it we shall have adequate organs of scrutiny or adequate organs of control. On the contrary, I think that the Committee system requires development, and I hope we may soon get a little further in discussion on those lines.
Now may I come back to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who really put his finger on the nub of this particular matter. I should first like to say that we are in the presence of a new legal concept. I shall try to describe to the Cornmince—it has been done before—what this legal concept involves, and what it

765
is. It is new, and therefore old-fashioned English legal language, or technical English legal language, is not always apt to make it plain. I think that it is bold and imaginative, and I think it is highly desirable; but I want to describe it as it is rather than advocate its introduction, because I think it is a failure to understand what it is which gives rise to a good deal of the confusion of thought that exists about this subsection. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, began by saying that he would be extremely sorry if this subsection was not passed. Therefore, his Amendment, which he claimed, I think with complete justification, to be well within the tradition of the Committee stage in either House of Parliament, was a probing Amendment designed to elicit the answers to certain questions from the Government.
Before I tackle the questions themselves I want to emphasise the nature of direct applicability as it is envisaged in the Common Market. What differentiates a common market from a free trade association pure and simple is basically that if you are going to have a common market the market must be run on certain mutually agreed lines. The persons who are members of the market are not allowed to take advantage of one another by special tariffs or by special subsidies, and equally are forbidden to do so by means of restrictive practices of a particular kind which would prevent the competition from operating, or the market from being a market equally open to all. In other words, the market must have rules which are mutually agreed and which are applied universally among the members of the market. This is basic to the whole conception.
It also follows that if these rules are to be the same for all, they must in the last resort be, not enforced but at least interpreted by a single juridical institution—in fact, in this case, the Luxembourg Court. The result is the development of the directly applicable system of law. To understand what it is, in my Second Reading speech I drew two analogies which I think are fair enough and which I will repeat, but which are misleading, each in a different respect. I want to point out how far they are fair enough and how far they may be misleading before I go any further. I drew attention to the development inside English law in the 17th century in particu-
766
lar—I think perhaps a little earlier, but at any rate at the turn of the 17th century—of what was called the "law merchant". Almost all the law affecting bills of exchange has its origin in the law merchant, which was not a specifically English conception but was drawn from the practice of merchants, particularly in Western Europe, among the trading nations. This was a source of English law different from the Common Law and different from Statute Law. I drew that as an analogy and, like all analogies, it was fair enough up to a point but it was misleading beyond that point. The point at which it was misleading was that although the law relating to bills of exchange is basically international in its origin, it is enforced by separate national courts, and was ultimately enacted after very many years—more than two centuries—in the Bills of Exchange Act drafted by the late Mr. Chalmers. But in the course of the development of the law merchant as part of English law it became true in detail, although the thing was basically an international system, that the different courts of different nations had in detail, and in minor details to some extent, different rules relating to bills of exchange, because each national law developed a different law relating to bills of exchange out of a common root. So to that extent my analogy was misleading.
The second analogy that I drew was that of prize law in time of war. This was to some extent in one respect a better analogy, because in time of war, in theory at any rate, the various belligerents and neutrals operate the same international law of prize. But in practice, of course, the prize courts are nearly always the courts of belligerents, and it became true that, although in theory the law was international and was the same—and indeed the text books are international and are the same—the prize courts in different countries did in fact arrive at inconsistent results. Therefore, to that extent that analogy is slightly misleading.
That brings me back to the Luxembourg Court. The essence of the conception of directly applicable law in the Common Market is, first, that there should be a common set of rules—sometimes going into detail, and sometimes consisting of general rules contained, very

767
often, in Articles of the Treaty—interpreted by a single court in the last resort, so that the courts of the individual countries cannot, in practice, develop idiosyncracies of their own which cannot be corrected. I agreed with the analysis, as one would expect I would, of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, very closely up to one point. However, there was one point where I think I would demur on the particular language he used. He talked of the directly applicable law of the Common Market as forming part of our law. Strictly speaking, this is a misconception. It is directly applicable in our courts. It has, where it is directly applicable by virtue of the subsections of the cause we are now discussing, "preeminence" (which was another word I think he used) over rules of domestic law here—that is to say, where there is inconsistency between the two systems, the Common Market rules must be applied—but it is a separate system of law applied in our courts, and it is not part of our law as such. The Court at Luxembourg tends to call it a new legal order; other people, I think, have called it an independent legal system; I liked to call it in my Second Reading speech a new source of law. But it is important, not that you should use the correct label but that you should get the right idea about its legal characteristics, and it is that idea which I am trying to convey to the Committee.
Having said that, I think we can go back to the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, asked, and I start from the Act of Accession which is annexed to the Treaty of Accession. The Act of Accession annexed to the Treaty of Accession contains the following provision in Article 2:
"From the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities shall be binding on the new Member States and shall apply in those States under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this Act".
What we have agreed to accept, of course, is membership of this society as contained in the original Treaties, but in the original Treaties as they are now interpreted authoritatively between the existing members themselves. Many of the ambiguities which might have existed in 1957 (if that is the right date) do not now
768
exist, because a particular interpretation has been given authoritative effect.
Two things are clear, for instance. The first is that certain of the Articles of the Treaties themselves, although not necessarily all of them, are part of the directly applicable law in all the States which adhere to the Treaty. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that if we had started at the beginning it could have been possible to argue that this was not so; but it is not possible to argue it now because the Treaty has had authoritative interpretation and has been so understood throughout the negotiations by the proposed new member States and by the old members inter se.
If I may just give an example, there is a case (and noble Lords will forgive me for not being able to pronounce the various names of these cases) called van Gelid en Loos v. Nederlandse Tariefcommissie which establishes that Article 12 (I think it is) of the E.E.C. Treaty is of direct effect in the Communities. In that case the obligation or the restriction was a negative one: not to introduce any new customs or equivalent duties against other member States; it would inure for the benefit of individuals, and it would impose a restriction on member States. There are a number of Articles in the Treaty which have been held to be of directly applicable effect. They include Article 12, Article 13, Article 31, the first paragraph of Article 32, the first paragraph of Article 37, Article 53, the first paragraph of Article 85, the second paragraph of Article 85 and Article 95, as examples. They are of directly applicable effect, the acknowledged test being—and I think this came from my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in the Second Reading debate—whether they are (I use the words in inverted commas) "complete and perfect".
Now exactly the same test as to direct applicability applies to the instruments deriving their authortiy from the Treaty, which is the second source of directly applicable law. Nearly all these are in fact regulations, and nearly all regulations are in fact directly applicable. It is not in fact true that something which takes the form of a regulation is absolutely certainly directly applicable. Nor is it absolutely true that that which takes

769
the form of something other than a regulation—for instance, a directive—is not directly applicable. The test is one of substance and not of form, and the test applied by the Court is whether it is complete and perfect; that is to say, whether it is capable of imposing an obligation without any intervening legislation by the member State. I must say, as a corollary to that, that there are of course regulations which do, as an ancillary part of them, impose an obligation on a member State to take certain action ancillary to the main obligation, in which case, of course, to that extent the ancillary obligation is not part of the directly applicable law.
I hope I have been reasonably lucid about all this. If I am not reasonably lucid, I have been doing my best. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, wanted it in terms which the ordinary newspaper reader can understand, and, of course, I am anxious to put it in terms which the ordinary newspaper reader can understand. But I cannot do so at the sacrifice of accuracy or at the risk of misleading the Committee. One has to recognise that legal concepts are not always such as the ordinary newspaper reader can understand, and if one starts trying to expound the law in terms which the ordinary newspaper reader can understand one is apt to get it wrong or to state it wrongly; and I have tried to be as accurate and as lucid as possible.
LORD BESWICK: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. He says now—and I am trying to follow him—that some regulations are directly applicable and some are not. I have read that passage from the Modern Law Review by Gerhard Bebr. If what the noble and learned Lord says is correct, then the legal adviser to the Commission is inaccurate. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that he is inaccurate? Because if, for the noble and learned Lord's benefit, I may just repeat it again, he says:
"A regulation is the most powerful act typical of the Community legal order. It is binding in every respect and directly applicable throughout the entire Community without any intervention whatever on the part of member States."
There is no qualification to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: But I am trying to give the noble Lord a
770
correct answer and I am not trying to follow the language of the legal adviser in the Modern Law Review. What is set down in the Modern Law Review is, I should have thought, in 999 cases out of 1,000, absolutely correct; but it is in fact not in theory absolutely correct because, as I say—and I am trying to explain to the noble Lord—what is directly applicable or not is a question of substance and not of form. There are cases where a regulation contains matter which requires further action by the State, in which case it is not directly applicable. It is also possible—it is theoretically possible; I am not sure that I could point my finger to an actual example—for something to be written in the form of a regulation which was in substance something more in the nature of a directive. The question is one of substance and not of form. The test is one of completeness and perfectness (if that is the right word) and not one of the actual form which it takes. There are directives which are directly applicable, although the majority are not; and I am told there are some regulations, but very few, which are not directly applicable—and I believe that to be a correct answer. I am not concerned to criticise an article the exact phraseology of which I do not fully recollect. I think I have given the Committee an absolutely correct answer so far as I can.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I ask one question? The noble and learned Lord is, I think, making sense to me—just—in this difficult area. He says that most of the directly applicable Community laws will be made in the form of regulations, and that these regulations can be made by the Council or by the Commission, or both. This is a very important point, because the Council has Ministers represented on it and the Commission does not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Council is the authority under which the Commission works; but I think it works informally to the extent that a great number of regulations are given the imprimatur of the Commission. But if a State wishes to take it to the Council it can do so. The Council is the body of ultimate resort subject to negotiation between the States.
LORD SHACKLETON: How can a State take it to the Council if it is within

771
the possession of the Commission? Or does the Council know everything the Commission is doing? I understood that this was not the purpose of the basic constitution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Commission, just to make an analogy, is the Civil Service and the Council is the political authority of Ministers.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble and learned Lord is on a very important point. The Treaty of Rome specifically makes it clear that the Commission is not the Civil Service. This is important, whether we are for or against the Common Market. We must be right on this vital point. It is laid down very clearly in the Treaty of Rome that the Commission is in this respect an independent body and has an independent life. I admit that there are links between the two and that there is a very carefully worked out relationship; but, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord. I think it is misleading to say that the analogy is with the Civil Service.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To some extent all analogies are misleading. I think it was not misleading in the context in which I used it. But if it does not help the noble Lord, I will not persist in the analogy. Obviously, it was no more than an analogy. It was not designed to say that the Commission was exactly the same thing as the Civil Service, nor did I wish to create that impression.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Before my noble and learned friend leaves that point, may I ask him to clarify a phrase which I think fell from his lips. He said that it would be possible for negotiation in the Council. Could he enlarge on that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I said "negotiation between the members". That is a different thing.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: With great respect, it is a very different thing indeed; and this is what worries some of us. Is it not the case, from what my noble and learned friend has said, that there are matters which may be right or may be wrong and that they will be decided by horse-trading; that this will
772
be done over our heads and that we shall have no recourse other than the veto?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think not. I was talking simply in terms of negotiation between States which can always alter the terms of the legal obligation. That is so whether we enter into the Common Market or not. My noble friend is trying to read too much in what I have said.
May I move back to the point on which I was touching? I am seeking to describe the nature of directly applicable law. I hope I have established that it is a separate system of law. It is applicable in each country not as part of the legal system of that country but applied by their courts. Where there is a conflict between a rule of domestic law, in each one of the member countries, the directly applicable law is pre-eminent in the sense that it is the duty of the courts of that country to give effect to the directly applicable law of the Community. If in doubt as to what the law is it refers or can refer to the Luxembourg Court for a positive interpretation. Sometimes one forgets the train of argument when one is, quite properly, interrupted; but I wanted to add that what is or is not directly applicable is itself a question of Community law. That is an important addition to what I was saying because, for example, I read out a number of clauses in the articles of the Treaty which I said were directly applicable; and I said that because they had been so held to be directly applicable. But if I had given the impression that no other article could hereafter be held to be directly applicable I should be giving a misleading impression.
LORD BESWICK: Would the noble and learned Lord be good enough to point out to me in which clause, or phrase, or subsection of any clause it is stated that some regulations are not directly applicable?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not to be found in the Treaty at all; that is why I found it necessary to state it in my speech.
: Oh!
LORD BESWICK: With respect, a statement in the noble and learned Lord's speech is not sufficiently good. The

773
country wants something rather more authoritative even than that. I should have thought that it would go into an Act of Parliament. Can the noble and learned Lord say in which part of this Bill which we are now considering, in which clause or which phrase, it is even hinted that some regulations are not directly applicable?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord is really being a little discourteous. I am only seeking to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. If I had given a different answer it would have been an inaccurate one. I was seeking to answer the question he put. It is true as a general rule that the directly applicable law is to be found either in certain articles of the Treaty or in regulations, but it is not true as an absolute statement of unqualified fact that there is nothing in the regulations which is not directly applicable or that there is nothing, for instance, in the directives which is not directly applicable; because both those statements as absolutely unqualified statements would be wrong.
The noble Lord asked me to say which phrase in Clause 2(1) contained that information. The answer is that that information is not contained in Clause 2(1). The purpose of Clause 2(1) is to provide that those obligations which are of direct application shall have direct application. It does not seek to give their sources; it does not say either that they are regulations or directives. It mentions the Treaties, but not, by name, the different kind of instruments under the Treaties. Nor, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would one expect it to do so.
I did not want to take too long at this stage, I know noble Lords want to discuss the aspects of the clause. Therefore I want to bring this intervention to an end as quickly as I may. The fact of the matter is that we are at the heart of the Bill. The concept which we are being asked to accept is that of a Common Market with common rules—in so far as they are not contained in the original Treaty formulated under the institution of the membership of the Common Market—in a way that we shall be discussing in due course and directly applicable in the sense in which I had
774
I been trying to describe it. I had not intended to go further than that; but it seems to me that those were the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was putting. The answers to them, if I may go back to his speech and then draw my remarks to a close, is that you do have to look at the articles of the Treaty to see which are directly applicable; and the test is completeness and perfection. You cannot leave it to the Legislatures of each individual member to enact the directly applicable system by its own processes because they take effect immediately once you accept membership of the Treaty. They are enforceable, or at any rate are of direct application from the moment they take effect, and they do not take effect from the moment you legislate them by your own legislative process.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that question can he tell us at what stage the regulations become effective? Is it possible for them to become effective purely on the decision of the Commission and not that of the Council?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They become effective, I think, on publication or on the commencement date. It is the same, I think, in principle as our own legislation. The regulations have to be published before they can be effective, and they may contain a commencement date.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: Is the noble and learned Lord telling us that they can come just from the Commission, the Civil Service body?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They come from the Commission. It is not in that sense that it is independent, but in its regulation-making power that it operates in implementation of the policies laid down by the Council. It formulates regulations in implementation of policies laid down by the Council. The Council itself may make regulations but if it does so it makes them only on the proposal of the Commission.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Can the noble and learned Lord tell me where in the Treaties are the words which make this particular clause necessary? Assuming it has been arranged between a willing

775
buyer and a willing seller. We have a "commitment of honour"(I think those were the words used) and we are obligated to do something. I cannot find out where we are obligated to have such a wide clause as is proposed here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This clause gives effect only to those obligations and rights which are of direct application under the Treaties; that is all it does. We are obligated to give effect to those rights under Article 2 of the Act of Accession. It is—
LORD BALOGH: Would the noble and learned Lord confirm—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Do let me answer one question at a time. It is Article 2 of the Act of Accession to which I referred. It is not a question of words. I have been trying to explain to noble Lords that it is inherent in the conception of a Common Market that there are common rules, and this is the way in which the common rules of this Common Market have been operated. This is the interpretation put upon the Treaties. It has been put upon the Treaties from the very early days, from the start, and this is the obligation which we undertake when we enter into the Treaties. Clause 2(1)—it is not a question of words—simply gives effect to such obligations and rights as are, by the operation of Community law, of direct application.
LORD BALOGH: Would the noble and learned Lord confirm that an analogous clause has been enacted in France, Italy and the various other countries? That is my first question. My second question is in reference to what the noble and learned Lord said before. He said that Parliamentary control is unimpaired. I do not know whether perhaps he used the word "control" in a legal sense which I do not understand; but if he did not use the word "control" in this particular "Hailshamian" sense I should like to know what he means by it. If something is directly applicable without any discussion in Parliament, surely Parliament cannot be said to have control over it. That is the very essence of the Common Market, and that is why some of us are doubtful whether at this particular juncture in these particular circumstances one should enter the Market.
776
Surely the noble and learned Lord cannot possibly say that Parliamentary control is unimpaired when a clause is directly applicable without discussion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord had been attending to me as carefully as I had hoped, he would have heard me say that what was unimpaired was Parliamentary sovereignty. I began my speech, I should think during fully the first five or ten minutes of it, by saying that I thought that further instruments of Parliamentary control on the lines of those suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, on Second Reading, were required. So I did not make the statement attributed to me. I must say, in passing, that I found his reference to a "Hailshamian" sense offensive.
As regards the first question that he asked, of course all the Six have slightly different processes in their Legislatures, but there is no question that all the countries of the Six have accepted the equivalent of Clause 2(1). The directly applicable law of the Community applies, without further national or domestic enactment, in all the countries of the Six. I cannot, without notice, describe the exact legislative process in all six cases by which that result has been arrived at. This is the result which we arrived at by our own legislative process, but the result is the same in all six cases.
I think that I have answered Lord Stow Hill's question. I am afraid that I have been tempted into a rather longer intervention than I had intended by a number of questions which really relate to other parts of the subsection. I did not wish to intervene at this length at this stage, but I felt that I ought to give some account of the direct applicability of Community law since that was the question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, put to me.
EARL JELLICOE: I hope that I shall not be confronting the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, "eyeball to eyeball", but, with the permission of the Committee, and in order that the House may hear Statements by my noble friends Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie and Lord Drumalbyn, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

UGANDA: FUTURE OF BRITISH ASIANS
4.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, perhaps it might be convenient for the House to turn to a completely different subject, and I should like, if I may, to repeat a Statement which is being made now in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the subject of Asians in Uganda who are holding British passports. The Statement is as follows:
"In a speech to troops on August 4, President Amin is reported to have said that he will ask the British Government to take over responsibility for all Asians in Uganda who are holding British passports, because they are sabotaging the economy of the country. Our High Commissioner in Uganda has asked to see the President to establish his reason for his statement and to obtain an indication of Ugandan intentions. We have had no official communication from the Uganda Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is in touch with other East African Governments."
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness—and not wishing at this moment to go into the rights and wrongs of this question—whether the Government will do what many of us have urged for a number of months: initiate a conference between representatives of the Commonwealth Territories in Africa—Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania—and India, with a view to the solution of this very difficult problem?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Well, my Lords, we did in fact have an arrangement with the Uganda Government in May of last year whereby we doubled the quota of vouchers to those who could come in, as well as giving a special allocation of 1,500 vouchers, and it was agreed that this would be observed. So far as we are concerned, this arrangement of an orderly entry into this country is still the one in existence.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered my noble friend's question. There may be good reasons for not having this conference. There may be reasons which the noble Baroness, for some reason, does not want to give. But since my noble friend has an unfortunate ability to be right when I do not always expect him to be right, the noble Baroness, if I may say so, would be rather well advised to answer his supplementary question.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I was seeking to explain to the House, in answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, that we already have an agreement at this moment with the Uganda Government. Therefore, to go on to the particular question, we do not at this moment see that it is necessary to have a conference until we know exactly what the facts are. We have had no official communication.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that Her Majesty's Government must know the facts, may I ask, would it not be most desirable, since India is deeply involved in this issue, and particularly because the influence of Kenya might be extremely valuable in reaching a solution, to call the kind of conference that I have suggested?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I said in the original Statement that my right honourable friend is in touch with East African Governments on this issue. Of course that would also involve India in the sense that these extra vouchers were meant to help those of Indian origin.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not Her Majesty's Government agree that, though we undoubtedly have some responsibility for the Asians of British nationality in East Africa generally, our responsibility can be discharged only within the limits of the possible? That being so, would not the noble Baroness think that the announced policy—if it is a policy—of the dictator of Uganda is in itself inexcusable, and indeed incapable of execution, short of mass murder and starvation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we certainly accept that these Asians who are holders

779
of British passports are our responsibility On the other hand we have always sought, and in fact had, an arrangement for their orderly entry into this country for their own benefit and also for the benefit of the people of this country.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Uganda Foreign Secretary was in this country towards the end of last week and made a statement on British television on Saturday evening prior to leaving London airport? Is it not inexcusable for the Foreign Secretary of Uganda to come to this country as a guest and make a statement on television confirming what General Amin said without saying one word to Her Majesty's Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is exactly why our High Commissioner has sought an interview with President Amin.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I also heard the statement referred to by the noble Lord, and without wishing to prolong this discussion on what is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory situation, or to complicate the efforts which I trust are strenuously being made, may I ask the noble Lord if he will still bear in mind—because these issues are likely to arise in the future—the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Brockway?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I will certainly bear carefully in mind any suggestion which comes from any noble Lord. May I just point out that I am not yet a noble Lord?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness say what is the subject of the communications between the High Commissioner and General Amin? Is it purely a question of ascertaining the exact meaning of his speech or speeches over the weekend? Would the noble Baroness confirm, as Mr. David Lane said, that we must accept ultimate responsibility for these people, and that if in the ultimate General Amin repudiates the Agreement he has with this country and throws the 40,000 United Kingdom passport holders out, we must accept the responsibility for bringing them into this country and making proper and orderly arrangements for their arrival? But,
780
nevertheless, would she represent to General Amin that such a thing is totally impossible physically within the space of three months, and that, if he wishes to alter those arrangements, it must be done in an orderly and progressive manner over a much longer space of time than he has allowed?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the purpose of the meeting requested by our High Commissioner in Uganda is, first of all, to find out whether Press reports are in fact accurate; and if so, what really is intended. Then will be the time to take action on some of the lines mentioned by the noble Lord.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is at least one noble Lady who comes from North of the Border and who maintains that there is no such thing as a "Peeress" in your Lordships' House and prefers to be called a "noble Lord"?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, that is a fascinating comment of which I was not aware. I must study it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness if, when considering the proposal I have made, she will bear in mind that this is now becoming an international question; that European Governments are refusing to receive these British passport holders and that the whole matter may be raised at the Human Rights Commission? In view of that fact, will the Government take active steps to bring about a conference as I have suggested?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the first thing the Government are trying strenuously to do is to find out the exact facts of the case. Then we shall have to decide how we are to sort it all out.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that, while we have a rather uncomfortable obligation to the Uganda Asians, we should also condemn this obnoxious kind of repatriation in which the President of Uganda is indulging?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must repeat that we have yet to find out officially what

781
the facts are. We have heard a great deal about them. If they turn out to be true, of course we shall deeply regret it, particularly as many of these Asian holders of British passports have never been to this country and do not particularly want to come here.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she does not agree that it is not helpful to the people under pressure in Uganda at the moment to carry on this form of questioning of Government policy, and that it would be far better if the matter were left now until the Government have full knowledge of the facts because this is a difficult and dangerous situation not for us but for Uganda and for the Asians there.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said that Her Majesty's Government have been in touch with other Commonwealth territories, can she say whether in effect Her Majesty's Government have been in touch with non-Commonwealth territories; in other words, other African or Malagasy Governments? Can she say whether in effect she would recognise that Madagascar is large enough to accommodate some of these Asians? They already have some Mauritian, Chinese and Indian nationals. Could not an approach be made to the Malagasy Government in exchange for further technical assistance, capital aid and private investment for them to accommodate some of these nationals? If the noble Baroness does not feel that an approach can be made direct to the Malagasy Government on this issue does she not feel that an approach could possibly be made to the French Government with a view to co-ordinating our policies in Africa and the Malagasy Republic?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, while I very much appreciate my noble friend's comments I really feel that we must first find out what the exact facts are. This is the whole point of what our High Commissioner is trying to do, because we hope that there will be second thoughts in Uganda and that the agreement we
782
have with Uganda will still be carried out.

RB.211 ENGINE AND LOCKHEED TRISTAR
4.28 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which my honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace is making in another place on the Rolls-Royce RB.211 and Lockheed TriStar. It is as follows:
"I wish to inform the House that two major decisions have been taken on the RB.211 programme. First, we have accepted proposals from Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. to develop the engine from 42,000 to 45,000 lb. thrust. Rolls-Royce (1971) estimate the development cost to be £31 million. They will meet 25 per cent. of this from working capital. If the development cost should exceed £31 million they will meet 50 per cent. of any increase up to a total project cost of £61 million. The remaining development costs will be met by the Government. Production costs will be met wholly by Rolls-Royce (1971) and arrangements will be made for recovery of the Government's development contribution.
"This stretched engine, to be known as the RB.211–24, will be used in the first instance in an extended range TriStar, the -2, which Lockheed are determined to develop with a view to introduction into service in 1975. Development of the engine, on which some preliminary work has been done by Rolls-Royce (1971), will start at once, because it will take longer than the modification of the airframe. Continuation of this programme will, of course, depend on a final decision by Lockheed to develop the -2, on which they have already started preliminary work, and on the conclusion of satisfactory contractual arrangements between Rolls-Royce (1971) and Lockheed.
"Second, the British Airways Board have decided that the introduction of the TriStar into their fleet best suits their particular commercial requirement. They have therefore decided,

783
provided Lockheed decide to develop the -2, to place an initial order for six TriStar -1 s with an option on six more aircraft which might be -Is or -2s. My right honourable friend has approved this decision, which is primarily one for the commercial judgment of the Board.
"There are possibilities of a European application of the RB. 211–24 in versions of the A.300B Airbus to which the Hawker Siddeley group are already making a substantial private contribution. I have made it clear to the French Minister of Transport, and Rolls-Royce (1971) have made it clear to Aerospatiale, that we are very willing to consider specific proposals for suitable applications of the RB.211. In doing so, I explained to M. Galley my view that for the future it will be essential for European countries to develop a more co-ordinated procurement policy for aircraft and a more integrated manufacturing capability. I have made clear my readiness to enter into discussions of these wider issues at any time with the French and other European Governments.
"I believe that these decisions should give a substantial new impetus to the RB.211. programme. They will also play a major role in securing the future prospects of Rolls-Royce (1971) which we are determined to maintain as a major manufacturer of aircraft engines in its own right and in due course as part of a wider European grouping."
That is the end of the Statement, my Lords.
4.32 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement and welcome the substance of what he had to say? Everything we have learned about the RB.211 since we discussed the affairs of the Rolls-Royce Company some months ago has gone to show that this is a quite remarkable engineering achievement, and we are pleased to think that it is now going to be used on the routes of a British carrier. I would like to ask one question of the noble Lord on the first part of the Statement. When it says in the Statement that if the development cost exceeds £31
784
million they (Rolls-Royce) will meet 50 per cent. of any increase up to a total project cost of £61 million, the remaining development costs being met by the Government, does that mean that anything over £61 million is going to be met by the Government as an open-ended commitment? What happens when it goes beyond £61 million?
As to the second part of the Statement, I should like to congratulate the Government on allowing the British European Airways Corporation or the British Airways Board to exercise their own commercial judgment—though I understand there was a good deal of pressure upon the Government to bring their influence to bear. I would just say in passing that it must have been a difficult decision to make in view of the excellence of the other contender in the field, the A.300B. May I ask a further question on the second part of the Statement? Where it is said that:
"I have made it clear to M. Galley my view that … for the future it will be essential for European countries to develop a more co-ordinated procurement policy for aircraft and a more integrated manufacturing capability"—
may I ask along what lines it is proposed to achieve this more co-ordinated procurement policy and more integrated manufacturing capability? Will a Statement be made about that, and in particular about the Marshall proposals?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I point out an inconsistency in this Statement in that at one point it says that Lockheed are determined to develop the -2 and to go ahead, and later on in the same paragraph that continuation of the programme will depend on a final decision by Lockheed to develop the -2. Have they definitely decided one thing or the other, and what further information is required by Lockheed in order to decide whether or not they should go ahead? May I also ask the noble Lord what arrangements will be made for the recovery of the Government's development contribution mentioned in the first paragraph of the Statement? Is this to be done by means of a levy and, if so, can the noble Lord tell the House what will be the amount of the levy to be placed upon each of the engines to be sold? As a further question, may I ask whether the development of the -24

785
depends on any major advance in technology such as carbon fibre front fans, as was the case with the original version of the RB.211? Could the noble Lord say what response he had from M. Galley to the suggestion that was made?
We very much welcome the fact that the RB.211–24 should be used in a further version of the European Airbus. Finally, may I ask who will decide the total amount of money to be spent by the Department of Trade and Industry? I had imagined that following the White Paper on Research and Development, this was to be a function of boards within the D.T.I.; but it seems that this decision to spend up to £38·25 million if the development cost reaches the £61 million figure mentioned has been taken quite separately from any other decisions by the Government on research and development. It does seem to us a very large sum of money compared, for example, with the £40·2 million which has been allocated to I.C.L. for the development of their new computers. By what process in Government has this money been allocated to one particular project?
4.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first may I thank both noble Lords for having welcomed this Statement—I think they both did welcome it; certainly the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did. The noble Lord asked what is to happen if the cost of the -24 development goes above £61 million. It is extremely unlikely that it will, because the estimate of the Rolls-Royce Company itself is that it will amount to £31 million, and this is roughly confirmed by such estimates as the Department has been able to make. Rolls-Royce (1971) of course, have a very great advantage in keeping prices down to that figure because on the first £31 million they pay only 25 per cent. of the cost, whereas they have to pay 50 per cent. if it goes above £31 million. On the other hand, they want to limit their total commitment, and that is the reason for the arrangements that I have outlined. In other words, if it should go above the £61 million, this would be a cost which the Government would have to meet.
The noble Lord then asked along what lines the integration with Europe referred to would take place. This has to be discussed. I think it will be realised that
786
we are at the very early stages of this integration, but the Government firmly believe that integration of some kind or another is very necessary and we shall pursue that as our policy. The noble Lord also asked about the Marshall Report. It is not likely that a Statement will be made on that Report before the next Session, but, as I said in an earlier debate, decisions arising out of the Marshall Report will be announced in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether Lockheeds were really going ahead or not. They have to make the arrangements. They are determined to go ahead, but they still have to make the arrangements which will enable them to do so. If they are able to do so then the arrangement that we have made for the purchase of the TriStar holds, but not otherwise. We expect they will be able to tell us definitely about this towards the end of the year—probably in October or November.
The noble Lord asked about arrangements for the recovery of the Government contribution. These have yet to be made. The noble Lord will remember that the previous arrangements for Government contributions were criticised—I think by the Estimates Committee in another place—and these have yet to be made to supplement the contribution in this case. He also asked whether the development of the -24 depends on a major advance in technology. It is rather beyond my competence to speak on this point. I understand that it is a matter of compressors and the arrangements that had to be made for the higher temperatures involved. I gathered from what I was told that this represents no major advance in technology. The noble Lord asked who decides the total amount of money to be spent. This would normally come within the Estimates. If the Estimates are exceeded it would be a question of supplementary Estimates in order to meet this particular kind of aid, and it will be met from the contingencies aid fund. The noble Lord also asked about the response from M. Galley. M. Galley and my honourable friend have been in communication. M. Galley is disappointed that we have not bought the A.300B. This disappointment was inevitable. The fact remains that we were morally committed as soon as we had entered into

787
arrangements with Lockheed for the -1 to go ahead with the -2, and I think he appreciates this.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House when the British Airways Board are likely to get delivery of the first TriStar 1 and when has the option to be taken as to whether they have the second six TriStars—either 1s or 2s? May we urge my noble friend to try to see that the Government take an early opportunity to outline the future of the aerospace industry by making a Statement on the Marshall Committee, which reported some eight months ago'? Could he strive on with the integration with Europe since clearly the French, who are using an American General Electric engine in the A.300B, may be persuaded to take the European engine—that is, the highly developed RB.211?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that I am right in saying that delivery of the Lockheed-1 can be expected from April, 1974. The RB.211–22 will be in service in April next year.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, while welcoming the Statement from my noble friend, can he say whether Rolls-Royce have made an estimate as to how long it will take to develop the RB.211–24? Secondly, will my noble friend be a little more explicit about Lockheeds and their determination to build the TriStar-2, bearing in mind the difficulty they had last year in raising funds from the United States Government? Can we be absolutely certain that funds will be available that end in order to take the developed Rolls-Royce engine?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, dealing with the first question, the intention is that the TriStar-2 should be capable of being offered for sale in 1975. So far as the resolution of Lockheeds is concerned, the question here is clearly that what they want to do is to produce a new family of aircraft. This is extremely important for them. Obviously it will be much easier for them to sell TriStar-1s if they have a TriStar-2 in prospect as well. It is for this reason that they are so anxious to achieve this object and we believe that they will succeed.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us whether we have to wait until Lockheeds have further orders for the Mark II TriStar before Rolls-Royce can be certain of getting orders for the engines?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my understanding is that Lockheeds will reach a definite decision as to whether or not they will go ahead with the -2 in October or November of this year.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a very encouraging Statement; but he made a reply to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which was a little disturbing. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord said that the development of the RB.211–24 involved higher temperatures and that consequently one was not quite certain what the costs would be. Surely higher temperatures might easily cause Rolls-Royce to use new materials and the costs could be enormous.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that may be so. I understand that engines with this thrust in the subsonic sphere have already been developed, and presumably the same physical conditions apply there also.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what the temperature is?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord let us have the facts about the technical parameters of the new engine? Perhaps he could write to us, rather than answering questions across the Floor of your Lordships' House.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like to put down a Question for Written Answer, and I will endeavour to get the necessary information for him.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, when the noble Lord said that the Government will meet all costs above £61 million if this particular figure is exceeded, is he giving an open-ended commitment, especially in view of the fact that aerospacial estimates have been fairly inaccurate and that figures have been underestimated in previous years?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I suppose that the answer to that question must be, "Yes". The British Airways Board are doing this in the confidence that the expenditure will not exceed anything like £61 million.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is one of the most encouraging Statements that has been made in recent years on the aerospace industry? Unless Rolls-Royce puts "stretch" into the RB.211 accordingly with the -24, the likelihood of further orders coming to Lockheed for the TriStar will be very remote. By putting "stretch" into the British RB.211–24 it makes it possible for the stretched TriStar 2 to have a very much longer range which suits the route pattern of both British Corporations and independents. It also opens up the very great possibility of the European Airbus, the airframe of which is largely made from British component parts, being powered by a British engine. This gives the opening for a very much increased export business in British aerospace materials.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. With his great experience he has been able to put this point over very much better than I could.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
4.49 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (VISCOUNT GOSCHEN): The Committee is discussing Amendment No. 14.
LORD HALE: One question was put by some of my noble friends to the noble and learned Lord, who made a very helpful and lucid speech but who, with respect, did not go quite far enough in one particular direction. It was said in another place—and I do not know that it has ever been specifically denied—that in this clause we go further in subjecting our laws to Community laws than any other member of the Community has ever done. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned only one case. He mentioned the article in the Modern Law Review. I apologise if I have to mention law, but this is a ques-
790
tion of law. He mentioned the case of van Gend en Loos v. Administration fiscale Neérlandaise, which was a 1963 decision. It is the first case mentioned by the writer of the article, Mr. Gerhard Bebr, who is said to be one of the legal advisers of the Commission. There was the normal note to say that he was not speaking on behalf of the Commission; he was expressing his own views which must be viewed with great respect. The van Gend en Loos case is his introduction to his theme which is the power of these laws, the power of making laws, and the power of the court is growing—and he is delighted about it—case by case.
He goes on to quote the series of cases; I do not want to bore your Lordships with them. Surely a very important case was that on Italian nationalisation, the Flaminio Costa case. There is another which he does not mention, as one can well understand, but which Professor Wade mentions. This was a decision in relation to Algerian fiscal arrangements upon which the Court of Luxembourg pronounced. The French Conseil d' Etat said that they were not taking any notice of it and that they were permitted to do so. One of the reasons for this was the power of the French Conseil d' Etat, which has varied under various republics and monarchies, as laid down in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic.
With very great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Mr. Gerhard Bebr finishes with an account of the German case. That was the case of Internationale Handelsgesellschaft which may not yet be finished. It involved an export licence for 20,000 tons of cereals granted in 1967. Under the rules it should have been accompanied by a deposit as a guarantee of execution of a limited licence; one of the litigants had not performed his duties under the licence by the time it expired. The question was whether he could be penalised. With three or four other collective cases that case went to the Luxembourg Tribunal in 1970. This is the judgment upon which Mr. Gerhard Bebr is making his comment when he says:
"The Community did not hesitate to uphold the supremacy of the Community law even over national constitutional law."
This is because Germany has what is called its basic law which basically is its

791
written Constitution. We have no written Constitution or anything like that. We only have an unwritten Constitution.
The Advocate General, M. Alain Dutheiller de Lamothe, made a long submission. It is quite a serious submission and I am trying to make a serious point. One of the things to which he called attention was that it would be exceedingly unfortunate that a contract which was to be dealt with in six months in 1967 was still being argued before the Luxembourg Tribunal in 1970 and that this might be an unfortunate and unpleasant procedure for all people interested in merchandise law and in the execution of mercantile contracts. The Luxembourg Court said that they derived their authority not only from the written Treaty of Rome but from the spirit of the Treaty. They held quite definitely that the legislation in Germany which had been referred to them was in contravention of the law of the Community.
Unfortunately, the matter had not ended at the time Mr. Gerhard Bebr wrote his article. I have only just been able to find out what happened next. This is the judgment of the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main on the case arising out of the permit of November 24, 1971. That judgment occupies 16 pages of the written report; there are 24 clauses in which they say that they do not care what the Court of Luxembourg has said, that this is still a contravention of the German Constitution and that as a national court they are bound by the German Constitution. Under this clause in our Bill, if it is passed, all this would be lawful in the United Kingdom because we do not have a Constitution. We have nothing to bar any regulations. It said in Clause 9:
"This Chamber cannot agree with the decision of the European Court. It considers the Community provisions cited to be unconstitutional. It remains to be said that neither this Chamber nor"—
there follows another body with a very long German name—
"is bound by a preliminary ruling of the European Court. A preliminary ruling would not have the force of law such as decisions of the Bunclesverfassungsgericht."
The position is that the German courts can say that they are not going to take any notice of the Court of Luxembourg and that this infringes their written
792
Constitution. The Italian court, as I understand, did not accept in toto; there was negotiation over the electricity case. The French Conseil d'Etat say that they are not going to take any notice at all and that they will carry on with their policy in relation to Algeria whatever the Court of Luxembourg says. Yet in an act of almost supreme statutory abnegation we are saying in this clause that we will be bound by every rule, right, obligation, and, as I understand it, even every opinion expressed by the court formally in response to a British application and by every regulation made by the Commission.
I said that I would not criticise, and I have not. I am seeking information but I am giving to the Committee the limited amount of information I have available at the moment and asking what the position is. I should like to know whether the complex of the various courts has been resolved, whether any agreement has been reached or whether it is really true that under Clause 2 of the Bill we are submitting ourselves to a whole series of obligations which do not necessarily and totally bind the other countries.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: May I ask one very small question of the noble and learned Lord? During the course of his speech, of which a considerable amount went over my head but which I admired greatly, he referred to a case being brought before the British courts; the decision made on it was objected to and it then went to the Court at Luxembourg. What is the basic language in which all these Treaties, regulations, et cetera, are written? Are they in French or in English? Do the courts have to take the English wording or the wording of the original language? I am sorry if I am asking a rather stupid question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The languages of all member-States which have separate languages are official languages. From accession there will be an official English version.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I thank the noble and learned Lord.
LORD STOW HILL: May I reply—
LORD SHACKLETON: I should like to speak. Is my noble friend hoping to end the debate?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let us get this clear. I was hoping that the debate would continue until no other noble Lord wanted to speak. I do not want to stop the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, making a second speech. This is a Committee stage but I thought that two or three noble Lords behind the Leader of the Opposition were showing signs of getting up.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord who raised the question about the language has raised a very important point. All laws have to be interpreted, whether they come from the Treaty of Rome or wherever they come from. An effort has been made by the opponents of our going into Europe to create a state of alarm and despondency by this theory that matters are immediately applicable in England. They cannot be. They must be brought home to the people to whom they are going to apply—and that must be done in language. All these other earlier laws which we are accepting are not in English. They must be put into English so that the English people to whom they are applying can understand them. It may well be that there is great difficulty about coming to a firm conclusion as to the obligation that they in fact establish. That is of course where there has to be a supreme court—the Court of Luxembourg. That is the whole point, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out. His analogy about the law merchant was an interesting one. The law merchant, which was in mediaeval Europe a general system, was broken up by the growth of national States. But in the last century—and this is interesting—there was a movement back towards establishing uniformity, at any rate in connection with maritime law, of which the leaders were we in England. The most recent example of this movement back was the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, which, although it is called "The Hague Rules", was in fact created in London. An interesting point about this Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is that it has been adopted by all the maritime States and applies to anyone throughout the world; it has been interpreted by national courts all over the world, too, in the light of the decisions made by the English courts. In that way uniformity has been obtained.
794
The Treaty of Rome and E.E.C. law is really just a continuation of this process. It is widening it out. After all, the Scandinavians knew quite well that the commercial judge in London was the most eminent man on matters of this kind and when he gave a decision on some point arising under a bill of lading they by and large accepted it. Now we are in the position of joining a Common Market which has a Supreme Court in Luxembourg, and we are going to accept what that Court lays down. We are going to have a judge on it soon, and I am quite sure—because these matters are largely commercial ones—that our judge.who will be a very experienced man, will quickly become a weighty influence in that Court. I would reply to my noble friend Lord Hale that we are in no different position from anybody else. It may well be that there is a dispute from time to time about the British Constitution. He is quite wrong in saying that there is not a British Constitution; of course there is—
LORD HALE: If the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, I said, "No written Constitution"; and the laws are already printed in 42 volumes, with an index, and further volumes are coming out.
LORD CHORLEY: Of course they are. The laws of England amount to a great deal more than 42 volumes. The area of this legislation is quite a narrow one.
I was speaking to a prominent commercial lawyer only a day or two ago, one of the most eminent commercial solicitors in the City of London, with close connections with Germany. He said that it is a scandal the way the opponents of our going into Europe are trying to frighten the legal profession in England into believing that they must adopt a whole system of new law. The area of this law which is going to impinge on English lawyers is a comparatively small one. This man said: "Only last week in Germany I put it to one of the most eminent commercial lawyers practising in the Rhineland: ' In how many cases which have come before you as a practical lawyer since the Common Market came into force among the Six have you had to take into account the Treaty of Rome and the regulations and

795
laws emanating from Brussels? ' The man thought for a few minutes and then said, ' I think about three '."That is a very significant statement.
It is quite true, as my noble friend Lord Hale was saying, that the law is being built up. That is happening all the time. Even a treaty as long as the Treaty of Rome and these forty-two volumes cannot lay out the law all at once, even over a period of fifteen years. It is rather like the American Constitution. The American Constitution came into force in about 1790, and even after twenty years, indeed even after about 200 years, all sorts of points are arising upon it. The Supreme Court in America has been the great moulding force. It has been doing this work, just as the Court at Luxembourg is going to do it. About twenty years after the American Constitution had come into force a case came before the Supreme Court in which one man said, "This is not in the Constitution and therefore this decision which has been given to me by the lower court is wrong". The Chief Justice at that time, perhaps the greatest of all American Chief Justices, Marshall, said, "We must not forget that it is the Constitution we are expounding". That has been the leitmotiv in the work of the Supreme Court ever since that time. One spells out from the document which is the Constitution what are the rights and obligations of the citizens of the different States in the United States: and in the same kind of way there will be spelt out at Luxembourg what are the rights and obligations.
We ought to remember these facts and not assume that the whole thing is a trap in which the English can be caught. This is a free, voluntary union into which we are entering with other Great States of Europe in order to improve our legal position and in many ways our cultural heritage. This assertion that, "They are just leading us up the garden path and everything is going to be done for the purpose of breaking up the English" is the most dangerous and nonsensical attitude to take. I hope that this point can be got over to the people of England. instead of trying to frighten them into the mood of fear and despondency which is being deliberately worked up and which is so vicious and dangerous.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: So far as this Bill is concerned there is only one kind of language that is applicable, and that is bad language. When I listened to the noble Lord just now I was fortified in the contention I ventured to make in the Second Reading debate: that this is going to be a lawyers' paradise. It is so now and it is going to remain so for some considerable time to come. What has been said has nothing to do with the Amendment. We are not discussing the Constitution because we have not got it. If my noble friend referred to the English Constitution or the British Constitution I would say that we do not happen to possess any Constitution.
LORD CHORLEY: Of course we do.
LORD SHINWELL: All right. Let the noble Lord enjoy himself with the British Constitution. But I was never aware of it, and am not aware of it now. Of course we have rules and regulations and a way of life and a way of civilised behavour. But when it comes to a written Constitution, I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree with me, if he agrees with nothing else I venture to say, past, present or future, that we have not got a Constitution, whatever else we may possess. So much for that. In saying that, I dismiss the whole of the speech to which we have just listened, in particular the reference to the nonsensical attitude of those who offer any objection to the loss of our sovereignty, freedom and liberties. If there is any nonsense it is on the part of those fanatical and aggressive and emotional pro-Common Marketeers. We have just listened to a speech from one.
Now let us get on with the Amendment. We listened to a lengthy dissertation of a legal character from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He said he was doing his best, which reminded me of the old saying, "Don't shoot the pianist. He's doing his best!" But the one thing he failed to do was to convince. He convinced himself, of course. That never did present him with any difficulty—and I have known him for a long time; probably for longer than anybody else in this Assembly. He has ability; we know that—he would not have got where he is if he had not. All he succeeded in doing was to convince

797
himself. But a layman such as myself is completely unconvinced. He was replying to a question from my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, but the one thing he failed to do was to deal with the Amendment. It is a pity that he did not respond more favourably to the suggestion that I made early in the debate, that instead of arguing against the Amendment—or purporting to argue against it—he might have explained what is meant by this clause, but lie failed to do so.
Let us now deal with the substance of the clause and with the content of the Amendment. It is just as well that it be read out. After all, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took a long time to explain it, and perhaps I may be permitted to read the Amendment, if even my noble friend Lord Chorley can appreciate it. Subsection (1) states:
"All such rights"—
no qualifications or affirmations there—
"powers"—
whatever the powers might be. I do not understand this, but then I did not draft it and I had nothing to do with the Amendment—
"liabilities, obligations and restrictions"—
And now I come to the part that I should deliberately like to put in brackets because it is the subject under review. We should look at the Amendment itself from this particular aspect—
"from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for, by or under the Treaties,…"
Although I am opposed to British entry into the Common Market I can understand the motivation of those who are in favour of entering it, despite the fact that we are in a dire situation ourselves, almost in a bankrupt situation and in a great deal of trouble. Of course there is no trouble in any other part of the world, not even in Italy or in France, and therefore we have to go into the Common Market and accept the abandonment of our sovereignty.
I can understand the Treaty of Accession. We have had a decision in the other place and we have had one in your Lordships' House. We have not had one from the country but we will leave that aside for the moment. We have a
798
decision of Parliament in regard to the Treaty of Accession and by that decision we accept 248 Articles, apart from a great many other directives, regulations and rules about which we know nothing but which we are bound to accept by accepting the Treaty of Accession. The one thing to which I am opposed, and I hope many of your Lordships are also opposed, is accepting something about which we know nothing at all, which is in the foreseeable or remote future and which, in effect, means something to which we did not agree and which has not been negotiated. There has never been a word of negotiation, so far as we know.
Something is contained in the Bill which means that we have to accept regulations and rules and directives—in effect, modified Treaties, or indeed substantial Treaties—about which we know nothing at all. The other place and your Lordships' House and the country at large—our sovereign Assemblies and our civilised public—have had no part at all in deciding what is to be done in future. Accept the Treaty of Accession—very well, but do not go beyond that.
I want to say a word about something which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his speech on Thursday night. I left a little after 10 o'clock and so I was unable to hear his speech, but I read it and I would direct attention to something he said. During the debate the noble and learned Lord objected to what my noble friend Lord Balogh said. He said that my noble friend spoke offensively, but sometimes he is inclined to indulge in offensive observations himself. However, I do not want to go into that in depth, at this stage anyway.
I want to refer instead to something which the noble and learned Lord said about our sovereignty. He produced the most amazing argument; I have never heard anything like it before, not even from him. He said that we express our sovereignty by agreeing to abandon our sovereignty. If noble Lords do not accept what I have said I shall read it out. Of course he took a long time to say what I have said in a sentence, but then I have not got the forensic ability or the long years of study that the noble and learned Lord has had. I am just a

799
layman with horse sense—common sense. I will read out what he said:
"It is wrong, as we say, because the Bill we are now endeavouring to pilot through Parliament is itself an exercise of that sovereignty on which alike our liberties, our reforming tradition and the efficacy of our laws depend."—(OFFICIAL REPORT; 3 /8 /72, col. 601.)
That is to say, that Parliament expresses its sovereignty by agreeing to the Treaty of Accession—to the 248 Articles with the Schedules and the directives and the annexes and all the rest of it. We express our sovereignty by agreeing with this—that is what he said.
There has been a great deal of argument as to exactly what is meant by "sovereignty". NATO has been mentioned, and also the United Nations and Treaties that British Governments have entered into, but there is not a single one of those Treaties or Agreements, historically remote or not so remote, which is not reversible. We can withdraw from them at any time. Our agreement with NATO provided that we could withdraw our troops if at any time it was essential to do so, and indeed we have done so. We have withdrawn far more troops than was anticipated in order to send them to Ulster. There is not a single Treaty which this Government or any other Government have entered into that is irreversible. We could reverse them at any time.
But when we come to the Treaty of Rome, what do they say? Entering into this Treaty, with all that it means, is of unlimited duration. If that means anything at all it means that we cannot come out. It is a great pity that the Treaty of Rome was not made available by the Government, the Conservative Party and the pro-Common Marketeers in a form that could be understood by the people of this country. I personally doubt whether it is fully understood even by every Member of your Lordships' House. I wonder whether every Member of your Lordships' House has read every one of the Articles and has sought to interpret them without the aid of members of the legal profession.
Now, what are we to say about this Amendment? To me the Amendment is objectionable because as I understand the position of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill he is anxious that we should enter
800
the Common Market. He is anxious that we should improve this Bill, and this leads me to the final few sentences in which I wish to indulge. Time and time again in the course of our debates we have spoken about the function of your Lordships' House as a Revising Chamber, and it has been suggested many times that we could improve the Bill. The intention of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is to improve the Bill, but I cannot see how the measure will be improved by this Amendment. In my view there is only one way to improve the Bill to make the position clear beyond doubt, and that is to have nothing whatever to do with entering the E.E.C. However, I do not want to make what might be regarded as a Second Reading speech.
If we are to revise, improve or in any other way modify the Bill we are at the very least entitled to clear explanations, leaving no doubt in anyone's mind about what it is all about. Such explanations we have not had, and for that and other reasons I cannot support the Bill. Nor, however, can I support the Amendment because it does not mean very much. I object to the terms of the clause as a whole because it says, in effect, "When Britain enters the Common Market it will accept the Treaty of Rome and all the paraphernalia associated with it, along with anything that comes thereafter, determined not by Britain but by the Commission and Council of Ministers." I object to that.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I do not intend at this stage to comment on the points made by recent speakers. When we come to Clause 9. which deals with commercial matters, noble Lords who are interested in industry will no doubt have something to say about commerce in so far as it relates to the Common Market. In his Second Reading speech, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"… Parliament, after exhaustive public and private discussion, committed the honour of this country to entry on the terms negotiated."
He went on to say that the way in which the Bill was drafted was
"… the only practicable, and at least the only acceptable, way of achieving that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/7/72, col. 1225].
Is this really the only way of achieving that purpose, leaving aside the question of honouring our commitment? In the

801
other place there were endless debates about whether the way in which the Bill was drafted was in fact the only way of achieving that purpose. The Government said that the Bill had been drafted by them and not on instructions from the Community. Many Members in another place said that the Bill overlapped in many ways, lacked clarity and was too wide in its scope, which would result in many interpretations being placed on its provisions. There can be no doubt that the basic powers rest with the Council of Ministers and the Commission. Nobody has said otherwise.
I believe that the Amendment would, if accepted, improve the Bill and not affect the need for us to honour our commitment. The Lord Chancellor referred to the committee system, while in another place there was much reference to an ad hoc type of organisation. It seems surprising that the Government thought of these things only at the last moment and could not find anything in the Bill of that nature to help them. The Lord Chancellor then spoke of a new legal concept. As a layman, I always understood that new legal concepts had eventually to stand the acid test of the House of Lords and the Law Lords. What will happen as a result of the Bill we have not been told. If we wish our future partners in the E.E.C. to respect us, we could ensure that respect in several ways; knowledge of the past and great battles fought and won, our general behaviour in times of stress and our great inventiveness. All these things have helped to form the character of the people of this country. I suggest that they might also respect us for our skill in negotiating and for our skill in producing a Bill which is clear, understandable, unambiguous and which still honours a commitment made.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has told us that the Bill represents the terms which we have accepted for entry into the Community. I wonder just who knows what are the terms to which we have agreed; and we still await a reply to the question I asked last Thursday and again today. It is a simple question: "What are other Parliaments doing?" I do not see how we can accept Clause 2 or any part of it until we know the facts about Parliamentary restrictions placed on other countries in the Community—so as to
802
be sure that we are being treated as equals. For example, have we offered too much too soon? Until the Government clarify the clause I will feel obliged to vote for the Amendment, and I hope that noble Lords opposite who have the same desire for clarity will do the same.
5.27 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for assisting with what I can only call a clear tutorial lecture on the meaning of the subsection. Perhaps I may change the metaphor and conduct a viva with him because this subsection is crucial to the Bill and is not easy to understand. Indeed, I am not at all satisfied that its drafting provides satisfactory legislation which is clear from the standpoint of Parliament. It may be clear from the standpoint of the courts, although my noble friend Lord Beswick referred to a number of different opinions about that. At any rate, it is certainly not clear from the standpoint of Parliamentary control.
Having said that, it might be helpful if I were to give my personal understanding of what the subsection is all about. I take it that it refers to all those regulations or directives—except directives specifically calling for legislation—and decisions or Treaties which are directly applicable and which take effect without further enactment as if they were the law of this land; in other words, from the moment of publication they become binding either on this country or on the citizens of this country. I hope I am correct so far. I appreciate that it may be difficult for the obtuse pupil that I am to appreciate all these matters and that I may be straining the patience of the Government Front Bench. I can only say that the Government have been patient with me, and if I am right so far I will go on to develop my doubts about the subsection. It begins with the all-embracing phrase:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions …"
and we are talking about future ones. I take it that the past is past and that the provision is referring to future obligations and so on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It refers to both the future and the past.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for making that clear. We are, however, primarily concerned with the future. I suppose that to the greatest extent these changes will be made by regulations. We must, in considering this matter, look, if only briefly, at subsection (2). That clearly applies to certain categories of regulation and possibly directive in that subject to Schedule 2 there are certain types of obligation, liability or restriction to which it will be necessary to give effect by some form of legislative process, perhaps by subordinate legislation if it comes within the categories of Schedule 2 which are excluded by the main legislation. Difficulty arises over what will be automatically applicable. One assumes that they will be automatically applicable unless intrinsically they cannot become applicable and a regulation must be introduced. If this is so, it is intelligible but it does not tell us what those regulations are likely to be. Furthermore, there are no provisions in this Bill for informing Parliament of them. Clearly, if there is to be an order under subsection (2) Parliament will have to be informed because it will have to pass it. But in the directly applicable law this will not be necessary.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor emphasised that this new Community law, the directly applicable law, was not part of the law of this country. As a layman I was unable to distinguish the significance of this statement and why it was important to emphasise it. After all a law, whether made by the Community or made by Parliament, which without further enactment is to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom, seems to me to be, for all practical purposes, the same as British law and I am wondering what is the significance of the distinction that the noble and learned Lord gave to this. If I may make one further point, it seems to me in any case to be a rather artificial distinction, because equally there may be an enforceable obligation which in order to give effect to it has to be the subject of either legislation or subordinate legislation in this country, in which case presumably it becomes part of British law.
This may be a completely unimportant point. I may be on what my noble friend Lord Shinwell would say was a
804
lawyers' point. But the noble and learned Lord gave some importance to this, and since it has some bearing on my subsequent remarks I wonder whether he would care to comment on it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is difficult to comment without being either inaccurate or misleading. For a very long time and for very many purposes I have always treated the directly applicable law, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, treats it, as being part of the law of the country, simply because it is enforced, or is capable of being enforced, by the courts of this country. Theoretically that is wrong. From the practical point of view, from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, I dare say that is good enough and I do not complain that it should be done. If I were making a popular speech about it I could very likely do it myself. I was however trying very hard, in the speech I made earlier, to be strictly accurate, even at the expense sometimes of making points against myself.
Theoretically the situation is that it is a separate system of law applicable in this country and not part of the law of this country. As we get through some of the other Amendments I may be able to give better examples than the one I am just about to give, but the obvious example which occurs to me at this moment (perhaps the noble Lord who is fixing me with a basilisk stare can do better than I am doing) is the question of the rules of construction of documents and statutes which will be the rules of construction of the directly applicable law and will not necessarily be the same rules of construction as the Chancery Court would apply to an English will, or the Commercial Court would apply to an English contract. It will be the rules of construction as interpreted by Luxembourg. Probably it is within the knowledge of the noble Lord that the way they read statutes on the Continent is not the same as we read statutes here, which is one of the reasons why their Statute Law is rather shorter than our Statute Law. The other day I looked at M. Pleven's Legal Aid Bill which was not, I think, more than a quarter of the length of our principal statute. They have different rules of construction and it will be the rules of construction of the European Court that apply and not the

805
rules of construction which apply in English law. As we go along there may be other particular examples where the importance of the distinction may be apparent. But I was concerned in my first speech simply to state it as I thought it ought to be stated, in order to be entirely correct in strict legal theory; and I was not primarily concerned with the practical importance of the distinction.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I felt there was a significance in what he was saying in that somehow there was an implication that this perhaps rather alien law which we had to obey was at least not to get British citizenship, although it would have a sort of associated citizenship. But it seems to me (and I think the Lord Chancellor has confirmed this) that clearly it does affect the British citizen as if it were British law, although I take his point—and this is a further complication—that the rules of construction may be different. It will be interesting at some stage to hear some further comments on that aspect. No doubt the judges and others will know under which law they are operating although if they are looking at the vires of a particular measure it may be difficult if there are two different sets of rules of construction. I think that is about as far as I dare go on this particular subject. It certainly seems to me that the inference under Article 85, the application of unequal conditions to parties undertaking equivalent engagements in commercial transactions, is forbidden. That seems to me to all intents and purposes to be a pretty decisive rule of competition, and for practical purposes people will regard that as British law.
The noble and learned Lord referred to M. Pleven's Bill. Was that a French Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I was only giving an example. It was M. Pleven's purely French Bill about French legal aid. When I went to Paris quite recently for the 25th anniversary of UNESCO I was most hospitably received by M. Pleven. as I think I told the House in a Statement. In the course of our conversation he showed me what was then a draft projet de loi of his legal aid system. and asked me questions about our system in order that he might deal
806
with some criticisms of his proposals which were being made by the legal profession. I gave that as an example of the fact that when the French pass a law they do it in very much less detail than we do. As I say, my recollection is that it was something about a quarter of the length of ours. But it was a French law, and not a Common Market law. I was only pointing out that other systems of law interpret their Statutes in slightly different ways, and that we tend to take a very close view of the interpretation of Statutes which is not common on the Continent. The noble Lord asked me what I meant by the importance of the difference, the distinction I had drawn, and I gave an example which came most readily to my mind. It may not be the most important one, and I am not sure, as I said to begin with, that, apart from strict legal theory, I would attach enormous importance to the distinction I have drawn. But it is important to get it right, and a Minister speaking on behalf of the Crown should not state it wrongly. That is why I drew the distinction.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am afraid that I am leading the House down legal by-ways but there is a point of some significance. Although I hesitate to use an inquisitorial approach to the noble and learned Lord, he has exposed himself in one or two respects, particularly in relation to French law. Having studied quite a number of French laws, I find them so much more intelligible in French than I do English laws in English; and this is a striking contrast of course to the particular subsection with which we are dealing now. Furthermore, the French proceed much more by subordinate legislation and decree; and of course they have a different constitutional set-up and a Conseil d'Etat which clearly takes authority of law. If there is a conflict between French law and the Community law, and if they consider that the French law is within the vires, if that is the right word, that is in fact superior.
TIIE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is not right.
LORD SHACKLETON: My noble friend Lord Hale did, I think, give a particular example.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I dealt with this point at some length in my Second Reading speech. It is of course the case that there is an unresolved conflict between the Community and the Conseil d'Etat in a particular case, but it would be wholly wrong to infer from that any general doctrine such as that which the noble Lord has now sought to enunciate, that the Conseil d'Etat does not give to the Community law in general the pre-eminence that is given by this subsection. There is a conflict in three cases, all of which were referred to in my Second Reading speech, in a particular kind of way between the written Constitution countries and the Community. I do not know how important it is, but it is not quite what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SHACKLETONThis does not reduce my anxieties at all, because there were many remarks that the noble and learned Lord made. We shall come on to, and concentrate on, it much more when we come to subsection (4), the position of a particular British law which may be made in the future, and the extent to which it may well be ultra vires under this law.
Anyhow, I want now to move to the particular point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock was making, which applies particularly to this subsection. One of the difficulties in debating this subject is the amount of paper involved; it is beyond my Pelman patience capacity to find the relevant piece. The noble and learned Lord on Second Reading was referring to the difficulty of informing Parliament and the limitations that would affect Parliament if in fact the first they knew of a new obligation was when the Order was actually laid, and he pointed to the limitations that confront us in dealing with Orders.
The great majority of matters that are dealt with in subsection (1) will not come before Parliament at all. It may well be that a large number of them are essentially very minor matters. But we know that not only the Council can make regulations but so also can the Commission—although there is some doubt; my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is still doubtful as to whether the Commission can make regulations. But, looking through them, I find a large number
808
of regulations made by the Commission, and my anxiety increases when I hear the noble and learned Lord liken the Commission to the Civil Service, because it is specifically not like the British Civil Service; it has powers. No doubt there is communication, but they have an independence. Indeed an argument in favour of the Commission, if one is pro-Market, is that they take a European view. But we ought not to deceive ourselves as to whether they are an independent body and have power to make regulations. There is no provision in this Bill for informing Parliament of what those regulations are or what the obligations are.
My noble friend Lord Bernstein asked at the beginning of the debate what provisions there were in other countries, and it may well be that we shall be told this at some point or another. I have, if I can find it, the relevant Article from the German law which specifically provides that both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat should be informed. We have no such provision in this Bill. My objection—and we shall come on to this later—to this particular subsection is the absence of any provision whatsoever for informing Parliament what it is that the Commission are doing and the Council are doing, and enabling us to know, and indeed this is equally relevant to subsection (2).
We have a number of Amendments down to this subsection, which is an extremely important one. I know the Government Front Bench think it is right that we should examine it at some length. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord, or the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will be able to relieve some of my anxieties with regard to the subsection. The noble and learned Lord knows that I am in favour of going into Europe, but I did not expect in the legislation a clause of this kind, which is so wide and so unspecific; it does not specify the kind of regulation, it does not specify the kind of decision. It does not distinguish between those directly applicable which will not require legislation. Statutory Instruments, and others intrinsically in the particular subject; we do not know what they are. I do not know what my noble friends want to do. It was not my original thought that I should want to vote against this particular subsection, which is a key one to the Bill; but in the light of such discussion as we have

809
had and unless the Government can answer some of the points in regard to this subsection, particularly in regard to informing Parliament, if my noble friends do wish to register a protest against the extremely tight, the over-tight, drafting of this subsection, I shall go with them.
5.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has expressed surprise at what is in this subsection, but I cannot think why. As I pointed out to the House on Second Reading, the subsection in all its essential provisions was foreshadowed in the Labour Government's White Paper and in the speech in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I gave the references (I have not them with me now) and the quotations in my Second Reading speech. So that I really do not think there is a very great deal in that.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord, if he were to read out the passages he gave then and this subsection he would find a very great difference. One is a declaration of intent and the other one is enforcing certain law without the sort of controls we would expect and without specifically stating what it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought they were exactly the same, and I would have read them out if I had had them readily available. I am quite convinced they are the same, although of course White Paper language is not the language of the Statutes, which this is. It is a little difficult to know what is worrying the noble Lord. Of course different countries have different Constitutions. I cannot give a review of the exact equivalent in the German act of accession, or in the case of the French or the Dutch or of Luxembourg, Italy or Belgium, exactly how in the light of their own legislative procedures, they have achieved the same result as we propose to achieve by this subsection. They are not identical but they achieve the same result.
It is, of course, true that I had to explain to the Committee on the last debate we had exactly why it was not appropriate, and, I repeat, it is not appropriate, to put reference to a committee system into an Act of Parliament. I hoped I had made that plain, but when the
810
noble Lord says there is no provision in the section for informing Parliament, to my mind that exactly covers the same point. We want Parliament to be informed; we want Parliament to be informed before the regulations which have direct effect or the regulations which have indirect effect come into force. That can only be done, I believe, in the kind of way the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, suggested. As I said in my original speech, we are only too eager to await the moment when some constructive attitudes are struck by the Opposition so that we can get on with the provision of the necessary mechanisms.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at this point, he has convinced me that it is appropriate to put into a Statute a provision for a committee. He convinced me of that last week. But what I am saying is that there is no provision of the kind that is normal in a Statute for keeping Parliament informed. I have here, if he wants to see it—I will read it in German or in English as he wishes—the relevant article in the German law which makes it obligatory to inform Parliament of obligations of this kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was fully aware of the provision of the German law, though not of all the others, and we may have to discuss it in a little more detail on Amendment No. 29, I think it is. But that does not help me for the purpose of the point I am now making. The German law does provide for quite a different Constitution in their Act for something connected with their committee system. That is what in effect it does; that is not appropriate to our Constitution. We want to create the mechanisms which are appropriate. The sooner we get rid of all this constitutional mystification and get down to constructive discussions, the happier I shall be. I do try to make the noble Lord appreciate this fact, that it is inherent in the notion of directly applicable law that it is applicable without anything prior being done at all, because it is part of the system of Community law which I was trying to describe. Therefore we cannot, in an Act which enables us to perform our obligations under the Treaty of Accession and under the Treaties to which

811
we have acceded, put in a prior condition because that would be contrary to the essential nature of the kind of obligation we are discussing.
If I may move on to the next point which the noble Lord made. I think there was only one error and not a particularly important one at the beginning of his speech. It is not all the obligations of the Treaty, or all the regulations, and still less all the decisions and directives to which effect is given in this subsection. The subsection says:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are, without further enactment, to be given legal effect."
What I was trying to tell the Committee in my former speech was simply that not all the obligations of the Treaty are directly applicable; those which are applicable are those which are held by the Luxembourg Court to be complete and perfect. It is they, and only they, that are given direct effect and christened by a particular name under subsection (1). This is to give effect only to those things to which effect must be given if we are to discharge our international obligation, and to nothing else; and that is why the subsection is so tightly drawn. It is limited to what we have got to do and it does not extend to anything we have not got to do. In other words, it is as tightly drawn as it possibly can be.
From recollection of what the noble Lord, Lord Hall, said, I tried to deal with his particular problem during my Second Reading speech. I pointed out that in cases where countries have a written Constitution, and may I now say in passing that I far prefer the phrase used by Lord Birkenhead in 1930, "a controlled Constitution" because we have a Constitution, pace the noble Lord Lord Shinwell, and most of it is written down, for instance in Magna Carta and other documents of that kind which were certainly in writing. In a controlled Constitution, in countries which have a written or controlled Constitution. there can be a conflict between the directly applicable theory of Community law and the terms of the written Constitution. I do not pretend that that has been fully resolved; its resolution will be a political problem
812
between the institutions of the Community and the country concerned according to the nature of the way the problem has arisen. It cannot happen that way in our Constitution because we have not got a controlled Constitution, although, as I have said, we have a Constitution and much of it is in writing.
The point at which conflict can occur is basically the same but it will occur in relation to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament which is, in my judgment, unimpaired by this legislation. That is the point at which conflict could occur, and I have no doubt whatever, subject to the rule of construction in Clause 2 subsection (4), to which we shall come, that it is completely unimpaired by this piece of legislation. I feel confident of that. But we cannot have the same kind of conflict—or, rather, the same kind of conflict cannot occur in the same kind of way—because we do not have a controlled Constitution. But conflict can occur in a different kind of way if it is basic to the same conflict with our unwritten Constitution. The fundamental dogma of our unwritten Constitution is the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament, just as there are many written dogmas in the controlled Constitutions as to the precise functions of the institutions created by the Constitution. I hope I have made that as clear as it is capable of being made—
LORD SHACKLETON: Did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that there could be a conflict with the unwritten concept of the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I intended to say was that clearly there could be a moment, to which we shall come when we are discussing subsection (4), at which Parliament might deliberately intend to break its international obligations. I do not mean inadvertently or by virtue of a rule of construction by which a later Statute takes pre-eminence in English law over an earlier Statute; I mean a moment at which a British Act of Parliament deliberately set out to break its international obligations. That can happen in relation to any Treaty you choose to name, including this one. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out in his rather similar speech some five years ago, the point is that this legislation does not impair the

813
sovereignty of Parliament and there is no doubt, whatever might be true of the consequences of what we did, which of the two doctrines the courts would then have to apply, because the courts are obviously caught, as is every institution within this country, by the terms of our Constitution, written or unwritten.
I hope that I have made that as plain as it is capable of being made. If there
are any other points I can help with I certainly will do my best, but I have done my best to answer them so far as in me lies.
6.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 127.

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Summerskill. Bs.

Collison, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Watkins, L.

Fiske, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Maelor, L.

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Woolley, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Eccles, V.

Alport, L.

Elles, Bs.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberlev. Bs.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ashbourne. L

Falmouth, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ogmore, L.

Barnby, L.

Gage, V.

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gainford, L.

Perth, E.

Belstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Polwarth, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Reay, L.

Bethell, L.

Greenway, L.

Redmayne, L.

Blackford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Blake, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Remnant, L.

Bledisloe. V.

Rhyl, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hanworth, V.

Robbins, L.

Brecon, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rootes, L.

Brentford, V.

Hawke, L.

Rothermere, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hayter, L.

Rothes, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hives, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Camoys, L.

Hood, V.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Chelmer, L.

Hunt, L.

Sandford, L.

Chorley, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Seear, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Inchyra, L.

Selborne, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Selkirk, E.

Colyton, L.

Jessel, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cottesloe. L.

Kemsley, V.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Sherfield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Latymer, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Limerick, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Crathorne, L.

Listowel, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Swaythling, L.

Davidson. V.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Trevelyan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Drogheda, E.

Milverton, L.

Vestey, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L

Wakefield of Kendal, L

Wolverton, L

Yarborough, E

Waldegrave, E

Wynford, L

Young, Bs

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.8 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("such") to end of line 25 and insert ("provisions of").
The noble and learned Lord said: I move Amendment No. 15, and in developing my argument on that may I similarly put the argument on Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 20 and 22? My object in moving these Amendments is really very similar to that which I had in mind in moving No. 14, namely, to elicit information and to ask Ministers what their thinking is on these matters. This group of Amendments would change Clause 2(1) in the sense that it would result in the subsection making directly applicable as part of our law only the regulations which are passed under Article 189 of the Rome Treaty. In other words, it would have the result of excluding reference to "rights, powers, liabilities" and so on, and limiting the application of the subsection to regulations only.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his very valuable speech on the last Amendment, indicated the general views of the Government as to the proper scope of subsection (1) of Clause 2, but in the course of that discussion it seemed to me that a number of matters emerged which required further elucidation. May I categorise them and ask the noble Viscount, if he is to reply, whether he would be so kind as to give the Government's thinking on those points? First, what was said in the course of the last discussion was that not all regulations become part of our law, I think that what was said in terms was that not all regulations become directly applicable. I slightly question that phrase; it seems to me to be one which is slightly ambiguous. I preferred the noble and learned Lord's later formulation of the position, when I think I remember him correctly to say that, although technically the situation is otherwise, the substance of the matter is that the regulation or provision of the Treaty, or whatever it is that one is talking about, becomes part of our law in the sense that it must govern the
816
activities of Her Majesty's subjects in this country. In that practical sense it becomes part of our law, and I myself would prefer that way of looking at it, which seems to me the more realistic way, than the use of the phrase "directly applicable", which seems capable of a considerable amount of ambiguity.
May I go back to my question? As I said, it was stated in the course of the last debate that not all regulations become, in that sense, part of our law (or directly applicable, as it was then put). I do not quite know how that
view is reconcilable with the provisions of Article 189. Article 189, which I suppose is the article which is relied upon by Ministers as producing the result that regulations become part of our law, is applicable to all regulations without any distinction. I would have thought that, if one looks at the second paragraph of that article, it must have the result of making all regulations part of our law if it has the result of making any regulations part of our law. I ventured to question the precise scope of that language, and your Lordships may remember that I cited some comments from the Coster case on the meaning of Article 189. But what cannot be gainsaid is this: that in the language of Article 189 no distinction is drawn between one regulation and another. Now the explanation may be—and perhaps the noble Viscount will tell me whether I am right or wrong about this—one which I thought I heard in something that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said during one of his addresses to your Lordships. What he said, if I remember correctly, was that some regulations are so formulated in their terms as themselves to necessitate further legislation; and it may be that he had in mind those regulations as regulations of which it could not be accurately predicted that they automatically became part of our law. That is the question I should like to put, and I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would be so kind as to furnish me with the answer.
The second question I would put is this. It relates to directives and to a statement which was made in the course of our debates that directives themselves

817
sometimes became part of our law in that sense. I am a little puzzled by that, because I read in the third paragraph of Article 189 that a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved. upon each member-State, but the form and manner of enforcing it shall be a matter for the national authorities. That language seems to me to involve that the directive in form, in its own literal language, is not intended to become part of the law of any of the member-States. On the contrary, it is what it is described to be—a directive. It is a directive to the member-State that that member-State must alter its own law, choosing what language it thinks appropriate for that purpose, through its own legislative process, to give effect to the purpose towards which the directive is aimed. That is a very radical distinction, I should have thought, between the character of a directive and the character of a regulation. The distinction is precisely drawn. The regulation in its actual terms is to be part of the law: the directive in its actual terms, we are told, is not to be part of the law of the member-State; it is the converse: it is for the member-State to choose its own language and its own law to give effect to the directive. That is the second question.
The third question is one which arose incidentally but is, I think, of considerable importance, and that is a question which relates to the nature and powers of the Commission. Those powers are set out in one of the regulations, and I think, if I construe them correctly, they confer no power on the Commission to make regulations itself. Certainly, as has been said, the Commission formulates proposals, and it takes those proposals to the Council. It has a very independent and active existence of its own; it has precise tasks assigned to it. But if I read the Rome Treaty aright, the legislating power is vested solely in the Council. It is perfectly true that in some cases the Council can reject a proposal by the Commission only by a unanimous vote. That is a limitation on the powers of the Council, and I agree that it confers a considerable measure of authority on the Commission. But the actual powers of the Commission are set out in Article 155 and those powers, if I may go through them, are to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions by virtue of the Treaty
818
are carried out; to formulate recommendations or give opinions on matters within the scope of the Treaty if it expressly so provides, or if the Commission considers it necessary; to itself take decisions and, in the circumstances provided for in the Treaty, participate in the shaping of measures taken by the Council and by the Assembly; and to exercise the powers conferred on it by the Council to ensure effect being given to rules laid down by the latter.
I should be most grateful if the noble Viscount could indicate to the Committee whether there is something I have missed out. Is there something which extends the powers of the Commission beyond those powers formulated in Article 155 which I have just read out? If the answer to that question is "No", then it seems to me to follow that the Commission itself certainly has no power to legislate. It has power to formulate proposals, but it cannot make regulations—regulations being the legal framework of the Community. I think that that is a matter of considerable importance, because the Commission is not an elected body. It is not like the Assembly: it is not a body composed of the Ministers of the various member countries. It has been likened to a Civil Service. Perhaps that description should be amended by saying that it is a Civil Service with a very independent and important role—a role which it must exercise independently on its own judgment and which will lead it, generally, to recommending a proposal which the Council of Ministers must take seriously into account. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount would tell me whether I have correctly understood and formulated the position of the Commission.
LORD BALOGH: May I ask my noble friend, before he sits down, whether he intends voting for his own Amendment?
LORD STOW HILL: I always keep an open mind in debate, listen to the counsel given by Ministers and allow my judgment to be influenced by the reasons propounded. I then decide whether I vote or whether I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I think that is the proper attitude in a legislative Chamber.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: Before my noble friend Lord Stow Hill sits down may I ask, in respect of

819
the legislative powers of the Commission, whether he has fully taken into account the provisions of Articles 189 and 190 of the Treaty itself? It seems to me that it is reasonably clear that the wording of those Articles does confer legislative power directly on the Commission. The first part of Article 189 reads:
"In order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, the Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives …"
and so on.
Article 190 reads:
"Regulations, directives and decisions of the Council and of Ole Commission"
shall state the reasons on which they are based, and so on. I should have thought, with great deference to my noble friend, that those Articles do indicate in reasonably plain language that the Commission itself has legislative power.
LORD STOW HILL: My noble friend asked me a question "before I sat down". In the circumstances perhaps the Committee will allow me to answer him. I considered the Articles most carefully and I see his point. My own view is that one has to read those words in Articles 189 and 190 in the light of and as qualified by the formulation of powers which I cited, and as qualified by various other provisions in the Treaty which make it perfectly clear that it is the Council which takes the final decision. May I give the Committee an example? Article 43, which deals with the Common Agricultural Policy, reads in the third paragraph of heading 2:
"The Council shall, acting on a proposal of the Commission, and after consulting the Assembly, … adopt regulations or directives …"
That is the sort of phrasing very regularly repeated throughout the Treaty. My answer to my noble friend is that I thought that the wording he referred to should be qualified by those other passages.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I shall be happy to try to answer the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. They are all important and I think that their elucidation may be of some assistance to a number of Members of the Committee. First, I hope the Committee will forgive me for not going through the terms of this selection of
820
Amendments but to use them in the way the noble Lord did as a platform to speak to his points. I think it is inevitable that the wording of Clause 2(1) should go beyond the scope of regulations made under Article 189. I will illustrate that, solely for the moment, by saying that there are other resources of directly applicable law which have been mentioned earlier in debates (which I shall revert to in a moment) which do not derive from Article 189. There are other Articles in the Treaty and other sources, and merely to limit it to regulalations made under Article 189 would be a mistake and would not be in accordance with what is now the directly applicable system of law which covers the other countries in the Community already. In their jurisdiction and jurisprudence there are sources accepted and recognised other than regulations under Article 189.
On the other hand, the noble Lord was a little puzzled by the apparent conflict between that wording in Article 189 which says that regulations shall be binding and what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said about there being occasions when further implementation had to be carried out by the member States, even in the case of regulations made by the Community. The answer to this, like the answer to so much of the difficulty of directly applicable law, is that—and I think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said this earlier—one does not look at the form so much as at the substance. Even the form, however, may be helpful because in the case of regulations it is not uncommon for them very largely to be directly applicable but at the end, for instance, to say, "and the member States shall take certain steps to enforce this regulation
That does not mean that the earlier parts of the regulation are not directly applicable, but it may leave a certain amount of subordinate legislation, or indeed full legislation, in the hands of the member States in order to enforce what the regulation has imposed. That is what my noble and learned friend had in mind; not uncommonly, it comes at the end of a regulation. A regulation which says that new States shall "go away and enforce" requires some further action; it does not create any rights or

821
obligations on the people of this country but creates a right and obligation on the Government to bring in legislation to enforce that regulation. That is the way that one works.
The noble Lord then went on to ask about directives and suggested that these would almost certainly not be directly applicable. Again, as a rule, he is perfectly right; but if you look at substance rather than form you can get a case like the one called S.A.C.E. against the Italian Ministry of Finance, which was decided in 1971. Without going into the details of the case, there is in Article 13(2) of the E.E.C. Treaty a requirement to abolish certain customs duties. Then a directive, No. 31 of 1968, was issued and made the further supplementary provisions about this abolition of customs duties. The point about directive No. 31 of 1968 was that it applied only to Italy and gave a date when the obligation was to come into force. Therefore, after it had come into force the European Court said that, read together, Article 13(2), which laid down the general duty, and the directive, which applied it with a date in Italy, combined together to produce a directly applicable situation for the benefit of the Italian citizen. Therefore, you have two sources of indirectly applicable law, one an Article of the Treaty itself and one a directive sent specifically to Italy which, read together, had this effect. That is the sort of way it happens but it does not happen very often.
The third point the noble Lord made was about the power of the Commission to make regulations. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, for drawing attention to Articles 189 and 190. Article 155, which Lord Stow Hill mentioned, is perhaps the basic one and probably reinforces both the other two; it deals with rules. What happens is that the Commission make a fairly large number of ephemeral regulations, for instance, fixing the intervention price for various commodities within the Common Agricultural Policy, and that comes under the other instance the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, mentioned, I think Article 43.
This intervention price is governed basically by a target price laid down by the Council but it has to be laid down by some temporary, subordinate regula-
822
tion made by the Commission over a fairly short period. So that you get this sort of situation where major policy is dealt with by the Council and the Commission are left to the day-to-day running of it, although in fact the rules they make are of the character of a regulation. There is another instance which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, might like to look at and which comes under Article 48(3)(d) of the E.E.C. Treaty.
Here we specifically have "conditions" as they are called, which would be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission. These affect conditions under which a worker, having been employed in a member State, may remain in that State. There, again, are some very detailed matters about which the Commission would make regulations. So there are scattered about in the Treaty one or two examples of this sort where, under a general broad policy laid down by the Council, the Commission are left to use a regulation-making power in the detailed case. I think this is of assistance and that it is well documented in the Treaty itself.
Just to round this off, if I may, I think it would be useful if one looks at the terms of Clause 2(1) to see where one would get examples of the several legal words—"rights", "powers", and so on—which are set out in this subsection. I take these absolutely at random but in the right order. Regarding "rights", I have already explained that Article 13(2) held that the S.A.C.E. case creates rights in the Italian citizen relating to the abolition of customs charges or something equivalent to a customs charge. With "powers" you get, for instance, Article 9 of the E.E.C., Regulation 17, declaring as inapplicable Article 85(1), which concerns the restrictive agreement. One gets some powers here exercisable where the Agreement, which I think would otherwise have been restrictive, satisfies the requirement of Article 85(3). So you find that you get a "power" created this time by a regulation made under Article 85.
Regarding "obligations", again the first example that I have been given comes under a regulation relating to obligations laid on transport undertakings and their employees. They concern minimum ages and lengths of periods of continuous driving, and at the moment

823
relate only to international journeys. But you have that under regulations. Again there is a restriction that you can find in the regulations under Article 85. But for "procedures" you have to go back lo Article 177 of the Treaty because here you have the procedure on recourse to the European Court. And although it will not as a rule be directly in the hands of a citizen, nevertheless there are occasions when directives which give an exceptional right to go to the European Court are issued to an individual firm. There is also the case where an individual law suit in this country has a reference to the European Court, made in relation to it by the Court itself. So there are procedures and remedies in relation to the European Court which go back to the terms of the Treaty itself.
This, I think, indicates that we have a full range here of the kinds of directly applicable law. You can get it from the Treaty; you can get it, and usually would, by regulation; and you can occasionally get it from directives. As I said before, I have not an example of this, but I believe that you can get it, exceptionally, from a decision as well. That is why we say that the way Clause 2(1) is drafted covers all these possible sources which are identified by the European Court as being directly applicable; and why to modify the wording would be mistaken, because we should tend to miss out one of the possible sources, or confine it in such a way that we should not be able to comply with our undertaking to make all directly applicable law applicable in this country. I hope that that answers the specific questions of the noble and learned Lord, and at the same time I trust that it throws a little clarity on the way this works.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for his answer, which I thought extremely helpful and full. On the powers of the Commission, he mentioned two cases in which the regulation-making power related only to subordinate matters—rates and so on. The first one he referred to is in Article 43. If I may say so, that is a power which may be exercised only by the Council—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think that 48(3)(d) was the one I specifically mentioned.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, I should like to look at that. But he has entirely answered my questions, and in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("from time to time created or arising") and insert ("already created at the date of accession").
The noble Earl said: Reeling and dizzy from a whole term of legal tutorials squeezed into a few hours, I feel quite sure that it will be to the advantage and comfort of noble Lords if I may be allowed to refer to Amendments Nos. 16 and 19 together. Since I would hardly expect to get anything better than a delta treble-minus on the tutorials we have had, this Amendment raises not an obscure or difficult question of law but an exceedingly simple question of principle relating to the future; future actions, future obligations, as yet unwritten, as yet unknown, as yet unpredictable and, so it would seem, even without any statutory duty to tell Parliament.
My Amendment accepts what has been, has been. In Pilate's words: "O γεγραφα"—"What I have written, I have written." But the Amendment concentrates on the future and would limit this subsection to what has already been done. It makes the simple proposal—in a simple, ignorant kind of way which no doubt the Government will be able, and I hope willing, to polish up for Report—that we in this Committee should recognise, clearly and frankly, as an historic principle, that Parliament has a duty to the electors whose rights we in this House are endowed with a privileged station to protect.
That duty to protect the elector's rights is paramount. In 1945, the late fifth Marquess of Salisbury declared that duty to be paramount. This Party, in Opposition after the war, declared that duty to be paramount. Indeed, more than 100 years ago, to be exact in 1871, the third Marquess of Salisbury is on record as saying words that amount to the same; that this duty—the duty to protect the electorate—is paramount. We would surely all agree that it is never wise to

825
issue a blank cheque, even to a member of the family; certainly not in business affairs, and least of all in public affairs. And because this is common sense that is why the genius of our nation has developed the principle and the machinery of public accountability. That is why it has developed a constitutional practice never to give any Government a blank cheque, except possibly during the period of Cromwellion rule, for which I sometimes fear some of my respected noble friends are beginning to have a certain fresh uprush of sympathy and liking.
The defence of the Quinquennial Act has since 1911 been written into our deed of trust, and if it is our paramount constitutional duty in this House to save the electors from any deprivation of their five-yearly rights, what then are those rights? Surely they are to furnish a mandate to a Government for five years; for five years only and not a day more. Yet the proposal in Clause 2(1) is that this House, as it were, signs away goodness knows what as yet unwritten obligations, not just for six years—that is, over into the term of the next Parliament; not even just for 20 years, as in the NATO Treaty (in regard to which of course we reserved an annual right of review of the means of implementation), but for ever, indefinitely, without any review of any kind inserted in the Statute. Are Ministers fully satisfied that this clause does not contradict the purpose of Parliament and therefore the Quinquennial Act which is designed to protect it?
I look forward with interest, but after last Thursday with an interest now alas! more heavily laden with apprehension, to the Government's justification. Another member of the Government, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said in another place that the issue of sovereignty is, broadly, as it is under other treaties that we have signed in the past. How does this Bill, let alone this clause, compare with any other treaty that we have ever signed? On what popular mandate are we invited to provide this blank cheque for the future? By what Party political manifesto are we entitled to do this thing? My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to, as I think he described it, a "widespread failure to understand", and to the fact that this causes much confusion on the Bill. I certainly
826
come within that category, because there is much here that I cannot pretend to understand: and when eventually we are told that the final exercise of sovereignty is to break the Treaty and walk out, then I ask myself like a drunken man: "Am I, or does it?".
I therefore hope that we shall have from the Front Bench two things. First, I hope for a genuine and simple explanation and not an argument from political or diplomatic expediency. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor stressed—and I sympathise at least in this regard with what he has said, although some of it I did not understand—the need to get down to discussing this Bill in a constructive way. In the light of that expression, I have a second hope of the Government; that is, evidence of a sincere and real readiness to listen: not just patiently and courteously to sit through, but to listen to at any rate sincere arguments, and a readiness to consider them between now and Report. I beg to move.
LORD SHINWELL: It has been my experience that it is customary on the part of Governments to enter into treaties which are to some extent indefinable; that is to say, they have not been fully negotiated in detail in advance. That is not only customary, but desirable, because it is difficult in respect of the provisions of some treaties into which Governments of this country have entered to foresee the future. Take, for example, the treaty between the United Kingdom Government and the French Government before 1914 relating to resistance to an act of aggression on the part of a potential enemy. As a member of the Government many years ago—indeed as far back as 1924, on behalf of the first Labour Government—I had the experience of entering into a treaty with the American Government on a matter of oil supplies, and subsequently a document was produced which in effect ratified the treaty. There again, for various reasons, it was impossible to be too specific in advance: we could not anticipate what the future would bring.
But here we are in a different situation. Over and over again in the other place in the course of their various debates during the Committee stage the argument was adduced that negotiations had proceeded on a variety of topics—the

827
agricultural policy, and many other matters associated with this legislation. That argument was adduced in order to fortify the contention that there has been sufficient debate on this subject. As regards the Amendment now before your Lordships it is clear, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has pointed out, that, setting aside the Treaty of Accession, which has been accepted—one may be in opposition to it, but there it is—we are now being asked in the clause under review to accept liabilities, rights and powers which would lead to regulations, some restrictive and some positive in character, which would become enforceable, and—I particularly direct your Lordships' attention to this aspect—without further enactment. I think that is highly objectionable. It is one thing to accept a treaty after negotiation, even if some particulars have been ignored or left out for one reason or another, but it is another thing to ask us to accept liabilities which are unforeseen, impossible to define, and which are in the power of the Commission, the Council of Ministers, or a combination of both to implement, without Parliamentary sanction. This brings me to the matter of Parliamentary control. I noted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier that there was effective Parliamentary control. I do not see it myself, and I am satisfied that many other noble Lords are unable to discern anything of the nature of effective Parliamentary control in many of the clauses under review. So I am concerned not so much with what has been done after negotiation, accepting the Treaty of Accession with all that that means, but with what I regard as obnoxious and repugnant; that is, that we should take this further leap into the dark with a further pig in a poke without regard to the consequences.
Who can tell what is going to happen? We are then placing ourselves without reservation in the power of the Commission and the power of Ministers. It may well be that in the future, with some form of political integration or association, we shall have elected representatives in Bonn, Brussels or Paris, or wherever it may be. We may have a voice in the discussions; but our representatives will not, as this clause indicates, have any
828
power to prevent the implementation of the various directives. I have already directed the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the clause itself says "without further enactment". That means that absolute power—and I repeat those words with emphasis: absolute power—is going to be vested in Brussels, Bonn, Paris or where the Commission may be. We are going to be utterly helpless. For that reason I support the Amendment which has been advocated by the noble Earl.
7.1 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am not going to delay the Committee, but I feel very sad about this matter. I have listened to delightful expositions, legal explanations beautifully delivered by both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by the noble Viscount. We have been told how the Community will work, but no one has admitted that we have given power away and that in giving away this power the corridors of power, so far as the people of England are concerned, have become the corridors of impotence. I agree entirely with the phrase "a blank cheque" which has been used. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill put forward a point and asked in simple English that while accepting the Treaty we should have some power over regulations and instruments that may come in the future. We have had a brilliant explanation of how the law will work but the explanation did not contain the confession, as it should have done, that power is being taken away from this House.
Finally, I should like to quote what Sir William Blackstone said, in looking at the law between 1723 and 1780 with some understanding:
"It was a known apophthegm of the great Lord Treasurer Burleigh that 'England could never be ruined but by a Parliament': and as Sir Matthew Hale observes. this being the highest and greatest court over which none other can have jurisdiction in the kingdom, if by any means a misgovernment should in any way fall upon it, the subjects of this kingdom are left without all manner of remedy. To the same purpose, the President Montesquieu. though I trust too hastily presages; that as Rome, Sparta and Carthage have lost their liberty and perished, so the constitution of England will in time lose its liberty, will perish: it will perish whenever the legislative power shall become more corrupt than the executive."

829
And after two million words of speeches, and after going through another place for weeks and after going through your Lordships' House for further days, if not one word is changed that is corruption of power when there has been such skill in debate emanating from both places. And for this Government not to change one iota is an insult to Parliament and an insult to the people.
6.54 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and I do so with conviction but, I confess, with little hope of success. The reason for my support is really summed up in the words of my noble friend Lord Shinwell: that we are buying a pig in a poke. Every Government goes through a period when it seems to be accident prone, but the trouble with this Government is that the condition seems to be becoming chronic. One cannot, I suppose, blame noble Lords opposite for the fact that two days before we debate the noble Lord's Amendment, The Times, on Saturday. printed an article by Mr. Tom Harper headed "First step towards a book of law that the citizens can understand". The article began:
"Statute law—the law enacted by Parliament—should, according to Bentham, be so readily accessible to the ordinary citizen that a father would have merely to 'open the chapter on fathers', and an agriculturist, 'the chapter on agriculturists'. Fathers and agriculturists, and others, who put the matter to the test today will very soon discover that we are still a long way from Bentham's ideal of accessibility: but a substantial advance towards it has been made "—
and I understand that following the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who set up a Committee in 1966, we now have a document called Statutes in Force. There appear to be 3,000 Statutes. It is possible now for the agriculturist to look up "agriculture" and find it more simply than has been the case in the past; so, at any rate in theory, every agriculturist will know what the law is.
I hope it does not seem indelicate to ask your Lordships to put yourselves into the shoes of the ordinary common man. Let us, for the moment, visualise the ploughman homeward plodding his weary way, asking himself what price he is going to be allowed to charge for his turnips, confused by all the regulations and laws
830
with which he is faced, fumbling in the pockets of his moleskin waistcoat for the appropriate sections of Statutes in Force and asking himself what the law is. Of course, theoretically, Bob should be your uncle, but there are further difficulties because our unfortunate ploughman has not simply to understand the appropriate Statute out of a total of 3,000. Indeed The Times itself ends with a rather gloomy summing-up and says that the agriculturist
"will nevertheless find it as difficult to comprehend, at times as utterly incomprehensible, as ever"
On top of that, we have the fact that there are several thousands of statutory instruments which the ploughman is also expected to know. Many of your Lordships will remember the days when Lord Chief Justice Hewart was waging his great campaign against the "new despotism" and what he regarded as the menace of delegated legislation. Now we are delegating legislation not simply from your Lordships' House or from another place but to another body, sitting outside this country—a body which is not an elected body but which can, according to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, issue regulations which are immediately applicable to this country. So the ploughman has to cope first of all with the Statutes, then with the Statutory Instruments; and no doubt he is reassured about the Statutory Instruments because he knows that at least Parliament scrutinises them. They all come within the scope of the Statutes under which the indirect legislation is made, and in many cases they can in fact be rejected either by your Lordships' House or by the Members of another place. So the poor old ploughman, poring over his Statutes, has also to bear in mind the Statutory Rules and Orders.
There is worse to come. There are also the 42 volumes of Community law. There may even by that time be the leading work of Hailsham on Directly Applicable Regulations. There will certainly be the 42 volumes of Community law, some of it based on precedent, not all that impressively translated into the English language. There will be abundant scope for ambiguities of major proportions. I have been told that there is one article in the Treaty of Rome of which there have been three Germanic versions and two French versions. The

831
matter had to be taken to the Supreme Court of Luxembourg to decide which was the correct version. One of the two French versions was regarded as having the appropriate wording for the Article.
We have this great body of legislation already enacted. Now we are proposing, in the words of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, to buy a pig in a poke. One of the things about legislation in both Houses of Parliament over the years has been the care that we have taken to get exactly the right wording to suit the situation that was confronting us. I listened the other day to what I thought was a most impressive speech from my noble friend Lord Hale about the hours that he and I sat in another place arguing about single words, as to whether they implemented what the Goverment stated they wanted to do and whether they reflected the will of Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Hale reminded us, quite often when Parliament had spoken judges later said that Parliament ought to have been more careful in its choice of words. We have spent months and years of our lives arguing about the wording of Statutes. Now, at the drop of a hat, we are going to commit ourselves in perpetuity to accept regulations that come from these distinguished gentleman sitting in Brussels. I find that an utterly unacceptable situation. I believe that any Member of your Lordships' House who has the respect for Parliament and democratic institutions which all of us ought to have will find that, too, an unacceptable proposition.
I have said that I do not object to the principle of going in; I am prepared to accept, much as I dislike it, the Community law which has already become Community law. That is what the noble Earl is asking us to do: to accept what has been decided upon already, not to commit ourselves, willy-nilly, to accept whatever may be brought forward in the years to come. We have bought a pig the looks of which we know. What the noble Lord and I are objecting to is committing ourselves to buying a still further pig which it is at present impossible to see or even visualise.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERR ARD: What the three noble Lords who have just spoken have forgotten is that the decisions of the Council
832
have to be unanimous. Therefore, if our representative thinks something is going to be against the interests of this country it will not be a unanimous decision.
7.4 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have heard a number of speeches in support of this Amendment, none of which has faced the issue that if we want to go into the Community we must observe the rules of the club. One of the rules of the club is that Community law, as and when it is promulgated, becomes directly applicable in the courts of the member-States. I can quite understand that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, does not like it, because he does not want to join the club, but I do not understand the argument by which he sought to say, "I am not at this stage against the principle of entry; I am not at this stage against joining the club, but I will not observe its rules"
It is very difficult indeed to see how the noble Lord could have made the speech that he did, remembering what was said in the White Paper of 1967, for which he was collectively responsible with the other members of the Government of which he was an ornament. I will read what that White Paper said:
"It would be necessary to pass legislation giving the force of law to those provisions of the Treaties and Community instruments which are intended to take direct internal effect within the Member States.… The legislation would have to cover provisions in force when we join …"
And now I draw the noble Lord's attention specifically to the words which follow:
"and those coming into force subsequently as a result of instruments issued by the Community institutions."
If that statement, for which he was fully responsible as a member of the Cabinet, can live with the speech the noble Lord has just uttered, all I can say is that I am a Dutchman, which I do not think I am—at any rate, not yet.
Moreover, Mr. Harold Wilson, then the Prime Minister, said in May, 1967:
"Accession to the Treaties would involve the passing of United Kingdom legislation. This would be an exercise, of course, of Parliamentary sovereignty, and it is important to realise that Community law,"—
and now I draw the noble Lord's specific attention to the words which follow—
"existing and future, would derive its force as law in this country from that legislation

833
passed by Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/5/67; col. 1083.]
If that were not enough, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, then speaking from the Woolsack in this House on May 8, at the same time—and I quoted this in my Second Reading speech and I quote it now because the noble Lord has not hoisted it in—said:
"This legislation—that is, the pre-accession Bill—would include an enactment applying as law in the United Kingdom so much of the provisions of the Treaties and of the instruments made under them as then had direct internal effect as law within the Member States and"—
and again I must draw the noble Lord's specific attention to the words which follow—
"providing that future instruments similarly took effect as law here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1202.]
We have spent about twenty minutes with speeches from the other side talking about the corridors of impotence, the noble Lord eating every particle of the words contained in his former utterances, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, making a diatribe of the most general kind against us, and we are asked to take this seriously. What I take seriously is not the speeches that I have heard from the other side, because, in the light of what I have read out, it is not really a reputable argument for them to support this Amendment. What I take more seriously are the words which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale used in his speech in introducing the Amendment. He supported his remarks rather strangely—if he will forgive my saying so—by breaking into his pretty Greek with the remark of Pilate on a famous occasion: O γεγραφα Pilate was resisting an Amendment when he said that. The quotation therefore rather tells against my noble friend.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Would my noble and learned friend not agree that he has put himself on a par with Pilate in resisting an Amendment? Perhaps he is going to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It was my noble friend who sought to derive comfort from Pontius Pilate.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK LORD DAVIES OF LEEK rose—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will answer my noble friend first. I do not
834
derive support from Pontius Pilate. I, breaking into my pretty Italian, will say to my noble friend, Che sera, sera.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. His analogy has gone completely awry. The trouble that the world has had since Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the Amendment completely! All this Government are doing is washing their hands completely of the intricacies into which we are getting. Is the noble and learned Lord not aware that that White Paper was set out for discussion and showed fairly the position we should have if we went in the Common Market without proper negotiation?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Pilate was dealing only with the Committee stage of the Bill. It had already passed its Second Reading.
As regards the last point, the White Paper was showing the inescapable consequences of membership. The fact is that member States must give effect to directly applicable law as and when it arises. The effect of the two Amendments proposed by my noble friend goes clean against the fundamental obligations which are imposed upon us by accession to the Treaty. They are therefore, in the strictest sense, wrecking Amendments. Although my noble friend asked me to listen as well as to reply courteously (I hope that I have done both) to his sincere argumentation—and I doubt not that it was sincere—he has not hoisted in it the fundamental proposition with which we began subsection (1) of Clause 1, which is that the whole system of the Community depends upon the member States' accepting the rule of directly applicable law in the sense that I earlier tried to explain. In a sense, of course, all Acts of Parliament are permanent until they are repealed. We have had this argument before. We intend this to be a permanent arrangement, but we have not impaired our legal right to repeal any Act of Parliament. There is nothing in this Bill which does that.
7.12 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: We are in the Committee stage, and if the noble and learned Lord Chancellor wants to enjoy himself by indulging in what, I suppose, is a form of Hailsham humour, he is entitled to do so. But some of us would

835
prefer that he should address himself rather more seriously, and, if I may say so, objectively, to what was a reasoned argument adduced by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. It may well be that nothing worries him more—much as he may dislike what a few of us on this side say about some of his alleged arguments and contentions—than the idea of somebody on his own side being inclined to indulge in what might be called an incipient revolt against the Government. So what does he do? He parades his knowledge of political history:
"And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew."
He parades his political history; he brings in Mr. Harold Wilson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
If I felt like it, I also have the capability—there is no use indulging in false modesty—to go into history. I could produce quite a number of quotations, not from people on the Labour side, but from high-ranking people on the Tory side who have expressed objections about British entry to the Common Market. I could recall the speeches by Mr. Maudling several years ago, and also speeches made by the late Sir Winston Churchill, whose views have been paraded as if he was in complete agreement with the policy of the present Conservative Government. I happen to know better. Anyone can indulge in that sort of thing, quotations dragged out of the ghosts of the past. But I should prefer that the noble and learned Lord addressed himself to the argument.
There has been a lot of bragging and boasting about the negotiations. Almost everything has been negotiated—the Common Agricultural Policy; tariffs; our association with the Commonwealth countries; how we are going to deal with New Zealand, and so on and so forth. After prolonged negotiations there is a Treaty of Accession. I agree that once a decision has been reached in the other place and in your Lordships' House on Second Reading we are bound to accept it. The Treaty of Accession is acceptable, so far as Parliament is concerned, whatever the public outside may care to say or to do. But it is a horse of a quite different colour when we are asked to accept provisions in addition to the
836
Treaty of Accession which includes a great variety of decisions already reached on many aspects of Community policy which we are bound to accept and for which there has been enactment already at the Committee stage in another place, and also to some extent here. I accept all that. But, as I say, we are asked to go further and to accept provisions.
What do we mean by provisions? Will some noble Lord who has trained himself in medical jurisprudence or has forensic abilities, none of which I possess, define what is meant by "provisions"? There has to be a substance and a content in this term. What does it mean for us in the future? Does it mean that there will be further modifications to the Common Agricultural Policy? Could it mean that? Could it mean that we are going to be hemmed down even further by the imposition of restrictive practices; or, for example, that we are going to be dictated to about regional policy? We have no information on these matters. Yet this is what we are being asked to accept.
The remarkable thing is that we are getting this from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who for years has prided himself on his convictions about liberty, freedom and British sovereignty. He now asks us to accept this. I can understand the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, revolting against this. The Government can go a bit too far. I know that your Lordships want to go to dinner and that there is other business coming along to interrupt the Committee stage, but I want just to say this. Go ahead! Do these things. What is going to happen? Can anyone foretell? We leave ourselves in the hands of a Commission, independent or otherwise; we are leaving ourselves in the hands of a Council of Ministers. What is to happen? There is no assurance and no guarantee of protection, not even on sovereignty. I know that there are a variety of definitions and interpretations of sovereignty. I do not go all the way about British sovereignty; I know that we have to abandon some of our ideas in that context. We have now to leave ourselves in the hands of people over whom we have no control whatever. We cannot dictate to the Commission.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, ventured to interrupt to

837
talk about control, or something of the sort; he said that we had agreed to do certain things and that we must go all the way. I do not accept that. I do not know of any treaty ever entered into by a British Government which meant that we had to go all the way. There were always reservations. All the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, says is that there should be certain reservations in order to protect the interests of the United Kingdom and its people. That is all he is asking for. I cannot understand why members of the Committee will not accept that. It has nothing to do with opposition to entering the Common Market. It is simply a means of providing essential reservations that will afford some measure of protection. That is all we are asking for. There is a bit of a grin on the faces of some Members on the Front Bench when I say that it has nothing to do with the Common Market. I know what they are thinking: that I am such an unrepentant opponent of British entry that all this is play acting. Nothing of the sort! After all, if we are going in, let us support something for the protection of our people. But the Government will not do it. So there we are. We shall be helpless; unprotected; hopeless; with no future whatever, except a future that is vested in the hands of people on the other side of the Channel.
That is the situation. Why do your Lordships not go and tell the British public that? Why do your Lordships not go to the British public; get on the platform; get on the hustings—though I know that one cannot apply hustings to Members of the House of Lords. But why do your Lordships not go and tell the public, "It is a leap in the dark. We do not know what is going to happen in the future. But we think everything in the garden is going to be lovely"? How do we know? We do not know. We are just proceeding on assumptions, In other words, it is just hope and faith. They are excellent virtues; high moral virtues. But for heaven's sake! afford the British public some charity.
7.21 p.m
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I think it is common to us all that we should like to go to our dinners. Therefore, may I answer just one or two of the points that have been made? First of all, my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who has obviously succumbed to the temptation that is troubling us all and is no longer in his place, referred to this great point about the unanimity rule. Of course the difficulty about referring to the unanimity rule is this. Suppose that a Government do not behave in the way the public or Parliament would like and are overthrown for failing to use the veto. That still makes no difference to what goes on in the Council. That is my answer to the noble Viscount.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor enjoyed, I think, his excursions into the 1967 White Paper. He was not, happily, addressing that argument to me. But, as has been said many times over, we are not here discussing a White Paper, or what was in any White Paper; we are here discussing a Bill. With the greatest respect, I could not help discerning a certain dolce vita note about my noble and learned friend's excursion into Italian, Che sera, sera. This is not, I submit, an occasion for a dolce vita at all. MY noble friend took us again through the point that this open-ended commitment is basic to the Bill. He explained the relationship of directly applicable law to Britain. But he did not do so with any reference to a statutory obligation to refer to Parliament. He replied to me without comment on the effect of all this on the rights of electors. He replied to me without reference to the duties of this House. Therefore, if only for the historical record, I am afraid I must ask the Committee to divide.
7.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 115.

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Brockway, L.

Foot, L.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Bernstein. L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Beswick, L.

de Clifford, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Blyton, L.

Fiske, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Hale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Somers, L.

Hoy, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Watkins, L.

Maelor, L.

Shinwell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Drogheda, E.

Newall, L.

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Ailwyn, L,

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Perth, E.

Alport, L.

Eccles, V.

Polwarth, L.

Amory, V.

Elles, Bs.

Poole, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Rankeillour, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Falmouth, V.

Reay, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reigate, L.

Balerno, L.

Gage, V.

Remnant, L.

Barnby, L.

Gainford, L.

Rhyl, L.

Belstead, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robbins, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V.

Rothermere, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bethell, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Just, L.

Blake, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Saint Oswald, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Sandford, L.

Bradford, E.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, Bs.

Brecon, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Selborne, E.

Brentford, V.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hewlett, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Carrington, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Chelmer, L.

Inchyra, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Colyton, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Swaythling, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Latymer, L.

Terrington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Limerick, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cowley, E.

Lothian, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Trevelyan, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Crathorne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Croft, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Daventry, V.

Monck, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Davidson, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wolverton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Yarborough, E.

Derwent, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Young, Bs.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

7.31 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My noble friend Lord Lauderdale referred to the fact that some of your Lordships were seeking some refreshment, and I think it was agreed that we should interrupt our Committee stage al about this time in order to take two Bills which are before us. I think it has also been agreed through the usual channels, in order to facilitate progress, that we should have no artificial break after we have dealt with those two Bills but that we should immediately resume our Committee stage. With those preparatory remarks I beg to move that this House do now resume.
House resumed.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
7.32 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there may appear to be a fairly formidable list of Amendments to the Bill, but I think it is fair to say that the majority of them are improvements and they do not represent any major change of substance to the Bill. Therefore perhaps it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I move the Amendments in

841
groups, where this is possible, briefly but I hope sufficiently, and if any noble Lord wishes to ask for more detail I shall be pleased to do my best to answer.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 54 as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Leave out Clause 1.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. It may be something of a surprise to noble Lords to know that the other place should have deleted Clause 1—a clause which dealt with brucellosis and which was generally welcomed on all sides. As the House will recall, the original compensation terms for the compulsory eradication of brucellosis included the payment of replacement grants on slaughtered reactors, as well as incentives on beef and milk from the time of the first test until the year after accreditation. The authority for this scheme was given in Clause 1 and although these terms were not to be applied compulsorily until November of this year they were in the meantime offered on a voluntary basis to owners in the first eradication areas. We agreed with the farmers' union in March 1971 that the operation of the scheme during this "voluntary year" would be reviewed in 1972. We carried out a review in the spring of this year, when it became clear that the existing compulsory terms needed revision and that owners of some heavily infected herds had suffered significant losses.
The terms also tended to operate unfairly as between owners of herds of different types and breeds. We therefore decided, after consultation with the unions, to replace the existing terms by a new scheme which my right honourable friend announced on May 19. This scheme provides for the payment of compensation for reactors at full market value during the pre-accreditation period, subject to a limit of £240 per animal. Under these new arrangements—and this is the important point—the powers which Ministers would have been given under Clause 1 of the Bill are no longer necessary. Instead, we shall simply act in future under the existing slaughter and compensation powers which are contained in Sections 17 and 19 of the Diseases of
842
Animals Act. Therefore rather than introduce legislation which is no longer required we decided to delete Clause 1.
I should make it abundantly clear that what at first sight may appear to be a revolutionary Amendment in fact is not so disastrous as it may seem; it in no way affects the pace of our eradication programme or our determination to rid the country of brucellosis as quickly as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I just want to say that this Amendment was unanimously agreed in another place and indeed, for the reasons given by the noble Earl, I am certain that your Lordships will agree with the step that has been taken. During the passage of the Bill it was pointed out that it is very easy sometimes for people to say that brucellosis has occurred and that slaughter ought to take place, without finding out where the replacements will come from or, indeed, the cost of the replacements. This is indeed an improvement, and I am glad to give it support from this side of the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2–7]
Clause 2, page 3, line 1, leave out "or to animals affected with it".
Clause 2,page 3, line 6, leave out "and to an animal in which it is present".
Clause 2,page 3, line 8, leave out "and the animal were affected with that disease"
Clause 2,page 3, line 37, leave out from "require" to end of line 38 and insert" the owner or person having charge of any animals on".
Clause 2,page 3, line 41, leave out "any animals on the land" and insert "them".
Clause 2,page 4, line 6, leave out "birds" and insert "poultry".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, and I would suggest that we might consider at the same time Nos. 3 to 7. They may fairly be described as drafting Amendments which improve the Bill with regard to zoonoses without altering the Ministerial powers. They make more clear and less open to doubt the position which Clause 2 had originally intended to make clear. l beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 7.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8]
Clause 8, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
"(3) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
EARL PERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. This is a drafting Amendment. Owing to a fault in the original drafting the form of Parliamentary control over The regulation-making power prescribing the methods alternative to stunning for rendering animals insensitive to pain prior to slaughter, was omitted. This Amendment prescribes the same form of Parliamentary control as applies generally to regulations governing humane slaughter; namely by statutory instrument,, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[Earl Ferrers.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Clause 9, page 9, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) The said Act of 1931 shall have effect subject to the provisions of Schedule (Licensing of bulls) to this Act, being provisions amending and modifying that Act in various respects and enabling its operation to be suspended by order."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9, and, if I may, I would suggest that we might consider No. 21 at the same time. After the Bill left your Lordships' House, consultations on the detail of the new veterinary-based bull licensing arrangements continued with the profession and the livestock industry. These pointed to the need for additional statutory requirements which are incorporated in these Amendments. Briefly, these Amendments enable Ministers to grant or to refuse a licence on consideration of a certificate issued by a veterinary surgeon accredited for this purpose by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British
844
Veterinary Association. These powers are enabling powers; the details will be spelt out in Regulations which will be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament.
Ministers are also given power to suspend bull licensing by order. I should emphasise that these are only reserve powers which we do not contemplate using without good reason. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, it is true that this Amendment brings the position up to date, but when the noble Earl says that it will be spelt out in regulations, and that an order will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure I wonder whether in fact this is the correct way to do it. I should have thought that when a Government is taking this power it means a change and that it would then be the duty of the Government to spell it out by an order requiring Affirmative Resolution. I suppose it is a little too late to take this step, and I rise simply to make it clear that in my view the Government should have proceeded by way of the Affirmative rather than the Negative Resolution procedure.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in a number of places in this legislation the practice is to proceed by way of the Negative Resolution procedure. Possibly it is rather more simple to proceed in this way. In any event, I have noted the noble Lord's point, though I hope he will be agreeable to accepting the Amendment as it stands.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10]
After Clause 11, page 13, line 12, at end insert the following new clause:
Grants for farm improvements
" … In subsection (9) of section 30 of the Agriculture Act 1967 (which limits the grants referred to in that subsection to one hundred and seventy million pounds) for the words 'one hundred and seventy million pounds' there shall be substituted the words' one hundred and eighty million pounds'."
7.41 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with

845
the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. This is a simple provision to raise the ceiling on expenditure under both the 1957 and 1967 Farm Improvement Schemes from £170 million to £180 million. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, how was this figure arrived at? While I am not quarrelling with the increase, may I ask the noble Earl to explain why an extra £10 million is required? This may not be an extremely large sum in relation to agriculture, but it is nevertheless a lot of money, and I am sure that the noble Earl will be anxious to explain why the Government chose the figure of £180 million.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, is typically and correctly Scottishly prudent. There is a reason. The grant already paid, taking the 1957 and 1967 Schemes together, amounts to £154 million. It is estimated that the outstanding grant liability, after allowing for price rises since applications were approved, is somewhat more than £19 million. The total expenditure would therefore come to something over £173 million. Obviously our estimates cannot be exact, and as we needed to allow for a safety margin and as the limit was £175 million, we thought that it would be prudent to increase the sum.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
Clause 12, page 13, line 19, at end insert:
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring authority on the Minister or Secretary of State to wind up the Agricultural Marketing Fund or, as the case may be, the Agricultural Marketing (Scotland) Fund."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. This is a clarifying Amendment and even without it the clause would not give my right honourable friends power to wind up the Funds mentioned in the Bill from which loans are made to agricultural marketing boards. Section 22(1) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 lays down that the Funds shall continue in
846
existence by the names which they now bear, and I am advised that nothing in this clause would supersede or alter that provision. I can also assure your Lordships that my right honourable friends have no desire to wind up these Funds. They consider, however, that power should be taken to keep the balances in the Funds in line with requirements. An assurance was sought in Committee in another place that reducing the balances to zero would not automatically wind up the Funds. This Amendment makes it abundantly clear that that is not so. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No 12]
Clause 14, page 14, line 20, leave out "one" and insert "two".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. Your Lordships will recollect that when the Bill was last before you the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, moved an Amendment to increase the maximum penalty under the agricultural safety legislation from £50 to £500 rather than to the figure of £100 which the Government pro. posed at that time. After discussion, your Lordships allowed the Government's proposal for £100 to stand. When this matter was discussed in another place it was suggested that a figure higher than £100 should be written into the Bill, and after discussion with numerous bodies interested in the matter, which were by no means unanimous in their view, the figure of £200 was inserted in another place. I hope that your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will agree to the Amendment being made. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and to another place for making this change in the Bill. The offence dealt with in the clause is a crime for which a fine of £50 is not sufficient. If people indulge in this form of depredation they should be made to pay. I sug-

847
gested £500 in the hope that the Government would settle for £250. In the event they decided in another place to make it £200.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
No. 13]
Clause 16, page 15, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (4) of section 16 of that Act (which makes provision for the Ministers by order to approve, modify or revoke a scheme) after the words 'Ministers by order' there shall be inserted the words 'after consultation with such persons or organisations as appear to the Ministers to represent the interests concerned'."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. An undertaking having been given in this House that the proposed levy arrangements will not be used without the agreement of cereals growers and buyers, the Amendment puts the matter beyond doubt and its acceptance by the Government underlines our genuine desire to proceed only after proper consultation. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 14]
After Clause 18, page 16, line 14, at end insert the following new clause:
Use of poison against grey squirrels and coypus
".—(1) The relevant Minister may, by an order made for the purposes of this section and applying either to the whole of Great Britain or to any specified part or area thereof, specify a poison for use for the purpose of destroying grey squirrels or coypus and the manner of its use for that purpose; and it shall be a defence in proceedings for an offence against any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) of this section to show that—

(a)the act alleged to constitute the offence was done for the purpose of destroying grey squirrels or coypus and was done at a time when, and in a place where, such an order had effect; and

(b)the poison used and the manner of its use were such as to comply with the provisions of the order.

(2) The said enactments are section 8(b) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, section 7(b)of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (which restrict the placing on land of poison and poisoned substances) and so
848
much of section 5(1)(a) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 as relates to poisoned or poisonous substances.
(3) The relevant Minister shall not make an order for the purposes of this section except after such consultation as he considers appropriate with such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests concerned and unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) Any order made for the purposes of this section may make different provision in relation to grey squirrels and in relation to coypus; and the power to make orders for the purposes of this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and shall include power to vary or revoke a previous order.
(5) In this section "the relevant Minister" means—

(a)in the case of an order which does not apply outside England, the Minister;

(b)in the case of an order which does not apply outside Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland;

(c)in the case of an order which applies both in England and in Scotland but not in Wales, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting jointly;

(d)in the case of an order which applies in Wales or both in England and Wales but not (in either case) in Scotland, the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly; and

(e)in the case of an order which applies in England, Scotland and Wales, the Minister and those Secretaries of State acting jointly.

For the purposes of this subsection Monmouthshire shall be treated as part of Wales and not of England.
(6) This section is without prejudice to any defence available apart from this section in proceedings for any such offence as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section; and nothing in this section shall be construed as conferring any exemption from any provision contained in or having effect under any enactment not mentioned in subsection (2) of this section."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. The purpose of this Amendment is to enable Ministers to make orders permitting the use of poison for the control of grey squirrels and coypus, two species which have been introduced into this country and are now responsible for damage of economic significance. Noble Lords who attended the Committee stage will remember the interesting debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, who sought to introduce a new clause amending the Protection of Animals Act 1911 in such a way as to allow poisons to be used against grey squirrels, as they

849
are already permitted against rats and mice and other small ground vermin. My noble friend Lord Denham drew attention to the danger to wildlife generally if poisons were used indiscriminately and mentioned that it was important to await the results of field trials which were being conducted by scientists of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the Forestry Commission to develop a safe and efficient method of presenting Warfarin to grey squirrels with minimal risk to other species before considering whether any revision of the law was desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, kindly withdrew his Amendment on the understanding that the Government would introduce a new clause giving Ministers appropriate enabling powers. An additional clause to the Bill was accepted in another place, which would enable Ministers to make orders permitting a specified poison to be used in a specified manner to control grey squirrels by extending the defences provided under the Protection of Animals Acts and in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 to include the poisoning of grey squirrels by the method specified in the order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I remember our Committee proceedings well because I could not understand why so many noble Lords were present on the Bench opposite. I soon discovered that the forestry interests had turned out in great number. This is, of course, exactly what they want, and my only regret is that they are not present tonight when the actual work is being done. Considerable interest has been shown in this problem and last Thursday a number of questions were asked on this subject. I do not think the Government had much alternative but to introduce an Amendment of this kind after one of my noble friends had commented that he could not get into his house because it was occupied by squirrels. Something had to be done and I welcome the new clause on behalf of, among others, absent noble Lords opposite.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am absolutely certain that this clause is necessary and desirable, not only for
850
forestry interests although the forestry interests may predominate. There will be no naturally growing sycamore in this country very shortly and I doubt whether there will be much beech unless we can learn to control squirrels. The depredations on the fruit industry are getting quite intolerable.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I ask one question? Warfarin seems to be curiously ineffective against mice. Perhaps the squirrels are not so used to it. But is it really going to be any good putting it down? The mice are still very active in the Palace of Westminster.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, a lot of the success of the product seems to depend on the person who puts it down. If there are many mice running around Westminster despite Warfarin it is perhaps being put down in such a way that the mice will not eat it. Alternatively they may have become used to it. But I rather doubt it. I am advised, and in my experience, Warfarin is pretty effective. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hoy—and I am grateful to hint and to my noble friend for welcoming this particular Amendment because it has caused a lot of concern to a great many people—that this should help on the problem of the grey squirrel, which is a quite substantial one, although the clause was not included in the Bill specifically in order to enable the noble Lord, Lord Hale, to rid his house and live in peace free of squirrels.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 15]
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Recovery of expenses incurred by authority exercising default powers under orders made by virtue of Plant Health Act 1967.
".It is hereby declared that an order made or having effect under the Plant Health Act 1967 may contain provisions for requiring a person to pay to a competent authority or local authority for the purposes of that Act the cost to the authority of doing anything which that person has, in breach of a requirement imposed on him by or under the order, failed to do."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15, and if I may I would speak to Amendment No. 28 as well. This simple new

851
clause makes no new provisions. Its purpose is to remove a doubt which was cast on a power in the Plant Health Act 1967 by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place. The clause serves to make it clear that Orders under this Act may empower local authorities to recover costs which they may incur in taking default action. Successive Ministers have believed the powers to be in the Act, but this is a consolidation of legislation going back nearly a century and its regulation-making powers are not so precisely expressed as in more modern legislation. This has left room for doubt which should be cleared up by this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 16]
Clause 21, page 17, line 15, after "power" insert "to manage, maintain and improve the land and".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. This subsection as originally drafted enabled the Secretary of State to provide facilities such as laboratories, glasshouses and office accommodation at Logan and any other gardens which might be required. It was, however, defective in that it did not empower the Secretary of State to spend public funds on the day-to-day work in maintaining, managing and improving land. That defect has been repaired by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 17]
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
Recovery or possession of redundant farmhouses
" . Paragraph (f) of Case 14 in Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 and paragraph (f) of Case 15 in Schedule 3 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (under which the right conferred by those Cases to recover possession of a dwelling
852
house is available only if proceedings are commenced within the appropriate time limit specified in those paragraphs) shall cease to have effect except where the relevant date for the purposes of the said Case 14 or, as the case may be, Case 15 was before the passing of this Act."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. If I may, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 29 at the same time. The new clause, which covers Great Britain, removes the requirement that orders for possession of redundant farmhouses which are let on regulated tenancies must be applied for within five years from the date on which the last "agricultural" tenant vacated the farmhouse.
The particular provision to which the new clause is directed could, I am advised, create problems in the efficient use of agricultural land. I emphasise that care has been taken in this Amendment to preserve the really important protective measures for tenants. Regulated tenancies entered into before the commencement of the Act will be unaffected. Orders for possession cannot be granted by the courts if the tenant, or his widow, was or had been responsible for the farming of the land, or had been employed in agriculture by the landlord; if the tenancy was preceded by an amalgamation under Section 26 of the Agriculture Act 1967; unless the farmhouse is required for occupation in connection with the farming of the land; and finally, unless notice that repossession might be required was given before or when the regulated tenancy was created. The highly important safeguards which now exist are all preserved by this clause. It may appear to deal with a rather insignificant matter, but it would remove what could be an obstacle to the efficient farming of a block of land. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 18]
Clause 24, page 18, line 6, at end insert:
"( ) The following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a) paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1), and subsections (2) and (3), of section 6, section 7, and Schedule 1;

853

(b) Schedule 5 so far as it relates to the Slaughterhouses Act 1954, to sections 65, 70(1) and 75 to 78 of the Food and Drugs Act 1955, to the Slaughterhouses Act 1958 and to section 54(2) of the London Government Act 1963,

shall not come into force until 1st January 1974."
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. The purpose of this Amendment is to postpone, with one exception, the introduction of the slaughterhouse provisions of Clause 6 and Clause 7 until January 1, 1974, so that both the public and the private sectors of the industry can reassess future requirements in the light of the new proposals and put in hand any transitional arrangements in an orderly manner. The exception is the removal of Ministerial control over public slaughterhouse charges in England and Wales (there is in fact no control over the charges made in Scotland). The Government agree with local authorities that they should have financial freedom in the operation of their public slaughterhouses, and it is therefore proposed that this control should be removed as from the date of enactment of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation; and I was grateful also to hear him say that this gave a little more freedom to the local authorities to fix the charges. I am now about to say something which I am sure must be out of order but I will say it in one sentence. I understand that in very recent legislation dealing with slaughterhouses—I think it is the Industry Bill—slaughterhouses have been left out for support from Government grant. I have drawn it to the attention of one noble Lord and I would merely take the opportunity when we are discussing slaughterhouses to bring it to the attention of the noble Earl so that he might have a look at this particular problem before we deal with the Industry Bill. Otherwise I have nothing more to say to the Amendment. The important part I think is the point I have just raised.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said that he was quite sure he was out of
854
order. I shall certainly take note of the point he has raised which I believe is in fact already receiving attention.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 19]
Clause 24, page 18, line 16, after "11" insert "12,"
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. I spoke about this Amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 20–29]
Schedule 2, page 20, line 40, leave out "subsections (3), (5) and" and insert "subsection (3), in subsection (5) the words from `and' onwards, and subsection"
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  LICENSING OF BULLS
  Determination of applications for licences on basis of certificates of suitability
  1.—(1) Regulations under section 11 of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act 1931 may require an application for a licence under that Act in respect of a bull to be accompanied by a certificate in the prescribed form containing—

  (a) the prescribed particulars as to the suitability of the bull for a licence under that Act; and

  (b) such other particulars as may be prescribed,

  being a certificate issued by a veterinary surgeon who is a member of a panel appointed for the purposes of this Schedule by the Royal College of. Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association acting jointly; and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, decide whether or not to refuse to grant the licence on any of the grounds mentioned in section 2(2) of that Act on a consideration of the certificate and without himself causing the bull to be inspected.
  (2) A veterinary surgeon who inspects a bull with a view to the issue of a certificate for the purposes of an application for a licence under the said Act of 1931 shall mark the bull with a prescribed mark in the prescribed manner.
  (3) The Minister may refuse to grant a licence under the said Act of 1931 in respect of a bull—

  (a) if he is not satisfied that the bull has been marked in accordance with subparagraph (2) above on the occasion of its

  855
  inspection by the veterinary surgeon who issued the certificate accompanying the application; or

  (b) if it appears to him that, before that inspection, the bull had already been inspected for the purposes of an application under that Act by a different veterinary surgeon or been marked in accordance with that sub-paragraph.

  (4) In this paragraph `the Minister' and 'prescribed' have the same meaning as in the said Act of 1931 but no regulations shall be made prescribing a mark or manner of marking for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above except on the joint recommendation of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
  Appeal referees
  2. In section 5(2) of the said Act of 1931 (which provides for a panel of referees appointed on the recommendation of agricultural asociations and cattle-breeding societies) for the words 'and cattle-breeding societies' there shall be substituted the words 'cattle-breeding societies and associations of veterinary surgeons'.
  Power to suspend operation of Act
  3.—(1) The relevant Minister may by order suspend the operation of the said Act of 1931 from such date as may be specified in the order until such later date as may be specified in that order or in a further order under this paragraph; and
  (a) if the Act is so suspended—
  (i) any licence, permit, notice or regulations in force, or application pending, under that Act on the date of suspension shall lapse;

  "1968 c. 23.

  The Rent Act 1968.

  In Schedule 3, paragraph (f) of Case 14 except where the relevant date for the purposes of that Case was before the passing of this Act."

  Schedule 5, page28, line 55, at end insert—

  "1971 c. 28.

  The Rent (Scotland) Act 1971.

  In Schedule 3, paragraph (f) of Case 15 except where the relevant date for the purposes of that Case was before the passing of this Act."

  In the Title, line 19, after "statistics" insert "to make further provision as to the use of poison against grey squirrels or coypus;"
  Line 19, after "statistics "insert" to clarify the Plant Health Act 1967 as respects the recovery of expenses incurred by an authority exercising default powers under orders made by virtue of that Act;"
  Line 23, after "Scotland" insert "to repeal paragraph (f) of Case 14 in Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 and paragraph (f) of Case 15 in Schedule 3 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971;"
  (ii) the suspension shall not affect the taking or continuance of proceedings in respect of any offence committed, or liability for costs under section 6 of that Act incurred, before that date;
  (b) if the suspension comes to an end the Act shall operate as if references in it to 'the appointed day' were references to such day after the ending of the suspension as the relevant Minister may by order appoint and as if the definition of that expression in section 13 of that Act were omitted.
  (2) Any order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument; and any such order made otherwise than under subparagraph (1)(b) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (3) In this paragraph `the relevant Minister' means—

  (a) in the case of an order applying only to England and Wales, the Minister;

  (b) in the case of an order applying only to Scotland, the Secretary of State;

  (c) in the case of an order applying to England, Wales and Scotland, the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly."

  Schedule 4, page 24, line 25, after "Act" insert "where it first occurs".
  Schedule 5, page 26, line 54, at end insert "where it first occurs".
  Schedule 5,page 27, line 45, leave out "subsection (3), (5) and" and insert "subsection (3); in subsection (5), the words from "and" onwards; and subsection".
  Schedule 5,page 28, line 43, at end insert—
  EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that the remaining Amendments are either drafting or Amendments which we have spoken to already, and if it is for the convenience of your Lordships I suggest that the remainder of these Amendments, Nos. 20 to 29, should be moved en bloc. I beg to move.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Ferrers.)

  HARBOURS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  7.59 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
  Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. May I just remind your Lordships that the purpose of this Bill was to make possible the development of the Peterhead Harbour of Refuge as a base for servicing of the North Sea oil industry. I drew your Lordships' attention at an earlier stage to the need for speed and flexibility in the approach to meeting these needs. Point is added to that by the reports to-day of a major new oil strike in the waters to the North-East of the Shetland Islands, and I would only thank your Lordships for the general measure of support you have given to this Bill.
  Moved. That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD HOY: My Lords, may I just say one or two words, because this find that has been announced makes it all the more important that Scotland should be equipped to deal with it? This find does not surprise some of us on this side of the House, including my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, because in our day a great deal of this research work was put in hand. Indeed, we have known for some time that certain finds were likely to be made. What we are grateful for is that this one is turning out to be as good as our advisers thought it might be. It is all the more essential perhaps that we have some further statement from the Government later on with regard to oil and its future for this coun-
  858
  try. This is not the time to raise it. But if oil is going to be found in these quantities obviously there has got to be a further agreement between the Government and those exploiting the oil. They are spending considerable sums of money; we are well aware of that. The rewards may be very rich, but I should not like to think that in the process the country is forgotten.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
  8.2 p.m.
  House again in Committee on Clause 2.
  LORD BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 28, leave out from ("are") to ("in") in line 29, and insert ("to be applied directly").—(Lord Beswick.)
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: From that remarkably explanatory moving speech which the noble Lord has just delivered I entirely understand exactly what he wants to do. I must however tell him that, despite his eloquence, I think it is better to leave the Bill as it is, and I will try to explain why. It really is a matter of drafting, and I think the Committee will probably agree that we ought to leave the Bill with the words it now has in it rather than accept the Amendment.
  LORD BESWICK: Before the noble Viscount reads his own eloquent speech, may I ask whether before he delivers it he has consulted his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, because the noble and learned Lord, at an earlier stage this afternoon, said that despite the words "without further enactment" in the Bill it will in fact be necessary to have further enactments with respect to certain regulations. He did in fact spell it out and say that in 99 cases out of 100—or it may have been 999 out of 1,000—no further enactment will be necessary, but in certain cases it will be. I am therefore suggesting that, instead of having these words, "without further enactment", which are misleading, we simply say "to be applied directly"; and whether by enactment or otherwise will be left to the circumstances of the time.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That is a question I can answer with the greatest ease. I do not know if the noble Lord was here when I was answering the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, a little earlier. I took an illustration which does sometimes come up with regulations made under Article 189. A regulation is in fact made in a form which is directly applicable, and, therefore, under a scheme which is common throughout the Community, it is accepted as part of the law of that country—although we have had a certain amount of philosophy about this this afternoon—without any further enactment; in other words, it is directly applicable. But you do get sometimes a regulation which says, "The following is something that is going to be applied in all the member States", and is therefore directly applicable, and at the end is inserted, "and there shall be penalties for the enforcement of this particular regulation", which have to be implemented by the individual member States according to their own law. That bit and that bit alone of the regulation is not directly applicable, because it does not do anything to for any of the citizens of any of the individual States. It therefore requires subordinate legislation under Clause 2(2), or under some existing Statute, in order to provide for the necessary enforcement powers. To that extent you would have enactment, but it would be enactment of indirectly applicable law and not enactment of directly applicable law. Therefore, the directly applicable law, even in that situation, gets into the British courts without any form of enactment at all.
  LORD BESWICK: We will study what the noble Viscount has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.7 p.m.
  LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 2, line 30, after ("accordingly") insert ("in each part of the United Kingdom in so far as practicable in accordance with the law and practice of that part of the United Kingdom.")
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and the names of my noble friends. The argument I want to base my Amendment on has really been made to-day,
  860
  because this particular subsection of this Clause has been explained over and over again. Many interpretations have been placed on it, but so far as I am concerned I think it is quite clearly stated what the subsection means; indeed I think it is stated with an abrasive clarity. It means that the power will not rest in our own country but that decisions will be made overseas, either in Brussels or Luxembourg. I will not for argument's sake even quote what was said by honourable members of the Government in another place who were opposed to entry into the Common Market and who carried on a considerable debate on this particular subsection. I do rot think there is any doubt at all that this subsection makes it clear that Community law will be superior to our own, and by "our own" I mean England and Wales.
  It may be all right for England and Wales to accept this argument, but what I want to ask is what right the Government have to decree that it also will take precedence over Scottish law. We do have two legal systems; I do not think anyone would care to deny that, and I am certain that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, would not care to deny it. Indeed if that were so, it was stated quite clearly last Wednesday during a Question about the time of the House being employed by Bills that might well be joined together and become applicable to Scotland and England. At column 274 Lord Brooke of Cumnor said:
  "My Lords, as saving of Parliamentary time was mentioned in the Question, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that anyone who has taken through Standing Committee in another place a Town and Country Planning Bill covering both English law and Scottish law, as I have done, would never willingly repeat so prolonged an experience?"
  So what he was in fact saying was that the great differences in law between the two countries were such that if in fact you want to save a lot of time this is the way to do it.
  My noble friend Lord Beswick followed by saying:
  "… in view of the very formidable case that the noble Lord has made for Scottish legislation, may I ask him why it has been found possible to bring in just the one Bill in relation to the European Communities? Flow is it conceivable that we can foist on to Scotland the same body of law as we are foisting on to England?"

  861
  So my noble friend was making the case that I am seeking to put to your Lordships to-night. Despite the remarks about the Government's not being able to accept Amendments, I can only hope and believe, seeing a few Scottish nobles sitting, opposite, that they are here for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to uphold Scottish law. After all, they were supposed to be the great defenders in the past of Scotland's right and of Scotland's heritage and all the chieftains selected from them. All we are asking in this very simple Amendment is that, while you may do what you will to the rest of the country, so far as Scotland is concerned, whatever else you may take from her—and the people South of the Border have always been unable to do it—please leave us with the law of Scotland as it is with the right of administration for ourselves.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I apologise to my noble friend the Lord Chancellor and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy for not being in your Lordships' House when this Amendment was moved, but like others I have been trying to slake my thirst. It is possible, and may well be probable, that this Bill as it stands is in conflict with the legal rights secured to Scotland by the provisions of the Act and the Treaty of Union. The possibility of doubt or conflict should be removed, and the relevant Article is Article XVIII, which I hope I may be allowed to read to your Lordships. It is:
  "That the Laws concerning Regulation of Trade, Cuftomf and fuch Excifcs to which Scotland is, by virtue of this Treaty, to be liable, be the fame in Scotland, from and after the Union, as in England; and that all other Laws in Use within the Kingdom of Scotland, do after the Union, and notwithstanding…"—
  then follows something that I cannot read in the photostat—
  "remain in the fame Force as before, (except fuch as are found not to be inconfiftent with this Treaty) but alterable by the Parliament of Great Britain; with this Difference betwixt the Laws concerning publick Right, Policy and Civil Government, and thofe which concern private Right, that the Laws which concern publick Right, Policy and Civil Government, may be made the fame throughout the whole United Kingdom; but that no alteration be made in Laws which concern private Right, except for the Utility of the Subjects within Scotland."
  It may or may not be the case that there is a conflict here between the reservation of private right in Scotland and
  862
  the Scottish law and the impact upon the United Kingdom of regulations, directives and other laws emanating from the Communities, but at least it should be made clear, and there are many pitfalls to be encountered unless it is made clear. To that end I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in his Amendment.
  8.14 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If there is a separate point based on Article XVIII of the Act of Union my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has an Amendment down, Amendment No. 67, which covers it as a separate point. As regards the general question of this Amendment I can only confess a total failure to have persuaded noble Lords opposite of the minimum requirements of the Treaty. I have tried to persuade them, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in particular raised a point in his speech earlier on to which I tried specifically to reply: that the directly applicable provisions of Community law are not part of the law of the land but a separate system which takes precedence over the law of the land.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me what possible practical application that could have, and I made two answers to him: one was the law of construction which arose immediately to my mind, and the second was that he would find as we came to discuss a series of Amendments that there were various matters of practical force in which the distinction was important. Amendment No. 22 would have been one. This is another. The law of Scotland remains unimpaired by this Bill to the same extent, neither more nor less, as the law of England remains unimpaired by this Bill. I must remind your Lordships that there is another part of the United Kingdom for this purpose (Northern Ireland) which has a separate law again, probably resembling the English law more closely but still quite distinct, and that equally is affected by this Bill neither more nor less than the law of England or Wales or the law of Scotland.
  If what the noble Lord means is that if you go into a Scottish court after the Act has come into force and after we have acceded, you will see no difference in the procedure, the judges will be the same, the procedure will be the same, then of course this Amendment is

  863
  unnecessary because I can give him the most exquisite assurance that that will be so, as it will be in England and as it will be in Northern Ireland. The language designed, and effectively designed, to keep out English lawyers will still be as difficult to understand as it ever has been, and no English lawyers will be present or allowed to be present while the Scottish court are administering their ordinary business.
  The system of law in so far as Community law is directly applicable has to be as part of the conditions of membership; it has to be accepted as applicable in all the courts of the member States. It does not matter whether the court is being held in Belfast or in Edinburgh or in London; the Community law prevails over the local substantive law if there is a conflict and if it is directly applicable. It is just as much a law which the Scots must accept, if they wish membership, as the unfortunate English or the unfortunate Northern Irish or, for that matter, the Southern Irish or the Luxembourgeois or the Belgians, the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Norwegians or the Danes. They all have to accept the directly applicable provisions of Community law. This Amendment is basically inconsistent with this provision because it fails, like the other Amendments we have discussed to-day, to appreciate that fact. Although I fully accept the general proposition that Scots, being immune from original sin, are entitled to special consideration in almost everything, in this one respect I must urge the Committee to say that they are only ordinary human beings who must accept the facts of life.
  LORD SHACKLETON: May I just ask the noble and learned Lord one question? Is it possible that a directly applicable regulation, or whatever it is, could be directly applicable in England without the need to have an Order in Council, but might, because Scottish law is different in certain respects, require an Order in regard to Scotland? This is a rather important question from our point of view.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the answer is, No, it is not possible in principle. What is possible is that where the provisions of Community Law are of
  864
  indirect application—we are discussing in this subsection where they are of direct application—the two Orders in Council required to give effect to the same indirect provision might be different Orders in Council, or different parts of the same Order in Council. I should not, in the main, think it was possible that where a provision of Community law applies without any direct legislative action on the part of the member-State it could require any direct legislative action on the part of the member-State in respect of different parts of itself.
  LORD SHACKLETON: The noble and learned Lord said, "in the main". That does not mean universally. I wonder whether it might be helpful if we divide the Committee, and he can think it out a bit more.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think I want to think it out any more at all, because I consider that I have given a perfectly correct answer. My noble friend sitting on my right points out that under Clause 2(2)(b), which is the clearing-up provision of consequential amendments to our own law as a result of direct application, you could, as I have said, have separate Orders in Council, or an Order in Council in one and not an Order in Council in another, because there might be no consequential provisions. In so far as the law is of direct application it is not possible in principle to have a separate action in respect of different parts of the same member-State.
  LORD BESWICK: The noble and learned Lord is opening up an interesting field for speculation. What the noble and learned Lord has said, as I understand him, is that when we come to indirect legislation, or subordinate legislation or direction, it may be necessary to have a separate Order in Council for Scotland from the one for England. That is what the noble and learned Lord said. If so, what he is in effect saying to us is that on the less important legislation it will be possible to have two Orders in Council, or two regulations, or two pieces of legislation, whatever is appropriate, but on the important legislation it will not be so possible. I suggest to him that if there is this possibility because of language, or for other reasons, for it to be necessary, for clarity's sake, to have two

  865
  Orders for the subordinate legislation, then surely it is doubly necessary to have the opportunity to make two Orders in Council for the more important legislation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid the noble Lord is showing too much zeal or, if I may use Common Market language, trop de zèle. His point is a bad one. I do not for a moment concede necessarily that the indirect application of Community law by way of direction is necessarily less important than the direct application. The order of importance has nothing whatever to do with whether the application of a particular rule is direct or indirect. The question of whether it is directly applicable depends upon its completeness and its perfectness, as I have explained before. What I have said is that the Community law is a separate system applicable to member-States as a whole and taking precedence where, and if, it conflicts with the domestic law of a State.
  The member State proposed in this Bill is the United Kingdom. The Community law, in so far as it is directly applicable is directly applicable to all the different parts of the United Kingdom, whether those parts, like Cornwall or Cardiff, have the same law as London, or whether, like Belfast or Edinburgh, they have a different law from London. Those provisions of Community law which are directly applicable are directly applicable to all equally, and take precedence over any local variations of the law, or local laws with which they may be inconsistent, without any intervening action whatever on the part of the member State. If I have not got that across, I have been wasting my breath the whole evening.
  On the other hand, if and in so far as either the Community law concerned is indirectly applicable, or if, being directly applicable, it has consequences which require a revision of local laws—which is dealt with in subsection (2)(b)—then in so far as the local laws may be different, both the language in which the domestic legislation of a subordinate character is couched may be different in order to preserve the right of the Scots to keep
  out English lawyers, which is well recognised, and also the substance may be different because in matters of some kinds of law—there are a very few—the substance of Scots law differs from English law. Therefore, in the subordinate provisions of indirect application, or the consequential revisions of local law, it may be necessary, and it will be possible under subsection (2), for the Orders in Council, or regulations, or instruments to be different. In relation to subsection (1) it will not be practicable, it will not be desirable, but above all it will not be possible to have a separate law for Scotland, or a separate law for England, because the member of the Community is the United Kingdom.
  LORD HOY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has said. I understood the first part perfectly well; but as the argument proceeded I began to understand it not quite so well. May I just reiterate what this Amendment says? It says:
  "in each part of the United Kingdom in so far as practicable in accordance with the law and practice of that part of the United Kingdom."
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went on to explain why two Orders in Council might be made, but this is what I thought I was, by my Amendment, attempting to do without. In fact, I thought that this particular Amendment was in fact helpful to the Government, although it may not appear to the noble and learned Lord to be so. This is why I put it down and persuaded my noble friends to join with me. I am glad to have such approbation from the other side of your Lordships' House. We are not going to convince each other by argument, but I am certain that noble Lords from Scotland would be very disappointed indeed if they did not have the chance to register their decision on the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
  8.29 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 95.

  CONTENTS

  Balogh, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Brockway, L.

  Gaitskell, Bs.

  Beswick, L.

  Champion, L.

  Garnsworthy, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Hale, L.

  Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

  Slater, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Popplewell, L.

  Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

  Lauderdale, E.

  Segal, L.

  Taylor of Mansfield, L.

  Lindsay of Birker, L.

  Serota, Bs.

  Watkins, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Wynne-Jones, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Onslow, E.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Orr-Evving, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Alport, L.

  Gage, V.

  Poole, L.

  Amory, V.

  Gainford, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Goschen, V.

  Reay, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Redmayne, L.

  Balerno, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Reigate, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Remnant, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Robbins, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  St. Just, L.

  Berkeley, Bs.

  Hawke, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Hewlett, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Brecon, L.

  Hives, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Brentford, V.

  Hood, V.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Sherfield, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Inchyra, L.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Chelmer, L.

  Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Strathclyde, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Kemsley, V.

  Stratheden and Campbell. L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Latymer, L.

  Swaythling, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Thomas, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Lothian, M.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Macleod of Borve, Bs.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Twecdsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

  Davidson, V.

  Milverton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

  Waldegrave, E.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Netherthorpe, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Newall, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Elles, Bs.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Young, Bs.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  8.37 p.m.
  LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Provided that, unless there is in force on 31st December 1982 a revised common fisheries policy for the Community which has been approved by the United Kingdom, then on 1st January 1983 the fishery protection measures and the fishery limits of the United Kingdom in force on 31st December 1971 shall immediately revive.")
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move this Amendment, which is really self-explanatory. In fact, the whole purpose of the Amendment is to safeguard Britain's fishing industry.Yur Lordships will know that, over the years, there has been some considerable trouble with fishing limits, and indeed with the conservation of our stocks. In this respect, Britain has always taken a lead in conservation and preservation; indeed,
  868
  when changes were made from the three-mile limit which was then in force, it was Britain who led the campaign to prevent limits becoming too wide. Let me put on record here that one of the countries from whom we received considerable support in this direction was Russia; and I think she was the last country to extend her three-mile limit against Great Britain, many years after it had become an accepted practice. But as a consequence of action taken elsewhere, and which is being repeated to-day—and, being forthright, I refer to Iceland—when Iceland decided to push her limit out to 12 miles the trouble which ensued as a result of that action spread all over the fishing grounds; and one watched, not with great pleasure, what happened in Iceland at that time. Eventually, an agreement was reached for a 12-mile limit, and there was what we thought was a satisfactory settlement—though to-day we are faced with a new position, and it has an effect on this particular Amendment.
  As a consequence of that action, Britain then decided to increase her fishing limits to 12 miles, but at the same time she also made provision for those nations who had over a long period fished in British waters to have certain fishing rights between the 6-mile and the 12-mile band; and eventually that would have been worked out, just as was happening through ourselves in other parts of the world. So we have had a fairly liberal policy and a fairly liberal record in this direction. Therefore let no one suggest that the Amendment which I am moving to-night is a selfish view on the part of Great Britain. We have to be realistic in this matter. We are now confronted with the situation with Iceland. More than half our total catch comes from these waters. Any closure or extension would have a considerable effect on our fishing grounds.
  What is going to happen is this. I do not think the Government would deny (and I am sure the noble Baroness would not deny) that where the fishing grounds are contracted for our use, we shall either have to push our fishing fleets into available waters or attempt to find new fishing grounds. A consequence of this Act will be even greater pressure on our own fishing grounds. If that is the case, and over-fishing takes place, we in this country shall find ourselves in considerable difficulty. If we are going to be asked to provide our fishing grounds for the rest of Europe we shall be in trouble, unless we can reach an agreement that will be fair to ourselves and reasonably fair, as we have always been, to those with whom we are in association in Europe. All we are suggesting in this Amendment is that there should be added the words of the Amendment:
  "unless there is in force on 31st December, 1982. a revised common fisheries policy for the Community which has been approved by the United Kingdom, then on 1st January, 1983, the fishery protection measures and the fishery limits of the United Kingdom in force on 31st December, 1971, shall immediately revive."
  Let me make it quite clear that even if we were driven to that length we should not be taking away from any country the rights they enjoy at this moment. We should be saying to them at that time, "Let us return to the status quo"—and that is what the status quo means: that they have rights within these waters. We
  870
  are being driven more and more by what is happening around the world to take this step. It is not one which would bring us into conflict with Europe but one which I am sure Europe would understand. It is one which the British fishing industry would gladly welcome, because it would give them some assurance, some stability, something to look forward to in the midst of their troubles at the present time. Above all, it would be the correct thing to do. I beg to move.
  8.43 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I can well understand the ideas behind the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. As we look at it, we see that it has two main parts. It attempts to provide in advance for a failure to reach a consensus before 1983, and it also assumes that the best outcome would be a return to the 1971 situation. I am afraid that I must recommend to the Committee that we should not accept either premise in this particular Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, spoke about the whole problem of Iceland. I agree with him that certainly if Iceland succeeds in extending her limits to 50 miles some of the boats will go to Greenland but others will go back on to the Faroes and further towards our shores. But I do not feel it is quite appropriate on this Amendment to speak in detail of the Iceland position, because the problem is before the International Court at The Hague, where we have asked for an interim arrangement until the main question can be settled either by The Hague Court, in two years' time, or possibly by the Law of the Sea Conference.
  I would remind the Committee that the Act of Accession, in Article 103, provides for a report to be made by the Commission to the Council before December 31, 1982. This report means that there will have to be a review of the economic and social development of the coastal areas of member States (which is of great importance to those who represented fishing ports in another place) and the state of their stocks. This review will apply to the whole of the coastline of member States and not just to special areas. As a result of this review, the Council will work out the future of the fishing limits to which this Amendment applies. This

  871
  will apply to the Community as a whole from 1983. I cannot help thinking that to speak of the 1980s at this moment, although it is a long way away, seems hopeful. The noble Lord is right to bring the subject before the Committee.
  The Amendment also suggests that if by any chance the Community did not come to a decision before 1982—and I will quote the Amendment:
  "then on 1st January 1983 the fishery protection measures and the fishery limits of the United Kingdom in force on 31st December 1971 shall immediately revive."
  I would only say to the noble Lord that there is nothing in the existing Common Fisheries Policy or in the Treaty of Accession which affects the responsibility for fishery protection measures. United Kingdom jurisdiction, which means the power to make and enforce proper conservation and protection regulations, remains as now and will continue to extend the existing 12 miles fishery limits during the ten-year period following accession and also in all probability thereafter.
  I say "in all probability" because I think we must take into account that we may all need increased enforcement of fishery protection. Measures were announced on January 20 this year which will, in effect, increase by 50 per cent. the effort which we now give to fishery protection, and there is the agreement under Article No. 102 of the Accession Treaty which suggests that there should be common action to conserve the sea's biological resources. This in itself can only strengthen the existing protection for United Kingdom fisheries. Also I think one is bound to remark that we shall have the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973. A great many new ideas may come up by then, and it may be necessary for us all to have greater conservation measures. Therefore I suggest to the Committee that this part of the Amendment, which suggests that if the Community fail to reach agreement exactly the same position should carry on in 1982 as exists in 1971, is really not applicable to the case in question. Because of these two points I would recommend to the Committee that we should not accept this Amendment, although I understand the reasons behind it.
  LORD HOY: May I say that I did not want to raise the question of Iceland as Iceland or of what we are faced with, or even the Court at The Hague. But in an industry of this kind to look ten years ahead is not to look too far. When one has a problem like this it cannot be ignored. It is there. Indeed, the noble Baroness looked at it and said that perhaps boats will have to go to the Faroes. Even that would not be a good argument. She knows that if any country is permitted to extend limits to this extent, its neighbours will do the same, or will attempt to do so. Whatever happens in one case there is bound to be reaction and repercussions from every other country in the area. In these circumstances we cannot ignore it and must take it into account. That is not to say they will not be exactly the same in 1982 and that we cannot put the 1971 case against it. I was seeking in my Amendment to prove to the Committee that we were not taking away—not even if we had to revert in 1982 to the present position—anything that we at present grant to the Germans, the French, the Belgians and the Dutch, and to others who fish in our waters. I wanted to make it clear that we took nothing from them and that we wanted to go back to the present position where we have already made these concessions.
  It is all right to say that we are to have a Law of the Sea Conference in 1973. I do not think it is any secret that the British Government, any Government—I am not speaking about Party politics—do not look forward with any great confidence to that Conference as a means of settling problems for us. Indeed I regret to say that it looks as if the position will be aggravated by the 1973 Conference. This is why, whatever part one looks at, one gets more and more perturbed. I am sorry that the noble Baroness could not go further than she did. I know her interest, which is very personal, in this industry and I am grateful for what she said. I regret that she could not go any way along the road at all, and in these circumstances I cannot withdraw the Amendment because I think that this will be a very important question for the fishermen of this country.
  8.50 p.m.
  LORD DERWENT: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, decides what he is going to do may I say that I, too, have an interest in this business, not as directly as the noble Lord, but I have taken an interest in it for a long time. When I first saw this Amendment I wondered if I should be able to vote against it. Iceland has nothing to do with this question. I do not believe that if we cannot settle with Iceland we shall have the same problem with other countries. Long before ten years are up there will be a much more difficult question about fisheries in general, and conservation has got to go much further long before ten years. For that reason I believe that to try to say that something shall be the same in ten years as now is not a practical proposition. Within three or four years we shall have to have an international agreement or no one will have any fish. That is the position to-day, and, speaking from a purely practical point of view, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment; I do not believe that it would be effective.
  LORD SHINWELL: It may well be that the Icelandic position does not concern what is relevant to this Amendment but, as noble Lords are aware, there is a great deal of anxiety among the fishing interests about that position and the absence of definite assurances about the situation vis-à-vis the Economic Community. I am aware that negotiations took place, and the decision mentioned by the noble Baroness appears to have been accepted. But it may well be that something may crop up to lead to a violation of our fishing rights by one of the countries associated with the Six, and, as a result, an attempt may be made by the Commission, or those in authority at the time, to effect some kind of modification. I should therefore like to ask two questions.
  If there were such violation would a decision be left to the Commission or would the matter be dealt with in the normal fashion by, say, the arrest of a trawler violating the fishing rights? It is rather important that we should know about that. My other question is in reference to the continuation of fishery protection measures. I should like to know whether these measures will still remain in operation, because some assur-
  874
  ance has to be given to those in the fishing industry in order to remove any possibility of apprehension.
  It may be asked why I speak on these subjects. There was a time when I represented fishing interests, when I was the Member of Parliament for Seaham Harbour. But I have a further qualification; in fact, I have two. One is that I was appointed by the Labour Party when in Opposition, many years ago, to speak in the other place on the white fish industry. I think I made a very good speech on the subject; in fact, the only speech I have made which was regarded as good. My other qualification is that when I was the national organiser of the Amalgamated Society of Marine Workers I organised fishermen in Swansea, Hull and other fishing ports and achieved a great measure of success. So I know a great deal about fishing, and if I raise one or two questions on this Amendment it is not just for the purpose of making a speech—that is the last thing I want to do—but because I want information.
  VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I know that there is a great deal of anxiety about the future of fishing; I come from a part of the world where this is very pertinent. The world-wide reputation of the Torrey Research Station near Aberdeen regarding conservation matters is recognised. and I have no doubt that once we are a member of this club and not just outside sniping at it, the other members will be enthusiastic to benefit from our experience and knowledge which will prove to be to the advantage of all. Therefore I think that this Amendment is quite unnecessary.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who asked two questions, and to thank my noble friends for their support, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who paid a tribute to the Torrey Research Station which I know very well. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked whether a decision would be made by the Commission or whether we should still have the power to arrest trawlers. In my opening remarks I sought to explain that the power of enforcement of fishery protection will remain with the United Kingdom. On

  875
  the question of who makes the decision, it is made ultimately by the Council of Ministers on which we are represented. Where a matter is of vital national interest it is decided by unanimity.
  Already it has been laid down that quite soon the Commission and the Council—the Commission as a body which carries out the instructions of the Council of Ministers—will have to consider what kind of policy would be suitable for all member States after 1982; and in that connection, and in answer to the noble Lord's second question, I said that the fishery protection measures are still our responsibility. Indeed we have recently increased our capacity to carry them out. Therefore I think that in a Community of which we shall be part and to which we can bring so much experience on this subject we shall, in the very difficult times ahead, and particularly as the Law of the Sea Conference might not take place until 1974, get a suitable policy for us all.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  9.0 p.m.
  LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Provided that, unless there is in force in the Community on 1st January 1978 a longterm arrangement for the import of New Zealand agricultural produce into the Community which has been approved by the United Kingdom, then the arrangements in force on 31st December 1977 shall continue in force unless and until a long-term Community arrangement which has been so approved is concluded.")
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should say that at appropriate stages later in our discussions I propose to raise the question of the effect of this Bill on the less developed countries of the Commonwealth, and also on Canada and Australia, which I believe to be damaged nearly as much as New Zealand. My mind goes back to-night to an occasion in 1962, almost on the eve of the Labour Party Conference, when I attended a dinner of Commonwealth Socialist leaders at which I remember Mr. Walter Nash telling Mr. Gaitskell that the Common Market could be the end of New Zealand's butter industry. I believe that the frank exchange of views we had on that occasion was largely the reason for
  876
  the powerful speech which Mr. Gaitskell made at the Labour Party Conference shortly afterwards.
  In the course of that speech, to which I referred on Second Reading, Mr. Gaitskell said:
  "I do not think, and I hope the British Government does not think, that it will be adequate to give New Zealand a seven years' dole and then cast them away …"
  On that occasion the Labour Party took a firm stand on the need, and indeed the duty, to defend the issues of our friends throughout the Commonwealth; and we have never deviated from that position. My right honourable friend Mr. Wilson on many occasions in the House of Commons, and again when he addressed the meeting of the Socialist International a few weeks ago, has stressed that before the Labour Government made the application to join the Community they insisted that:
  "A transitional period would not be enough unless it were for a generation, for example, arrangements that would need to be, if not permanent, at least equal in effect to a permanent change."
  Mr. Wilson added:
  "On that basis the Cabinet decided."
  And we have not for one moment deviated from that position.
  In the event, however, the arrangements that have been made for New Zealand are far from adequate: indeed, I believe that they are totally unsatisfactory. On Second Reading I referred to Mr. Dowling, President of the British Trade Association of New Zealand. Mr. Dowling has said that the widespread belief that the "Brussels deal" as he calls it, constitutes an adequate safeguard for New Zealand's economic future is a dangerous misconception. I am sure that it is. It is of course a temporary arrangement, and I suppose it is just conceivable that when it comes to be renegotiated it could be improved. But, quite seriously, I wonder what the prospects of that happening really are. I cannot help feeling that when the Community starts to reconsider this ludicrous, fantastic, wasteful Common Agricultural Policy, which was President de Gaulle's price for remaining in the Community. France will play a large part in determining what concessions are going to be made to New Zealand: and I have a shrewd suspicion that the interests of New Zealand will

  877
  come second to those of the farmers of France. Indeed, when M. Messmer as Minister for Overseas Territories was visiting the Pacific in May, he learned of the opposition of the Federation of Labour to the French nuclear tests, and there was a suggestion that there should be a ban on trade with France. I ask your Lordships to note the way that M. Messmer (now, if my memory is correct—and these things change so rapidly—I think still the Prime Minister of France, but then Minister for Overseas Territories) reacted. He reacted by saying:
  "We must not forget that New Zealand is on the asking side. At the time of Britain's entry into the Common Market she"—
  that is, New Zealand—
  "came on her knees to beseech us to allow her to go on exporting to Britain. We have condescended to grant New Zealand guaranteed exports to Britain for a period of five years. If New Zealand now refuses to export to France, this limit of five years could be reconsidered and reduced and we could look at the application with disfavour."
  What an utterly intolerable situation we have got ourselves into when old and valued friends like New Zealand, without whom this country would not have survived, can be treated in this despicable way by a Minister in the French Government. That is the position into which we have allowed ourselves to drift.
  It may be that the proposals for New Zealand lamb could be a good deal worse. But I believe that we really should have insisted on New Zealand having access to European markets for acceptable quantities of her produce at acceptable price levels. The Pacific is certainly not going to provide the alternative opening for New Zealand's exports that supporters of the Common Market often claim. The extraordinary thing about all this of course is that we are paying a fantastically high price for the privilege of stabbing New Zealand in the back. It is not just the ludicrous, fantastic, extortionate cost of the Common Agricultural Policy; it is also the loss of our exports to New Zealand. Britain's exports to New Zealand at present, including invisible exports, are somewhere around £700 million dollars a year: in fact, on a per capita basis New Zealand is still our second largest market. Yet we are imperilling this magnificent outlet for the workers and the manufacturers of Britain in order to comply with the agricultural conditions
  878
  of entry into the Common Market. New Zealand will be in a position in which she will virtually have no alternative but to scrap the Commonwealth Preferences, which have done so much for New Zealand and so much for this country. Those Preferences will be phased out. But I do not want to put this just on the basis of our own material trade interest, because I believe that the very honour of this country is at stake on this issue. We are inflicting untold damage on a country that we regard very much as a member of the family. I wonder what has happened to all the pledges that the Conservative leaders have given from the 1950s onwards about how they would never go into the Common Market if it damaged the interests of the Commonwealth. I do not want to resort to the kind of "quoting gimmickry" that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack engaged in earlier this evening, but, you know, Hansard and the reports of Conservative Party Conferences are cluttered with pledges that members of the present Government have given to our friends in the Commonwealth. Now, in order to get into Europe (as it is euphemistically called) we are prepared to break those pledges and neglect those who I believe are our real friends. It is to me still almost unbelievable that even the present Government, with all their faults, should behave in this way towards New Zealand.
  "… the pity of it, Iago! O Iago, the pity of
  it, Iago!"
  I beg to move.
  LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: I think the noble Lord who has just spoken has taken an unnecessarily gloomy view. He referred to the Labour Party Conference in 1962. Well, let me tell him that the Conservative Party has feelings equal to those of the Labour Party about New Zealand, and at that time, in 1962, there were mountains of butter in Denmark, Holland and France. Those have disappeared in the intervening years. If one thinks of the increasing population and the higher standard of living throughout the world, I think that in five years' time every bit of food which New Zealand can produce will be required. Why is it that the Prime Minister of New Zealand said during the negotiations that he was quite satisfied with what was going on?—and he was the political

  879
  leader of the country. When I was in the House of Commons, the Labour Party were trying to make capital out of this point, and I think it is a very unfair thing to do to the Government. The number of the British people—56 million of them here, with all the Asiatics who are coming to live here in the future—means that we have to raise our own requirements to keep those already here. I have a great affection for the two million New Zealanders but I have noticed over the years that when they could have bought British aircraft they did not do so, and neither did the Australians. Let us face up to some of these problems. I do not take the gloomy view that the noble Lord does and I believe that in five years' time New Zealand will be well able to look after its own affairs.
  BARONESS WHITE: I, on the contrary, should like very strongly to support my noble friend in this Amendment and in what he said, because I do not take such an optimistic view as the noble Lord who has just spoken. Those of us who have some connections with people in New Zealand, including those who are in public office, know that although it is quite true that the Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time expressed himself as being reasonably satisfied, there were many other people in New Zealand who were far from satisfied and had considerable apprehensions as to what might happen in the longer term. Because, in spite of the most strenuous efforts—and I grant that they were strenuous efforts—on the part of the Government negotiators, what they have obtained is an interim arrangement; and we are concerned with what may happen in the longer run. Let us remember that 1977 is not all that far away, when one is thinking in terms of agricultural production.
  So far as the general trade of New Zealand is concerned, as we all know, the country has made strenuous efforts in the last few years, since it was clear that its main market (the United Kingdom) might be involved in the European Community, to diversify its trade. In fact it has met with a reasonable measure of success, but there are limits to what New Zealand is able to do. Australia is in a stronger position, but New Zealand is not so well placed. New Zealand is
  880
  in direct competition, for the greater part of its exports, with the temperate zone; in other words, with the European countries. Your Lordships will have seen in this morning's papers that in the Community they have just agreed that Europe has over-production of fruit and so they will be grubbing up orchards (at vast expense, I may say) because they are growing too many apples, among other things. This will be in direct competition with any production from New Zealand that we might wish to take. So far as dairy products are concerned, New Zealand can of course export to other parts of the world, but it is not so easy. I was frankly surprised some time ago, when I looked at this matter, to find that one of the fastest increases in production of dairy products in the world was in Japan, which is one of the natural outlets for New Zealand.
  As for the United States, it is quite true that New Zealand and Australia purchase from that direction and try to export in that direction. The United States have a very strong farm lobby and it is not easy for New Zealand to export to that country beyond a certain point. I should have thought that within the Commonwealth, whatever one's views may be about certain countries of the Commonwealth (and they may differ) we would all agree that if there is any country which has felt and expressed the most particularly close connection with the United Kingdom it is New Zealand. You may say that this is sentiment. But does sentiment count for nothing? Are we nothing but a nation of tradesmen? Sentiment should still count for something. If sentiment is to count anywhere at all in the Commonwealth, I should have thought that New Zealand would be the country in mind.
  New Zealand is in a particularly difficult position; it does not have the rich mineral resources that are found in parts of Australia, nor the manufacturing base which there may be in other parts of the Commonwealth. But, in any case, if it has the best grass in the world, and can produce some of the best food in the world more cheaply, why should we not enjoy it? Quite frankly, that is my attitude on this matter. Therefore we are absolutely right to ask your Lordships to consider carefully whether, taking all the circumstances of New Zealand into

  881
  account, its historic relationships and matters of trade with the United Kingdom, we should ensure that where they are concerned we have something better than the short, interim arrangement which is all we have so far been able to come to.
  LORD TANLAW: Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she agree with me that in the past two years there has been an increase in beef prices, both from Australia and New Zealand, through exports to America and Japan? Would she also agree that this is due to the increased marketability of dairy and beef products from Australia and New Zealand?
  BARONESS WHITE: Dairy products are more difficult. There has been a general scarcity of beef throughout the world, and a general increase in beef prices. New Zealand, no doubt, has benefited from that, as have other producers of beef.
  LORD TANLAW: I quite agree. If the noble Baroness cares to look at the figures, the increase in the price of beef has been very considerable and has given new prosperity to areas producing beef and mutton products.
  9.18 p.m.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I do not feel that any special provision needs to be made for New Zealand in this Bill. May I draw your Lordships' attention to Part IV of the Treaty of Rome in which there are special provisions for the association of overseas countries and territories. France, Italy, Germany and Holland, like Britain, have extensive dominions and colonies spread over many parts of the world. They are provided for in the Treaty; there are special conditions for those areas. One of the important factors here is something which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said: you negotiate into a Treaty. This is the important point. We are negotiating into this Treaty, and our vote in the Community is going to be of far greater benefit to countries like Australia and New Zealand with us in the Common Market rather than out of it.
  I do not think that this Amendment is something we should wish to bring into an English Bill; it is something we need to introduce in our negotiations when we
  882
  are in the Common Market. Many years ago I travelled fairly extensively in New Zealand and Australia. They look to the Pacific, the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea for the main outlet of trade today. Any cargo which leaves Australia or New Zealand by sea has not only to cross the Indian Ocean or the Pacific, but it also has to cross the Atlantic Ocean as well. This brings costs up a good deal higher. I know that it also means that it is more difficult for us to export to them; but more and more both New Zealand and Australia have looked to Japan, Malaya and North America for their maintrade outlets. Equally, those countries now are doing much more trade with Australia and New Zealand than is the whole of Europe. But if we go into Europe, then, with a strong Britain in a strong Europe, we shall be in a much better position to compete and will be able to export to Australia and New Zealand in spite of the fact that we have to cross two oceans to do it. This is why we must leave the Bill as it stands. I do not think this Amendment would be right, nor do I think that New Zealand, as one country, should be specified in the Bill. There are provisions in the Treaty and I am sure these things can be negotiated.
  9.20 p.m.
  LORD SHINWELL: There was a time when the Conservative Party believed in the Commonwealth. Now they are ready to throw it overboard and to deal only with New Zealand. It is impossible to comprehend this situation accurately except in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy, which in effect is the French agricultural policy, and the situation in New Zealand. My noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, referred to an impudent, aggressive and offensive declaration made by a French politician, a Minister I believe, in connection with the resentment of the New Zealand and the Australian Governments about the nuclear tests in the Pacific. That is not the first time that there have been very forthright and, in my judgment, offensive declarations by French politicians about New Zealand and the Commonwealth. For example, an ex-agricultural Minister of France, M. Pisani, said some considerable time ago when the subject of British entry into the Common Market was prominent in people's minds

  883
  here and in the Commonwealth, that for Britain to enter the E.E.C. meant the end of the Commonwealth. That was his declaration; it is on record.
  I do not understand the attitude of noble Lords opposite. Why can they not contrast the contribution made by France in the last war, in the effort in which we were fundamentally involved, alongside the contribution made by New Zealand? They should remember that France had a population of 50 million, had conscription, was adequately armed and was under agreement with us to resist aggression, and that New Zealand had but two million people. They should consider the contribution that was made by New Zealand in contrast to the contribution that was made by France. In the Second Reading debate I ventured to quote what Neville Chamberlain recorded in his diary before he died, about the attitude of France in the last war and about how France had acted in a treacherous fashion. Noble Lords should contrast the policies of the two countries—a Commonwealth country on the one hand and France on the other.
  New Zealand is apprehensive about what is to happen in the future despite what the noble Earl opposite has said. He spoke in a very optimistic fashion—everything will come right. How does he know? What evidence has he to support that contention? I would have thought that the Conservative Party would have held strongly, firmly and fundamentally to its belief that there is something in the Commonwealth worth retaining. There is no question about it. Why are we not realistic about it? Once we are in the Common Market the Commonwealth connection will languish and ultimately fade. Some members of the Conservative Party have expressed a view on this matter. Mr. Enoch Powell, for example, has expressed the view that the Commonwealth problem does not matter any more. One might say the same about the United Nations. Indeed, if I had to choose between the Commonwealth and the United Nations— I refer to what remains of it; I care less about the emergent nations than I do about the old Commonwealth—I would prefer the Commonwealth because I believe it is a greater moral force in the world than the United Nations, largely
  884
  because of the composition of the United Nations. That is how I feel about it.
  On several occasions I have spoken in the other place and have never at any time resiled from my belief that the Commonwealth is changing. I dislike intensely the idea that it should be treated in this deplorable fashion. I have experience of New Zealand; some members of my family live there. It is a lovely country with a lovely people. It is essentially English, apart from Dunedin which is essentially Scots. Now we are throwing them over, jettisoning them. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for acting in this fashion.
  I can remember, too, a few years ago when this subject of the E.E.C. was in the public mind, and also the concern of the other place that a large section of the Conservative Party supported the view that has been expressed by my noble friends here about the New Zealand connection and the need for retaining that connection. That seems to have vanished. What a transformation! What an amazing phenomenon! This has come from the Conservative Party. If it had come from the Labour Party it might have been said, "Well, what do they care about the Commonwealth, anyhow! They are concerned about internal matters only, domestic matters, and so on." But this has happened in the Conservative Party. Does the noble Viscount wish to interrupt?
  VISCOUNT AMORY: The noble Lord is not being quite fair to the view that has been expressed by one or two of my noble friends already in this debate on this side of the Committee. We are not willing or anxious to do damage to New Zealand at all. Our view is that by going into Europe we are going to be of more use to the Commonwealth. including New Zealand, than we should be if we remained outside. The noble Lord must not imply to us a willingness to throw the Commonwealth over in favour of Europe, because that is not our view. Our view is definitely that by going into Europe we are more likely to be of use to the Commonwealth and able to fulfil our responsibilities to it than if we remained outside Europe.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  LORD SHINWELL: I suppose that that applause is intended to indicate support for what the noble Viscount said.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  LORD SHINWELL: Precisely, I was right. Intelligent anticipation. I have the greatest respect for the noble Viscount opposite, as he knows. I had a great respect for him when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer—and that is saying something. But he reminds me of the old saying, "It's all very well to dissemble your love, but why did you kick me downstairs?" You will understand what I mean.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
  LORD SHINWELL: This is what you have done. Oh yes, you have a lot of affection for New Zealand; but look what you are doing to her! I would say to the noble Viscount opposite that all you can say in extenuation is that you hope for the best it cannot be said that New Zealand will lose. The noble Earl on the Back Bench made an outrageous speech; it was one of the worst I have heard in the course of these debates. He dismissed New Zealand. He just threw it aside, like scraps of paper. All that is being said is, "It will come all right" Just imagine what we get from the Liberal Benches—and when I say "the Liberal Benches" your Lordships see what I mean!
  We are told that the price of New Zealand beef and mutton will go up in the United States of America, and therefore New Zealand will become more prosperous. Of course one can say nowadays that the price of beef has gone up everywhere. It has gone up in this country, but we are not any more prosperous, are we? I cannot understand these arguments—they are so fallacious. Anyway, they seem to be quite irrelevant, so I will merely make to noble Lords opposite one point in connection with something said by the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury; that the assurances given to the New Zealand Government are adequate; but what really happened? If ever there was a case of arm-twisting it was between Mr. Rippon and some of his colleagues and the Ministers who came over from New Zealand to take part in these difficult negotiations.
  LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that the Prime Minister of New Zealand was satisfied. While the noble Lord's arguments are quite convincing, and I do not disagree with many of them, about patriotism, I wish the noble Lord had applied the same thoughts to Rhodesia when we discussed that problem.
  BARONESS ELLES: I wish to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, on his memory, perhaps of a few years ago, but he may not recall so clearly what happened only last year. At that time, the Government, with the full backing of the Party and in the person of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, practically broke off negotiations with the Communities because they were not giving New Zealand fair treatment; and it was only because the Government were fair in their plans for protecting New Zealand and demanding fair terms for New Zealand that negotiations were then resumed. This was also with the agreement of the Prime Minister and Government of New Zealand.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
  BARONESS ELLES: I think the noble Lord will appreciate that New Zealand has never had such fair terms, either in the long term of being a guaranteed market and—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
  EARL JELLICOE: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was in fact still speaking, and that it would be right for her to put a question to the noble Lord.
  LORD SHINWELL: I think the noble Baroness should be treated with the utmost courtesy. If she wanted to go on speaking I should be the last person to complain—not that what she said mattered very much. But I will come to that point in a moment. Of course there were negotiations, and I followed them very closely at the time. But there was a great deal of arm-twisting. As I said, New Zealand were told they had better be satisfied, and they did say that they were satisfied; but there were reservations. The noble Lord opposite

  887
  knows that there were such reservations; indeed, there are still reservations, and these have been referred to by my noble friends Lord Greenwood and Lady White. For the life of me I cannot understand why members of the Conservative Party should act in this fashion. At the least we ought to have more definite assurances than have yet been given in order to demonstrate to the people in New Zealand (if they get to know what we are talking about) that in your Lordships' House there are some noble Lords—if not a majority—who wish New Zealand well, who are apprehensive about the future of New Zealand and are anxious to impress upon the United Kingdom Government and all those associated with this subject that New Zealand should have a fair and square deal.
  LORD GLADWYN: Perhaps I may say just one word. Since last Thursday I have been waiting to discover an Amendment for which I could legitimately vote in accordance with the principles of the Liberal Party which I outlined at that time; namely, that it must not be a wrecking Amendment; that it must not he a legal nitpicking but must be something which on the face of it added substantially to the Bill and could be considered to be a real improvement. I am quite certain that this particular Amendment is not an improvement. I think there is a considerable tendency on the part of a number of noble Lords to pile on the agony, as it were, with regard to the New Zealand settlement, which most of us, quite independently, came to the conclusion was a reasonable settlement at the time it was negotiated by Mr. Rippon. We know that it is an interim measure and that everything depends on what happens in a few years' time. It is clear that New Zealand must diversify and find other markets. It cannot go on being a British farm, and preferences will probably disappear whatever policy we adopt. whether or not we enter the Common Market.
  What has been said about M. Messmer is not evidence. He was speaking in a moment of passion. Whether or not he remains the Prime Minister of France for long, he cannot speak for the Community as a whole. Whatever language he may use by way of threats is not
  888
  evidence of what will happen to New Zealand once we are in the Community. There is a considerable amount of misconception among noble Lords about what happens inside the Community and how the E.E.C. works. Let us assume the worst and that in 1977 or 1978 there is a bad mood among our colleagues, who will not renew the arrangements for New Zealand, even on moderately satisfactory terms. In that event there will be a row in the Community, feverish arguments behind the scenes with one set taking one view and another set taking a contrary attitude. There will be bargaining and eventually a satisfactory new solution will, I am sure, emerge for New Zealand after 1978.
  That being the case, I could not possibly vote for an Amendment which, it passed, would give the impression to our friends in the Community that we were joining them simply with the intention of pushing our own view forward irrespective of theirs and regardless of whether there was a possibility of reaching a reasonable bargain. I therefore urge all noble Lords to resist the Amendment.
  9.37 p.m.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, put his finger on the whole question when he pointed out that we have fought hard to get good arrangements for New Zealand and that we must, by going into the Community, assume that our partners will work with us to try to overcome the many problems which will confront us all, and not only New Zealand. When the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, speaks he loves to make a lot of mischief. We know that and we take his remarks in that spirit. But when the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, speaks—I was careful to make a note of some of the words he used—it is a different matter, and I thought that he went much too far when he said that this Government were casting New Zealand away and stabbing that country in the back. Indeed, his comments made me wonder whether he had read properly and carefully the terms of the protocol on the arrangements for New Zealand. The sort of language the noble Lord used was unfortunate because the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in this House is read, in the same way as notice is taken of what is said in another place. It

  889
  would be bad if it went out that your Lordships had somehow agreed to some sort of arrangement which had not kept the interests of New Zealand at heart.
  The noble Baroness, Lady White, said that we must have some sentiment for and anxiety about New Zealand. I assure her that we all have anxieties and that many of us have connections; for example, my father was born in New Zealand and I have four cousins on sheep stations there. Many noble Lords can claim connections of that kind. The fact remains that what we are asked to approve in this Amendment is that the arrangements that go on to 1977 should be continued; otherwise there is a sort of feeling of distrust—that somehow or other things will be much worse.
  I did so very much agree, if I may say so, with my noble friend Lord Amory and with my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lord Harvey of Prestbury, who quite rightly said that this country has fought very hard in these negotiations to get fair terms, as indeed was said by my noble friend Lady Elles. If we look at Protocol 18—
  BARONESS WHITE: May I interrupt the noble Baroness for one moment? Would she not agree that, after all, what we are saying in this Amendment is nothing derogatory to the arrangement reached up to December 31, 1977, nor is it laying down any specific terms or conditions for what should happen thereafter? All we are saying is that we recognise that we have a longer-term obligation to New Zealand which should be negotiated. If it has been negotiated by the end of 1977 well and good; the Amendment would be of no effect. But we recognise we have a longer-term obligation to New Zealand. That is what we meant.
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think we are all agreed about that. But the terms in which this was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, seemed to suggest that the actual arrangements we have secured up to 1977 were not satisfactory, and also implied, absolutely clearly, that it was highly doubtful that we would get as good arrangements after 1977. Protocol 18 to the Treaty of Accession provides in relation to butter, which is much the most important agricultural product
  890
  referred to in this Amendment, that the Council of the enlarged Community
  "shall, during 1975, review the situation…"
  taking into account the changing conditions of the times. And, as has been said by several noble Lords, there will be changing conditions because NewZealand, like many other countries, has to diversify her economy. She does not wish to be dependent only on agricultural products.
  On top of that, this Protocol also makes it clear that we have to take into account any progress which is made towards a world agreement on milk products, which is very important. The Council after that will decide measures which will
  "…ensure the maintenance after 31 December, 1977, of exceptional arrangements in respect of imports of butter from New Zealand".
  These are points of great value for they do recognise the importance to New Zealand of continuing arrangements for butter after the five-year period for which detailed provision is already made in the Protocol. Of course, one can always quote authorities who are critical or not critical in any Government or any Opposition in any Parliament at any time, but I would only say that the Prime Minister in charge at the time, Sir Keith Holyoake, did say, and I quote:
  "it was a major concession to New Zealand and a result which was highly satisfactory".
  He, of course, would have to be responsible to his electorate.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned particularly sheep products, and of course there is at the moment no sheep meat regulation in the Community. We will have a chance, when we are a member, of being able to influence policy on this, which equally will be of importance. If sheep meat is well advertised in the Community I believe that New Zealand will have a great opportunity to sell a product which is, on the whole, little known outside this country, and not nearly so well known as beef. The Treaty quite clearly says that measures to keep the exceptional arrangements for New Zealand butter after 1977 shall be decided by the Council. That provision does afford, I suggest to the Committee, the best possible safeguard for New Zealand's interests. Furthermore, because the Government of the day will

  891
  be answerable to the House for any agreement they make, it does seem to me that this Protocol gives us the best safeguard which we could, in very hard bargaining, achieve for New Zealand. I do really suggest to the Committee that the Amendment before your Lordships implies a measure of doubt not only about what we can all achieve after 1977 but about the achievements we have won to-day. Therefore I would ask the Committee to reject it.
  LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Baroness quoted from Article 5 of Protocol 18. Here again, as part of our education can she tell me what happens if the Council are not unanimous on a proposal from the Commission? Does the Commission's recommendation then override the lack of unanimity on the Council? Supposing, for one moment, Lord Gladwyn's gloomy expectations of M. Messmer's expectations of life in office are falsified, and there is a feeling that what the Commission has recommended in its objective way is not acceptable, what would happen then and what would then be the position of the British Government?
  BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If one looks at Article 5, paragraph 2, of this particular Protocol 18, it will be seen—and I expect Lord Shackleton was referring to this—that it is the Council which has to act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission; in other words, it is not the Commission but the Council which has to act unanimously, and if the Council were not unanimous one member of the Council, including ourselves if necessary, would be able to vote down a particular proposal. But what one has to look at is the practice of the Council so far in the life of the Community; and
  where there is a matter of great importance, such as this of New Zealand, it is perfectly clear that agreement is reached by consent—there is no voting procedure in the way there would be on a majority proposal. It is a decision which is reached by consent; and without it, of course, the Community could not operate.
  LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: We have had from the noble Baroness and from noble Lords on the opposite side of the House a number of hopes and expectations and aspirations about what is going to happen in respect of the New Zealand economy over the next few years, but we have had no positive certainty whatsoever, and the whole position really is clouded in un-certainty. We have not achieved what Mr. Gaitskell called the "seven years' dole"; we are very far short of getting the generation's guarantees for New Zealand that Mr. Wilson has called for, and we hear from the noble Baroness that one single member of the Council could veto proposals for helping New Zealand when the agreement comes up for review. If M. Messmer's behaviour and words in the Pacific are anything to go by, we cannot expect very much generosity of approach towards our old friends in New Zealand. I believe that the people of New Zealand should know that they are not without friends in this House. I believe that they should know that the Conservative Party want to make New Zealand stronger by buying less of her products and bring her nearer by making her more remote. For that reason I shall ask the Committee to divide.
  9.48 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents 24; Not-Contents, 114.

  CONTENTS

  Balogh, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Segal, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Hirshfield. L.

  Serota, Bs.

  Beswick, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Lindsay of Birker, L.

  Shinwell. L.

  Brockway, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Strabolgi. L. [Teller]

  Champion, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Watkins, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Phillips, Bs.

  White, Bs.

  Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

  Rusholme, L.

  Wynne-Jones, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Northchurch, Bs.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Elles, Bs.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Amory, V.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Pender, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Perth, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Balerno, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Poole, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Rankeillor, L.

  Barnby, L.

  Gage, V.

  Reay, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Berkeley, Bs.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Redmayne, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Reigate, L.

  Blake, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Remnant, L.

  Boyd of Merton, V.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Rhyl, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor)

  Robbins, L.

  Brecon, L.

  Rothermere, V.

  Brentford. V.

  Hanworth, V.

  St. Just, L.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

  Harvey of Prestbury, L.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Chelmer, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hewlett, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Hives, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hood, V.

  Sherfield, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Inchyra, L.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Craigavon, V.

  Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Kemsley, V.

  Tanlaw, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Latymer, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Thomas, L.

  Croft, L.

  Lothian, M.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Macleod of Borve, Bs.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Twcedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

  de Clifford, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller]

  Mountevans, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

  Wynford, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Netherthorpe, L.

  Young, Bs.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Newall, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  9.56 p.m.
  LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Provided that nothing in this Act shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament or to prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal it or alter its provisions.")
  The noble Lord said: I listened with great interest to the figures of the Division, and as the numbers of "Not-Contents "were announced I noted on the faces of a number of noble Lords present a slight smirk, a grin. I see a grin there now. I was reminded, when I heard those voting figures, of some words spoken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in a debate which we had on Thursday in which he dismissed entirely, and with contempt, the idea that we should submit this matter to a referendum of the British people.
  The noble and learned Lord, pointing out the superiority of our system as against what he described as the "alien practice of a referendum", said this:
  "But ours is a democracy through Parliamentary representation, based on an assembly popularly elected but presided over by a Government responsible to that Parliament and composed of members of that majority Party."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/8/72, col. 602.]
  LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but which Amendment are we talking about?
  LORD BESWICK: I am talking about Amendment No. 28, which has a reference to Parliamentary authority.
  LORD DERWENT: Thank you so much.
  LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord may not like it, but I could not easily reconcile the reference of the noble and learned Lord to a popularly elected assembly with the picture I saw of noble Lords going by in their great numbers.
  LORD GLADWYN: Why?
  LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asks me "Why?". I wonder what his majority was when he was popularly elected". I failed to notice the great support that he had from the people whom he now represents. I really feel sometimes, when we are discussing this matter, that we might have from the large number of people who tramp through that Division Lobby, a little less of the assertiveness (shall I say?) that we saw a few minutes ago. Now I come to the Amendment.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  LORD BESWICK: The assertiveness which I saw a few minutes ago, and which I now see repeated again. I now come to the Amendment. I submit that the Amendment is straightforward, and I should have thought it is honourable. I think all will accept that. It would merely add:
  "that nothing in this Act shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament or to prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal it or alter its provisions"
  Although we shall all accept it as a straightforward and honourable Amendment, it may be said that it is not an essential Amendment. I want to suggest that it is essential. No one will pretend that there is not concern about this issue of sovereignty. There have already been many pronouncements. Most of them seek to give us assurance. But there are differences in the emphasis of these assurances, and I hope the Committee will agree that this is a matter about which there ought to be no doubt at all. I leave aside for the moment those authorities in Brussels who, on this issue of sovereignty, appear to believe in a doctrine of erosion. "Community law" they say,"is a living thing, a dynamic thing, and gradually it will assume complete superiority over municipal law"—a sort of legal Gresham's Law—bad law driving out good.
  But leaving aside that doctrine of erosion, there is the question of what will be the position with regard to sovereignty if this Bill is passed. On most occasions most authorities say that sovereignty remains. The noble and learned Lord, speaking earlier to a previous Amendment, said that, no matter
  896
  what doubts we had about Parliamentary control, at any rate sovereignty would remain unaffected. But it was not put as clearly as that in what the same noble and learned Lord said on Second Reading. On Second Reading he appeared to be saying something which was in conflict with what his learned colleague had said in another place. In another place the Solicitor General (and I quote from Hansard of July 5, 1972, column 629) said, quoting with approval the words of Lord Diplock:
  "'If The Queen in Parliament were to make laws which were in conflict with this country's obligations under the Treaty of Rome, those laws, and not the conflicting provisions of the Treaty, would be given effect to as the domestic law of the United Kingdom'."
  Now that was something quite certain. The Lord Chancellor, however, speaking on the Second Reading on July 25, 1972, said this at column 1230 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
  "This conflict"—
  the conflict between municipal law and the Community law—
  "exists and has been discussed, in France…in Germany…and…also in Italy. If it arises here—and I think it is doubtful whether it will arise—it will arise not because of conflict with our Written Constitution, because we have not a Written Constitution, but in relation to the doctrine which we do possess…"
  Later on he went on to refer to it as:
  "the doctrine of the priority of later Acts over previous Acts: that rule of construction whereby when two Acts conflict the later is construed as amending or repealing the earlier one."
  He then said:
  "It is to meet this difficulty that Clause 2(4) has been inserted as an express provision in the Bill in so far as it provides that obligations arising under Clause 2(1) (Community obligations) have precedence over subsequent enactments."
  The noble and learned Lord was saying, as I understand him, that if there is this possibility of later legislation upsetting earlier legislation, then subsection (4) would deal with it.
  Now I am simply saying that if there is a risk at all, if there are any doubts at all—and I am not here purporting to say, and it would of course be absurd of me to say, whether the noble and learned Lord was right or not—and if there is this difference of emphasis, then we should not take risks on this issue. Alternatively, I am saying that even if

  897
  there were no doubt, if there were no risk as between one lawyer and another, then, to satisfy the ordinary people in this country, there is no reason why we should not have this position expressly stated in terms in the Bill. I feel that it is particularly important for this country that we should have this protection, since we do not have the kind of protection which a Written Constitution affords to some of the other members of the Community
  I gather, as the noble and learned Lord himself said, that there are at the present time cases in certain other member States—in the Netherlands there is a case; in Germany there is a case, and it may be that the question of the importation of Algerian semolina is providing another case in France—where there is conflict as between the municipal court and the Community Court. In the cases of Germany, the Netherlands and France, it is possible to point to the Written Constitution which gives them some protection. Professor Wade, in the article to which I have already referred, made this comment:
  "Being the only member with no formal Constitution, Britain alone will have no sacrosanct preserves of fundamental Community-proof law."
  Therefore I am saying that it would be advisable to put this matter beyond doubt by writing it into the Bill.
  The noble and learned Lord said at the beginning of the afternoon's proceedings that he was anxious to be as constructive as possible; he wanted to get away from the general philosophical discussion which he thought was unconstructive; he wanted to be able to show his sympathy with Amendments which were, as he put it, meaningful and constructive. In this Amendment I am not asking him to throw any principles overboard; I am asking him to show sympathy, to accept a constructive effort to put into the Bill something which I believe the majority of people would like to see established beyond doubt. I beg to move.
  10.8 p.m.
  LORD BERNSTEIN: I support this Amendment absolutely. I speak with some degree of diffidence, since I am a comparatively new Member of your Lordships' House. I am heartened because of the speech of the noble Earl,
  898
  Lord Lauderdale, in the Second Reading debate. It made me feel that there was some reason for being a Back Bencher in this House. Why am I saddened? Why am I disillusioned? It is rather by what happened last Thursday than by to-day's proceedings. I do not think that any Member of this House realises the damage that is being done to this House by its behaviour and the way these Amendments are being treated. It may be that in the view of some it does not matter what the people outside think. I believe it does. What was said in '98 or '57 by the Labour Party and by the Conservative Party is completely unimportant. I noticed that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor answered the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, he talked about what the Labour Party said but made no comment on what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, had said and of how he went up and down the country supporting the Conservative Party's Election Manifesto.
  What the Government have to do is to do justice to this Bill on its merits. I have accepted that the Government of the day will carry this Bill through to its final conclusion and that we shall become members of the Community. I ask myself what a Back Bencher can do in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, also said that he accepted that this House rests on its role as a revising Chamber. I thought so, too. We had a number of important Bills before the House, in two of which I was involved. In both cases a great number of Amendments were made. Some were produced by the Government, some by the Liberal Party, some by the Cross-Benches and some by the Members of these Benches. Both Bills were improved. They were not necessarily made ideal Bills, but they were better than they were when they came to your Lordships' House. I had hoped that your Lordships' House would have the same opportunity with this Bill, but evidently that is not so. I know about the promises and the words said on Thursday night, that we are not "bloody-minded", but facts will speak louder than promises or words.
  Last week we had a debate on Clause 30 of the Criminal Justice Bill and we had the benefit of hearing the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice,

  899
  and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. Noble Lords of great legal standing and quality of mind offered their views on a humane problem. For me that was a most interesting debate which revealed your Lordships' House at its best. It was not a Party matter but an attempt to find a clause which would cover problems with which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, had tried to deal. What interested me was that eminent legal Members of your Lordships' House all wanted a clause to cover a situation on which there was general agreement, but there was no question of agreement on the wording of the clause, as is usual among legal people. The matter was not resolved by a Division, but because the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, promised to reconsider the proposal in the light of the debate. The fight between one lawyer and another continues in respect of this Bill but why must it be so?
  I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I am repetitive, but I have tried on the few occasions on which your Lordships have been kind enough to listen to me to be brief and to speak quickly because I do not want to waste anyone's time, including my own. I recommend those waiting in the Library for the Division bell to ring to read the Report of that debate. It illustrates the difference of views on some of these clauses which are a much more important matter. I am not suggesting that humane problems are not important, but this Bill will affect the nations for all time, and therefore the interpretation of each clause, each line, requires the most careful consideration.
  There is not much to explain about the purpose of this Amendment; it is unusually clear. I am sure that most of your Lordships have enough worldly experience to realise its implication. It is that Parliament should remain sovereign. If we accept Parliament as the authority to carry out the wishes of the country—I would rather not become involved in Royal Prerogatives—there must be a limitation on the powers given outside the purview of Parliament. To me and to many others the Council of Ministers seems to supersede Parliament in many matters. The Government have
  900
  decided on the right to produce this Bill and the right to put it through Parliament. At least they should restrict themselves to what they originally said that they wanted to do, which was to produce legislation for our benefit with the agreement of other countries in the Community. As I understand it, once our Minister on the Council of Ministers agrees to something we are bound. What can Parliament do about it? I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about this last week. He answered that it could be that an Order in Council might be made by a Government which had a very narrow majority. Parliament might not like the Order in Council. He said that it was possible that the courts of the country could not be used, and the only person with an opportunity and a right to appear in this sort of case was somebody directly affected. Someone with only a hypothetical case was not given an audience by the court.
  Who could take an action to get an Order in Council changed? I know we have been told that all will be well on the night. But as someone who has been involved in what is called "show business "I would not bank on that. They say, "Just trust us and you will not be hurt." I think that we may all well be hurt. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke about the rules of the club. I am a member of a few clubs, and it is quite true that I joined accepting the rules of the day. If the rules are changed I have an opportunity to resign. If the rules are changed here, as I understand it, we cannot resign. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said:
  "The only proof of the pudding is in the eating."
  But it may be too late. The pudding might be backdated; it might be poisonous; it might be too late for us to receive medical attention. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
  "The Bill will not affect the sovereignty of Parliament."
  I really do not know what the noble Lord meant by that, and perhaps he will tell me. He added:
  "Parliament could bring in legislation."
  What does that mean? Does it mean that Parliament can bring in legislation which would override what has been done by the Community of Ministers? Why cannot we be told quite clearly whether

  901
  the Parliaments of Holland and Germany have powers that will not be available to us? What privileges have they got that we have not? We can all assume that there is enough power behind the Government to ensure that this Bill will be part of the legislation of this country. The question for your Lordships, and particularly the Back-benchers on both sides, is: how can we improve this Bill, carrying out the purposes intended, and still exercising the democratic rights and responsibilities of Parliament? This is our chance. For these reasons, I support the Amendment and hope that your Lordships on both sides will vote for it.
  10.17 p.m.
  BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: Surely we should be sensible. Sovereignty is a philosophical conception. It is none the less real, and it cannot be circumscribed or detailed and written into a Treaty. What "sovereignty "means is the consent of the people concerned to be governed in a certain way. It does not matter what Treaty has been signed by
  902
  any country; when the consent fails, that Treaty fails also. Sovereignty depends entirely on the consent and willingness of the people who are concerned in this Treaty. Therefore I see no point in writing this in in detail, because this is one of the facts of life. A look at history will bear out what I say. I think that as it stands the Bill is sufficient and there is no point in writing in sovereignty.
  LORD BERNSTEIN: If I may answer the noble Baroness, she may well be right. All I know is that in this country, if you ask most people, they will assume that Parliament has sovereign rights in this country. That is what it is all about. It may be possible to find legal words to prove that I am wrong, but the fact is that that is what people think.
  BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: So long as Parliament consents, Parliament retains sovereignty: when Parliament no longer consents, it retains sovereignty over whatever it is being asked to do.
  10.18 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Without wishing to prolong this particular argument I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, that if we say that sovereignty rests on the consent of the people we are on difficult ground in this particular context. I will not press that further. We have had slightly different emphases from Members of Her Majesty's Government on this matter of sovereignty. Those of us who have read the proceedings in another place will know that the Solicitor General has spoken of the whole thing as "a continuing act of sovereignty". We know also that the Chancellor of the Duchy spoke of the sovereignty involvement of this Treaty being "broadly similar to that of other Treaties." But we have yet to find any Member of the Front Bench, legal or otherwise, who will identify the similarities.
  Listening to these confusions of course has whetted the appetites of those who have curious rather than deep minds to learn what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will tell us. He told us on Second Reading that our sovereignty would be left unimpaired if by that was meant—and that is what he thought it meant—the right to do anything we liked, good or bad. Then to-day he told us a little more, which made me wonder whether I was a drunken man who said, "Am I or does it?" He told us that really the test of sovereignty lay in our right to denounce the Treaty and walk out. The Amendment has a certain beautiful simplicity. It embraces neatly and properly all that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been telling us. It embraces his assurances, which up till now are of course his opinions. It enshrines them in the golden letter of Statute and provides what I submit is a test of sincerity. Therefore I would support the Amendment.
  LORD GLADWYN: I oppose this Amendment but for reasons opposite to those given by the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, whose argument was that it was a fundamental truth and, as such, did not need any repetition in the Act or anywhere else. I can understand that argument but I do not share it. I myself am frankly a supra-nationalist. I have said
  904
  repeatedly for many years—and indeed I repeat now—that this thing cannot work unless you accept certain supra-nationalist principles. You cannot possibly imagine a monetary union working without some authority of some kind which would be supra-national. I believe that the Government agreed with the Italian Government that the powers of the European Parliament should be increased fairly soon after our entry. Perhaps they still believe that; but if you give the European Parliament real power it means that in the last resort that Parliament could pass something over the heads of the British members, from whichever Party they are recruited, in our Parliament. Therefore, if you are in favour of increasing the powers of the European Parliament you are necessarily in favour in the last resort of some kind of supra-national solution.
  Of course you can play about with the word "sovereignty" and can make it mean almost anything you like for the purposes of the argument. But I would not be able to vote for an Amendment which says:
  "nothing in this Act shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament…"
  I believe that the only hope in the long run of making this thing work is that the sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament shall be in some respects reduced, or limited at any rate, by general consent, including our own consent. Whether or not our own Parliament has the right to repeal the Act seems to me to be a quite different question. I would not myself dispute that the Parliament here has in the last resort the right to repeal the Act, to get out of the Community if it so desires and if that is the popular will. I have said before that I do not think it will arise in that way. Either the Community will work, in which case nobody will want to get out (and indeed they will not be able to) or it will break up, and in that case there will be no question of our repealing anything. It would not go on existing; it would have ceased to exist. Nevertheless, if it were really desired that we should put something into this Act, something to the effect that
  "nothing in the Act shall be held to prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal it or alter its provisions"

  905
  I personally would be prepared to vote for that. I should in no circumstances vote for the first part of the Amendment to the effect that
  "nothing…shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament."
  I hope I have made my position clear.
  10.25 p.m.
  LORD STOW HILL: I should like to make just a short intervention. I am quite sure that many of your Lordships in all parts of the Committee would agree that my noble friend Lord Beswick has in his Amendment touched upon something which is of crucial importance. I should like, if I may, just once again to remind your Lordships of the exact purport of this Amendment. What he is seeking to do is to protect the "ultimate"—that is the word that appears in the Amendment—sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament. He wants to make certain that there is nothing which will prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal this Bill when it becomes an Act, or alter its provisions. I should have thought—and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, just now stated this—that if Parliament wishes to repeal an Act which it has passed there is nothing in the wide world which can stop it. It has always
  an ultimate supremacy in that sense. We could repeal this Act, and we could, by so doing, breach the Treaty provisions. It may be that, as a result, we should find ourselves taken before the International Court at The Hague.
  The reason for my intervention is that I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what seems to me, if I may respectfully say so, to be a most powerful analysis of what the actual position is. This is in a judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls. Many of us remember with affection Mr. Raymond Blackburn in another place. Mr. Blackburn had brought an action asking for declarations against the Attorney General dealing specifically with this question of the supremacy of Parliament in an endeavour to prevent steps from being taken by the Government, which, in Mr. Blackburn's view, might prejudice that ultimate supremacy. The action was dismissed. It went to the Court of Appeal, and I should like to cite
  906
  relevant passages from the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I will quote selectively but, I hope, fairly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said:
  "Much of what Mr. Blackburn says Is quite correct. It does appear that if this country should go into the Common Market and sign the Treaty of Rome it means that we will have taken a step which is irreversible. The sovereignty of these Islands will thenceforward be limited. It will not be ours alone but will be shared with others."
  Then I think I may pass over a good deal and go to a passage somewhat later on in the judgment, in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, used this language:
  "We have all been brought up to believe that, in legal theory, one Parliament cannot bind another, and that no Act is irreversible. But legal theory does not always march alongside political reality. Take the Statute of Westminster 1931, which takes away the power of Parliament to legislate for the Dominions. Can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse that Statute? Take the Acts which have granted independence to the Dominions and territories overseas. Can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse those laws and take away their independence? Most clearly not. Freedom, once given, cannot be taken away. Legal theory must give way to practical politics. It is as well to remember the remark of Viscount Sankey, L.C., in British Coal Corporation v. The King:
  'The Imperial Parliament could, as a matter of abstract law, repeal or disregard Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. But that is theory and has no relation to reality.'".
  That is the end of that quotation, and I go back to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. He continued:
  "What are the realities here? If Her Majesty's Ministers sign this Treaty and Parliament enacts provisions to implement it, I do not envisage that Parliament would afterwards go back on it and try to withdraw from it. But if Parliament should do so, then I say we will consider that event when it happens. We will then say whether Parliament can lawfully do it or not."
  I summarise that judgment, I hope correctly, as follows. Of course, in theory you can always repeal an Act of Parliament. There is nothing whatsoever to stop our Parliament next year repealing this Bill if it has become an Act. But, according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that does not correspond with reality. Test it by reference to the Statute of Westminster 1931 which pro-

  907
  vided that the legislation of a Dominion, as it was then called, should not be invalid merely by reason of the fact that it conflicted with a Statute of our own Parliament at Westminster. Lord Denning is saying that it would be utterly and absurdly unrealistic for us now at Westminster to pass a Statute which conflicts with Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. It would be meaningless. We could do it, but it would not in any sense correspond with reality. Lord Denning is saying that this is exactly the position.
  BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: Would the noble, Lord allow me? He is quoting a treaty which dealt with the renunciation of rule over other people. Of course on that you cannot go back because the other people would not let you. We are dealing with our personal sovereignty.
  LORD STOW HILL: I hope the noble Baroness will argue that point with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I am simply quoting the reasoning of Lord Denning which seems to me extremely convincing. What he is saying is that there is a parallel between the two situations. It would be just as unrealistic to try to repeal the Statute of Westminster, particularly Section 4 which had the effect that I have indicated, as it would be to try to repeal this Bill when it becomes an Act. I thought it would be of assistance to the Committee to cite from that judgment because it seems to me to make so clear the situation against the background of which my noble friend Lord Beswick is making the proposal which he does in his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I should like to say one thing on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said. He quoted Lord Denning, I think, as saying that freedom, once given, cannot be taken away. In this case surely it is confidence in Europe which, once given cannot be taken away—unless we have no confidence in the first place, and then we should not be entering into this at all. But I am confident that we have got this confidence; that we should give them confidence by showing that we have confidence.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the
  908
  Lord Chancellor, but I cannot help the fact that he is a little irrascible about it. This is an issue of vital importance to many millions of people in Britain. Here is a typical example of making this place a Reichstag. I do not accept the analogy given by my noble friend. The point was made exactly by the noble Baroness. We were talking about people's freedom. Here we are talking about this esoteric thing—confidence. There is nothing esoteric about giving people freedom, but there is something esoteric about giving a confidence which has never been tested by the British public. All we are saying is that if it is agreed that Parliament is not losing its sovereignty—we have had many jesuitical speeches—why be afraid of putting the phraseology in the Bill? You cannot have it both ways. I am tired of legal gymnastics on the question of the justice of this operation. Ninety-nine per cent of the people marching through that Lobby know in their hearts that we are doing something wrong to Britain in the way we are moving here.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: That is my contention and I may therefore be wrong. That is all. I accept that; of course I may be wrong.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I presume I have the right to say it is my contention.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has every right to express his opinion, but he has no right whatever in this Committee to say that noble Lords who vote one way are acting against their conscience. That is what led my noble friends to say. "Order!" I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his contention.
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I did not say it that way at all, and I cannot help the noble and learned Lord getting white in the face about this. The very fact that he is doing it shows he is losing control. If the argument that has been put by the Lord Chancellor and others, that we

  909
  are not losing any of our sovereignty or supremacy, be true, then why not express it at the end of this clause? The logic is as simple as that. But the truth is different. There is a certain fear if we put this in. We are buying a pig in a poke, and we have gone in on a chance, and consequently we are thrust into this terrible position tonight. I do not feel happy about this. I feel very sad indeed. I apologise to noble Lords on both sides of the Committee if my attitude upsets them a little, but I believe I am right in standing up and putting my point of view. I may not have put it with the scintillating jocularity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I put it with as much heartfelt feeling for the sovereignty of the British people as he has.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If—all right.
  BARONESS WHITE: We all have a right to speak.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  BARONESS WHITE: I must admit that I have not had the advantage of listening to the entire debates on this Bill so far, and therefore I had not intended to intervene on an Amendment of this kind. But having listened to the speeches I felt I must say a word or two. I was much impressed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and it seemed to me that he put his finger on the spot. He was frank with us. He said, "I believe in a supra-national Government." There have always been Members of both Houses of Parliament who have been quite frank that that is what they were aiming at; that that is what they had intended from the start. Therefore they, of course, have no qualms about the situation because this is what they have always hoped for; this is what they have always worked for. But I do put it, if one can have some little rational consideration by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that the Administration of which he is a member has never put to the people of this country that that is what they were aiming at. This was not put in the last Election. It was not included in their Manifesto. They never used the word "supra-national, did they? This is where I think some of us feel that the people of this country are being misled.
  910
  If the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment, well and good. Then we should be satisfied. But if they are not, then they are really misleading the people of this country. If they are not prepared to accept this Amendment then they are going all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and his friends, who, as I said, from the very outset have made no bones about it: they do not want this Parliament to be sovereign; it is not part of their philosophy. They believe that the time for sovereign Parliaments of individual States has come to an end.
  LORD GLADWYN: If I might interrupt the noble Baroness for one second, I would say that our conception is that we ought to be prepared to lose a little sovereignty, and some of our sovereignty should be pooled.
  BARONESS WHITE: A little sover-eignty maybe, at the beginning, but it is quite plain that if that is the basic philosophy you go step by step. My real objection is not so much the philosophical argument as the fact that I do not think it has ever been put to the people of Britain. It has never been argued on public platforms by leading members of the present Administration that this is what they are wishing to do. If I am mistaken in saying that this is what they are wishing to do, they have a very easy way of proving it: by accepting this Amendment. if they are prepared to accept this Amendment, then I take back everything I have said. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is prepared to get up and say, I am prepared to accept this Amendment", very well then, my allegation of ill-faith—and it is an allegation of ill-faith; I make no bones about it—will most certainly be withdrawn. But if he is not prepared to do that then I think the Administration stand condemned. They are trying to put through Parliament something which the people of this country, I am quite certain have not considered in anything like these absolute terms; and I am equally certain they would reject it if they knew what we were doing.
  10.40 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was quite surprised at the brief moment of silence. I only want to say to the noble

  911
  Baroness who has just spoken that I dealt with every syllable that she has uttered in the speech I made on the Amendment about the referendum the last time we discussed this Bill, and I can only—
  BARONESS WHITE: I should be obliged—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I finish the sentence? I can only refer her to what I said then, because I have nothing to add to it and nothing to qualify it with. The second thing I wanted to say was—
  BARONESS WHITE: I should be obliged if the noble and learned Lord would withdraw what he said about a referendum. I was not asking for a referendum. I do not hold with a referendum; I hold with a representative Government. But the issue was never put to the people at the last Election and there was no mandate for it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Baroness will only do me the courtesy of reading what I said—because I do not think she was there at the time—she will see that what I have just said is exactly true and that every argument she presented to the Committee a moment ago was fully dealt with in my speech on the referendum Amendment. I am perfectly well aware that her arguments were not directed to a referendum, but I dealt with the situation in full then and I have nothing to add or to qualify what I said then.
  May I get back to the Amendment which we are actually discussing? It is abundantly obvious, not merely that this Bill does nothing to qualify the sovereignty of Parliament but that it could not do so. I explained exactly why this was so in my two speeches last year and in my speech on Second Reading, and I think about four times during this Committee stage. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, who claimed that I had never explained it, I can only refer him to those speeches, to which at the moment I have nothing to add. Also there was absolutely nothing inconsistent, either by way of content or by way of emphasis, between what I said on those occasions and what the Solicitor General said in the House of Commons. Indeed,
  912
  the Solicitor General said, in the same speech from which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, quoted exactly what I have been trying to say, in words which I would not seek to improve and I will now quote. He said, on July 5th, which was the same occasion as that to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick referred:
  "If no Statute can establish the rule that the courts obey Acts of Parliament, similarly no Statute can alter or abolish that rule. The rule is above and beyond the reach of Statute …because it is itself the source of the authority of Statute. This puts it into a class by itself among rules of common law, and the apparent paradox that it is unalterable by Parliament turns out to be a truism…Legislation owes its authority to the rule; the rule does not owe its authority to legislation"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 5/8/72, col. 628.]
  I could not put it more authoritatively than that.
  May I turn for a moment to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who quoted at great length from a judgment of Lord Denning in a case in which he decided against Mr. Raymond Blackburn, whom I also remember, but without much affection, in the House of Commons. Lord Denning, in the passage to which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred, said that in theory you can always repeal an Act of Parliament. Of course politically you may not want to do so; of course politically you may not want to face the consequences of doing so; of course politically outside the jurisdiction of this country other people may not recognise what you have done. But that only emphasises the fatuousness of this Amendment which seeks to achieve what Lord Denning, in that judgment, explained was politically impossible.
  I am supposed to be answering the legal side of the Bill, but several noble Lords have described their boredom, for which I do not blame them, with the legal niceties of the case. I will, therefore reply to the legal realties of the Amendment in terms of a parable which shows the undesirability as well as the fatuousness of what is proposed. There were once two lovers standing at the altar in front of the priest and they were about to be married. The bridegroom was asked by the priest to utter the tremendous words of the marriage service. He said, "I John take thee Mary to my lawful wedded wife,…for better for

  913
  worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health,… till death us to part" He then added, "Provided of course that nothing in what I have said alters or derogates in any way from the Matrimonial Causes Act and prevents me from presenting a petition to bring this marriage to an end if it is irretrievably broken down". At that the bride tore off her veil, hitched up her skirts and ran from the church. And how right she was!
  LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the bride in that case was not paying £500 million a year to the bridegroom's father, who was a farmer?
  LORD BESWICK: Has the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor finished?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have said everything I want to say.
  LORD BESWICK: Which only goes to prove to my satisfaction that when the noble Earl the Leader of the House said that each Amendment would be treated on its merits, he was saying something which fell rather short of the truth. Like my noble friend Lady White, I too respect the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I respect the view of the federalist or supra-nationalist, and I said on Second Reading that one of the great criticisms of the present arrangement was that we were handing over control of our economic affairs without having made any attempt to set up a political authority to which the economic controllers would be answerable. This is a serious matter which has not even been touched on by noble Lords opposite in seeking to counter our arguments.
  I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about the advantages of a supra-national or federalist set-up; but the fact of the matter is that this arrangement purports to be something different, and if we were to have a federal set-up we should need to make provision for it and have a proper Constitution. But that is not what we are proposing to do. We are proposing instead to have something which retains sovereignty here, and despite the noble and learned Lord's funny story about a lady who hitched up her skirts, I can see absolutely no reason why we should not accept the form of words which I have submitted this evening. The Lord Chancellor said it was a fatuous Amendment—he repeated that phrase. I suggest that it is not fatuous. It simply provides:
  "…nothing in this Act shall be held to detract from the ultimate sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament…"
  If the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, cannot understand the concept of sovereignty, which I admit is at times a somewhat academic concept, I am referring to the sovereignty of Parliament. The Amendment goes on:
  "or to prejudice the right of Parliament to repeal it or alter its provisions."
  I see nothing fatuous in that. It is reasonable. It is suggested that it may not be essential because there are other provisions, but they are not entirely clear. I hope there will be some noble Lords on the Benches opposite who will be prepared to vote for what they must see are the facts of the situation.
  10.49 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 28) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 103.

  CONTENTS

  Balogh, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Segal, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Hirshfield, L.

  Serota, Bs.

  Bernstein, L.

  Hoy, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Watkins, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

  White, Bs.

  de Clifford, L.

  Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

  Wynne-Jones, L.

  Garnsworthy, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Amory, V.

  Balerno, L.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Balfour, E.

  Albemarle, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Berkeley, Bs.

  Fortescue, E.

  Poole, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Gainford, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Blake. L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Reay, L.

  Boyd of Merton, V.

  Gowrie, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Boyle of Handsworth, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Redmayne, L.

  Brecon. L.

  Hailsham of Saint Maryle-

  Rcigate, L.

  Brentford, V.

  bone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Remnant, L.

  Brooke of Cumnor, L.

  Harvey of Prestbury, L.

  Rhyl, L.

  Carrington. L.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Robbins, L.

  Chelmer, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Rothermere, V.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hewlett, L.

  St. Just, L.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Hives, L.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hood, V.

  Sandford; L.

  Cowley, E.

  Inchyra, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Tellicoe E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Sempill, Ly.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Kemsley, V.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Croft, L.

  I.atymer, L.

  Sherfield, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Daventry, V.

  Lothian, M.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Macleod of Borve, Bs.

  Tanlaw. L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Terrington, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Thomas, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Mountcvans, L.

  Thorneycroft, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

  Trefgarne, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Netherthorpe, L.

  Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

  Eccles. V.

  Newall. L.

  Vivian, L.

  Elles, Bs.

  Northchurch. Bs.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Pender, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Perth, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Fisher, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Young, Bs.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  10.57 p.m.
  LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
  ("( ) Any proposal by one of the Community institutions which if agreed upon would give rise to a right power liability obligation or restriction, whether enforceable or not in the United Kingdom, shall be laid before Parliament and published by Her Majesty's Government before the Council of Ministers of the Communities, or the Commission, as the case may be, takes a decision thereupon.")
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move an Amendment which, if any Amendment we have put down is acceptable to the Committee, ought to be accepted. I should like to say that I hope that noble Lords opposite, in describing those of us who seek genuinely to do the job of criticising legislation will not describe this Amendment as fatuous. That would not help our proceedings, and I think it would be unworthy of the way the House of Lords and Parliament ought to consider this Bill.
  The purpose of this Amendment is to make it possible to give effect to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said on Second Reading. If any noble Lords here have not got the Amendment I will state briefly what it is:
  916
  "Any proposal…which…would give rise to a right power…obligation or restriction …shall be laid before Parliament and published by Her Majesty's Government before the Council of Ministers of the Communities, or the Commission,…takes a decision thereupon."
  It is very late in the evening to discuss a major proposal, albeit a very simple one, and I think there is little doubt that we shall wish to return to it at a later stage. But your Lordships may have noticed that of the four sponsors three are known pro-Marketeers. It can in no sense be said to be a wrecking Amendment; indeed, if I may say so, there has been scarcely an Amendment that could be called wrecking. This is one which I believe is essential to enable Parliament to do what it is going to have to do anyway. It does not directly raise the question of sovereignty; it raises the question of the proper participation of our Parliament, whether it be the House of Commons or the House of Lords, in regard to decisions which are taken either by the Council or by one of the other authorities or by the Commission.
  I should like to draw attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said, He said:
  "'That is why I drew attention to the importance of the fact that the moment the Commission submits its proposal to the Council, the proposal is published in a form which all of us can see is available to us".

  917
  My Lords, this Amendment gives precise effect to that. It does not seek to establish in any way the type of institutional arrangements committees or anything else that a Parliament may wish to use, but it is a normal provision in any Act of Parliament that there shall be adequate reports to Parliament.
  It is a striking fact that the Parliaments of some of the countries in the Community have been concerned about the lack of consultation, but there is one Parliament which has taken proper steps to this end—the German Parliament. I indicated earlier that they have written into their law, which gives effect to their adhesion to the European Community, a specific provision that the Government have to keep the Bundestag and the Bundesrat; and the Bundesrat, furthermore, has another special privilege in that they have a permanent observer at the Council currently informed about the developments in the Community. This is the key, in so far as through the decision of one of these Councils internal German laws become necessary or immediately applicable law as set out in the subsection (1) of this particular Clause or is created in the Federal Republic of Germany, this information should be provided before the Council decision.
  There will be opportunities later, when we come to further Amendments to this effect at a more convenient time of day, to describe the details as to how this works in Germany. But if any noble Lord wishes to study this, it is set out very clearly in the authoritative study by Niblock, published by Chatham House, a copy is available in the Library, which describes how this procedure works. We assume that the Government are in sympathy with this proposal, that they did not dispute the desirability of achieving this end by one means or another. They may wish to argue that it is not necessary for this to be included in the legislation. It is our duty—and I say this very seriously to noble Lords opposite—to ensure that an obligation is laid upon the Government—and. I repeat, whatever Government it may be. For as a former member of a Government I know the pressures that all the time face Governments as they seek to carry on in a busy life. However democratic their inclination may be, and however willing in principle they are to inform Parliament and
  918
  the public, in practice it is much simpler not to do so. Therefore, I think we would be remiss if we were not to establish this principle in the Bill.
  I shall speak very briefly to-night because we still have a lot of business to get through, but I hope noble Lords will consider this Amendment seriously. It is the sort of Amendment that ought to be made. It is the Amendment which I would believe that the Government would be prepared to make were it not for the constraints that they feel have been upon them in another place. If those constraints are removed, if we pass this Amendment and it passes into law—and I beg the Government to give this serious consideration—all that will be necessary is for another place to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment. Any possible extension of it is likely to be severely restricted under the rules of order of another place.
  No one can suggest that by passing this Amendment we would be in any way weakening the decision or the resolve to enter the Community. It is a quite fundamental principle that Parliament should be informed of these proposals. To-day and yesterday we have discussed this complicated law, and I will not go back over it again. Clearly we ought to know. A time may come when the European Parliament is an effective body and it will no longer be necessary, as it is to-day, for the British Parliament to exercise this oversight, but from all the information we have the European Parliament is a long way yet from being an effective body.
  I therefore urge the Government to consider this Amendment as a real contribution, and one that, furthermore, will go some way to reducing the anxieties which have been felt because of the Government's refusal to accept other Amendments, some of which I believe they could have accepted. This is one that they can accept, and I hope that they will accept. I am very reluctant to divide on something on which I believe there should be unanimity in this House. I shall await with great interest the reply of the noble Earl, if he is to answer this. I bee to move.
  LORD GLADWYN: May I ask the noble Lord one question, on the reply to which may depend my vote on what appears. on the face of it, to be quite a

  919
  constructive and forward-looking Amendment. Was the German procedure whereby the Bundesrat and Bundestag are informed in advance of impending legislation, among other things, in Brussels, previously formulated as part of the German equivalent to a Statute, as the proposal is here, or was it rather a Governmental declaration art the time when the Treaty was adhered to by the German Government?
  LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord has asked an important question. It was in fact Article 2 of the law which provided for the adhesion of West Germany to the European Parliament. This was the law that authorised the ratification of the Rome Treaty, passed by the Bundestag in 1957. There was then a clause inserted, Article 2, requiring the Federal Government to inform the two Houses of Parliament of projected Community decisions which, if passed, would necessitate changes being made in German law, or which would become directly applicable in Germany. Subsequently, by decision of Parliament, committees were set up to provide the necessary supervision. It is a fundamental part of the law which I have described, and if the noble Lord wishes I can give him the reference in Niblock. He will find it described in full on page 38.
  11.10 p.m.
  LORD WALSTON: I should like very briefly to support my noble Leader in this Amendment. I am one of those whom he may have had in mind when he said that some of those responsive to this Amendment are convinced proMarketeers, so it is in no way an attempt to impede our entry. Indeed it is a very genuine attempt to ensure that our entry is carried out in a way which does the minimum amount of harm to those institutions, particularly our Parliamentary institutions, which we all cherish. There have been expressions of doubt raised on both sides of the Committee, and in another place, too, as to what the function of Parliament will eventually be when we are part of the Community.
  There is no doubt in my mind that matters can be arranged so that the sovereignty of Parliament is not in any way impaired, but in order to do this we
  920
  must be assured that those Orders and those forms of legislation which we shall have to pass under the terms of the Treaty and under the terms of our accession are discussed in advance, before they become obligatory upon us, so that our representatives, our members of the Council of Ministers—and eventually, one hopes, our members of the European Parliament—will know how both Houses of Parliament feel, and how the people of the country feel, about any of the matters which are proposed.
  This is an Amendment which makes that possible. It will make our entry into the Community more effective, and it will reassure very many people who, while to-day are pro-Europeans, have their doubts about the effectiveness of Parliament when we are members. I add my voice to those of others to urge the Governmet at this stage to accept this Amendment, in the profound belief that it will make our entry far more effective and something very much closer to the real consensus which we all wish to have before we embark on this great adventure.
  LORD STOW HILL: I should like to support this Amendment, which I think is an important one. I do not want to traverse the arguments which have already been advanced, and I think I should like to add what perhaps can be regarded as a slightly new argument, although, indeed, it has been touched on previously. Of course, the proposals will be known to our representatives on the Commission and our representative in the Council. They will be fully aware of them. They, in a sense, in the public mind—and, indeed, in fact—are really part of the Executive, and at the moment there is nothing to ensure that the Executive, as a matter of routine and in every case, makes known to Parliament what is going on. That is the link which I should have thought was missing at the moment in the arrangements.
  At the risk of being tautological, I should just like to say that this is designed to make the actual working of the Community function better. It is designed to prevent the man in the street, the man on the Clapham omnibus, thinking to himself, "There is a great deal going on in Europe which we do not know of" He would know, if

  921
  he interests himself in these matters—and a very large number of citizens will and do—that there is a specific Parliamentary provision which ensures as a matter of absolute regularity that Members of Parliament in both Houses do know what is going on, do know what proposals are being put forward, and do know of them in time to make their influence felt and their views known. I submit that that is of very great importance.
  We were earlier considering proposals that Committees of either or both Houses should be set up to investigate Community legislation, and it was pointed out, I thought with some force, that it was hardly appropriate of a Statute to provide that Parliament should set up Committees, that being, as it were, a spontaneous function of each House, which would normally direct its mind to the circumstances in which it ought to examine things by Committees of its own Members, or by Joint Committees. Those considerations do not quite apply to this. Indeed, I would submit that they do not apply at all. This is a procedure which provides that as a matter of routine, without exception, there should be a mechanism for informing Members of both Houses in time of what is going on in Europe. Otherwise, not only Members of Parliament but perhaps even more so people outside Parliament may get the suspicion that they are not kept informed of what is going on, that there is a great mass of business that is transacted behind their backs. This Amendment, I submit, could stop all that and could insulate the danger of those periodical unfortunate happenings when something goes through, everybody is astonished to find that it has and nobody knew that it was going through.
  Perhaps in due course when the European Assembly becomes much more an active Assembly there may be a lesser need for this safeguard. I submit that it will always be more or less necessary for the citizen to feel that there is a guarantee that his representatives know in time what is going on. Therefore I hope—and I say this with great earnestness—that Ministers will feel that they can, at any rate, assent to this in principle and undertake that they will introduce something in the Bill which will ulti-
  922
  mately become part of the Act of Parliament providing for this automatic bringing to the notice of Members of Parliament proposals which are being made.
  LORD BALOGH: This Amendment merely brings into statutory form the sort of reassurance which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his insulting exuberance, claimed was already in the Bill. He said that the sovereignty of Parliament will be unimpaired and that we should look for a way in which control can be established. Therefore, in advance he gave this particular Amendment his blessing and I hope the Government will accordingly accept it. At the same time I should like to say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought to look again at the reply he made to my intervention; because he said that in all the countries of the Common Market an identical sort of legislation has been introduced in order to make directly applicable Bills automatically part of the law (or, rather, of the court exercise) in those countries. It is obvious that this is not the case. The Germans have this particular arrangement which, in my opinion, differs materially from the Bill which has been proposed in this country. Unless the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, I feel that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought to apologise for saying what was not altogether in accordance with the facts.
  LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: May I raise one other point which inclines me at first sight to have some sympathy with this Amendment? Surely the line of policy which the British Commissioners will take in the Community must be affected not only by the views of Parliament but by the views taken in the Government Departments. It seems to me important not only that the opinion of Parliament should be heard in time but also that Parliament itself should have some opportunity of knowing what is the attitude likely to be taken by Government Departments. I would say that, with respect, whichever Government were in power. I cannot help feeling that this Amendment or something like it might be a useful means of ensuring some interplay, some discussion, between Members of Parliament and Ministers before any

  923
  irrevocable Departmental line was taken in the Community institutions.
  11.20 p.m.
  EARL JELLICOE: I do not believe that in our objectives there is much between the two sides of the Committee on this Amendment. I made clear on Second Reading, and again on the first day of our Committee stage, that it is my belief that the special circumstances of this Bill call urgently for the working out by us all of special measures of Parliamentary scrutiny of Community secondary legislation. This was the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, dealt with so effectively on Second Reading; and on this point I, as I believe do a great majority of your Lordships, find myself in entire agreement with the general tenor of the noble and learned Lord's remarks. The question which this Amendment poses is whether we should seek to write a special provision into the Bill providing in a special way for that scrutiny and control.
  Although the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has moved this Amendment in very acceptable terms and those who have supported it also have spoken in very acceptable terms, although our objectives are on all fours and although I have considered this matter very carefully, I cannot recommend it to the Committee as acceptable and I should like to say why. I believe that the course proposed is unnecessary, that it would have undesirable consequences and, in any event, the Amendment proposed by noble Lords opposite is, in at least two important respects, inappropriate and defective. Although it is getting rather late, because this is an important Amendment on a serious matter and because it has been moved in very acceptable terms, I should like to dwell on it at some length. It is my submission that the procedure is unnecessary since the existing procedures of the Community in this area are open and consultative. They ensure that national interests receive full consideration, and there is no doubt in my mind that Members of Parliament will be well aware in advance of any significant proposed change in Community law from the moment we accede. Community decisions will not therefore come upon us—
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl but I
  924
  wish to put just one question. How will Members of Parliament know what is significant unless the Government bring material to Parliament to show us?
  EARL JELLICOE: I will come to that point in a few minutes' time. The Community decisions in this area will not creep up upon us by stealth and with little or no prior warning. I shall seek to explain why and I can do so only by reference to the mode of operation of the Community in this area on these matters at the present time. What happens in practice is that Commission proposals on general policy, before being finally laid before the Council, are thoroughly discussed with representatives of interested groups in the Governments concerned. This is not kept in a sort of closed executive group of the Commission and Council, and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was suggesting that it might be. In almost every case the Treaties require that the Assembly or the Economic and Social Committee, or both, must be consulted before Instruments may be made on a wide range of subjects which affect the greater part of the Community's activity. The text of these Instruments is published in draft in the Official Journal of the Communities.
  As the Committee will know, the Assembly consists of delegates selected from national Parliaments by national procedures, so that Parliament is directly represented in cases where the Assembly must be consulted. The Economic and Social Committee, for its part, consists of representatives of a very wide range of interests and noble Lords may be sure that the United Kingdom representatives on that Committee will draw to the attention of Parliament any proposals under discussions which they think would be of interest. Other similar committees which must be consulted on matters relevant to them are the Monetary Committee, the short-term Economic Policy Committee and its Budgetary Committee, all of which have national representatives serving on them. There is therefore no danger that the United Kingdom interests will not be fully represented as draft legislation passes through its various stages, or that there will not be adequate publicity in this country about imminent Community decisions. That is the general reason why I believe that the proposal embodied in this Amendment is

  925
  unnecessary. I hold it to be undersirable, for the same reason as I argued, and as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor argued; namely, because it seeks to import procedural arrangements into this Bill.
  By your vote in Committee last Thursday, your Lordships acknowledged that there was an important distinction between what is appropriate for legislation and what Parliament should regulate as a matter of its own procedure. It is my contention that this Amendment deals with matters which fall squarely into this second category. The regulation of Parliament's own procedures has, in general, always been left to Parliament to settle itself by its own internal decisions on Standing Orders and on Resolutions, and it would not, I suggest, be in the interests of Parliament itself to depart from these accepted arrangements. This was the general contention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor last week, and it was massively endorsed by your Lordships.
  LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Earl, who, if I may say so, is being quite unfair on this point? It was the question of the setting up of Select Committees that the Committee rejected. It was not on the point of informing Parliament. This is a had argument, and it is unfair, because what the Committee rejected was an Amendment for referring it to Select Committees; and indeed in a later Amendment I have already removed the Select Committee proposal. I hope that the noble Earl will not continue to say that this is a procedural argument, because it is not.
  EARL JELLICOE: I believe that this whole thing is all one complex, because the point is to see how effective Parliamentary control can be made to bite on these instruments on their way up to the Council. It must be considered as one package. Moreover, it will be within your Lordships' recollection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock—and I do not think this is an unfair point—in drawing attention to the extreme desirability of our working out watertight arrangements for Parliament's scrutiny of Community secondary legislation, made it clear that in his view no Amendment was required to this Bill in order to en-
  926
  sure that particular point. Having said that, I should like to make it clear beyond peradventure—and I am weighing my words carefully here—that the Government are very ready, in principle, to make appropriate arrangements to provide Members of both Houses as a matter of absolute regularity, and reinforcing the open procedures which I have already mentioned to your Lordships, with information about draft instruments before the Council, whether they are formally published by the Communities or not. I wish to make it clear that this is a clear declaration of our intent in this matter. But we do require to retain flexibility here. The best arrangements will need to be devised, in the light of the detailed information about the procedures in Brussels and of the wishes of Parliament. That is what we had in mind in proposing as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster proposed on Second Reading in another place, the setting up of a special ad hoc committee to try to devise, with the co-operation of all the Parties, the best possible arrangement for ensuring the most effective scrutiny of Community secondary legislation.
  THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Can he say, in amplification of what he has just been saying, that he is quite confident in his own mind that it will be possible to table Questions in either House on these matters?—the experience in another place, whose interests we have to protect, has been that sometimes Questions are blocked on the ground that no Minister is responsible. Are we going to be told: "That Question cannot be asked in another place because no Minister is directly responsible"?
  EARL JELLICOE: I will take note of what my noble friend has said about another place. Not having been in another place, I always refrain from off-the-cult replies. All I can say is that I can see no reason whatsoever why it would not he possible to table Questions, Starred or Unstarred as the case may be, on information made available by the Government to Parliament or made available in other ways I have described in your Lordships' House. I would submit that we should proceded by way of an ad hoc committee, or such other device as commends itself to the Parties, rather than by anything written into Statute which it is not appropriate

  927
  to import into Statute. I have learned with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has accepted, so far as the Select Committee procedure is concerned, that that is the case. That being so, I hope very much that we can go ahead now with the establishment, with the agreement of the Parties, of an effective machinery; working it out together, including typing up the details of provision of information (and effective information) for Parliamentary scrutiny.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to provisions in the German law ratifying the E.E.C. and Euratom Treaties. I do not want to dodge that particular point. The noble Lord claimed that if the Germans had made a provision of this sort there was presumably no reason why we should not be able to do the same. I would suggest that our circumstances now are different from the German circumstances when they ratified many years ago. In the first place, I would say that this provision was incorporated in the German Act of Ratification at the very start of the Community. when none knew how the Community would work in practice. In my introductory remarks I have made it clear that in practice the Community's treatment of secondary legislation of this sort is open and consultative. Secondly, I should like to refer your Lordships to the first sentence of Article 2 of the German Act concerned, which reads as follows:
  "The Federal Government is obliged to keep the Bundestag and the Bundesrat constantly informed about developments within the framework of the Council of the E.E.C. and the Council of Euratom."
  I should like to point out that that is a broad declaration of intent, and one which would have been entirely alien to our Statute law. I have given very categorically a broad declaration of our desire and intent to keep Parliament informed of draft secondary legislation.
  Finally, if noble Lords seek to base their case on precedents, I would with diffidence point out that the precedents are against them in the case of all the other five Members of the existing Community. No special arrangements exist in France for bringing to the National Assembly proposals made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. No
  928
  such special arrangements exist in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Luxembourg or in Italy, although—and this is significant—Article 127 of the Regulations of the Italian Chamber of Deputies provides for reference of Community proposals to the competent committee of the Chamber for examination as soon as they are published in the Official Journal. If we are to follow Continental precedent here—a precedent which accords with our own traditions—I would suggest that the Italian precedent, namely, leaving this matter to Parliament, is in fact the more appropriate one. I would also submit, in view of the very clear assurance I have given to your Lordships that it is categorically the Government's intention to make appropriate arrangements to provide Parliament with the information it requires about the draft instruments, that this is the way for us to proceed.
  I have sought to argue that this Amendment is unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable. I should like to state briefly why I also feel it to be inappropriate and, indeed, defective. I feel this for two reasons. In the first place, the Amendment merely requires the text of the proposal to be published before it is adopted by the Community. Such publication could therefore be left to the last moment before a Community decision, when there was no practical opportunity for Parliament's views to be expressed and communicated to our representatives in the Council of Ministers. I am sure that this is what noble Lords opposite do not desire. Secondly, the duty imposed by the Amendment would extend the proposals before the Commission, as well as proposals before the Council of Ministers. But instruments made by the Commission are in general—whether we like it or not this is the way the community works—generated within the Commission itself, and in its management and consultative committees. There is no draft stage at which it would be practicable to lay a concrete proposal for a Commission instrument before Parliament. If noble Lords opposite study Article 2 of the German Statute carefully, they will find it definitely excludes Commission instruments.
  If only for these two reasons, the Amendment is seriously defective as it stands. Certainly in the last respect which I have mentioned it goes far beyond the

  929
  provision in German law to which the noble Lords opposite have referred, and in a way contrary to both Commission theory and practice. But I do not wish, in suggesting that your Lordships should resist this Amendment, to base my arguments on matters of technical defectiveness which could possibly be remedied by re-drafting. I rest my case on the two main grounds to which I have already referred: that the Amendment is unnecessary, and that it is also undesirable. Therefore, in advising your Lordships, if noble Lords opposite decide to press this Amendment to a Division, to vote against it, I would say that while I believe this Amendment to be unacceptable, I have considerable sympathy for the objective; namely, of better Parliamentary scrutiny in this area, which lies behind the thought that has inspired it.
  11.38 p.m.
  LORD GARDINER: Nothing but a sense of duty would lead me to address your Lordships at nearly twenty minutes to twelve on August 7. But if that is the way the Government choose to carry out their legislation we have no alternative. I have not spoken on the Committee proceedings of this Bill before; I have not voted in any Division to-night; I have not spoken on the issue of the European Community in this Session, or in this Parliament. I am not in any way opposed to the Bill. I found the whole question an extremely difficult one because of the many possibilities, the differences in economic estimates, and so forth. Rightly or wrongly, I thought it would be to our advantage, and that of Europe, too, if we entered the Community. I have always envied those who passionately feel with great conviction that we ought to go in on any terms; those who feel with equal conviction that we should not go in on any terms; those who think we should, if the terms are right and these terms are right; those who think we should, if the terms are right, but that these terms are wrong. Believing myself that if we had continued in Office we should not have got any better terms than these, and thinking, rightly or wrongly, that probably we should have accepted them and gone in, in October I voted for the Motion.
  The Amendment which is now proposed is directed to a point made (and I
  930
  think it had been in the mind of many of us) by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, at an earlier stage of the Bill, when he pointed out, first of all, that there would have to be a good deal of delegated legislation by Statutory Instruments. He said that at
  "the stage when the Statutory Instrument is laid before Parliament, there is very little that Parliament can do about it in either House. There is no power to amend, and very little real power in the circumstances to reject: because unless the Instrument is replaced, rejection is likely to lead to a breach of our Treaty obligations."
  He pointed out therefore how important it was. He said:
  "What is vitally important and what I would suggest to this House is that the committee's proposal is published when the draft of it is submitted to the Council for its consideration."
  I, too, believe that to be important. We are not here dealing at all with Parliamentary sovereignty. If I may repectfully say so, I thought that a certain amount of what was said on Parliamentary sovereignty was largely playing with words. This is not a question of Parliamentary sovereignty but a question of whether Parliament is to control or whether the Executive is to control. As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said, it is quite a narrow point. The question is: do we put into the Bill a properly worded provision—this one may not be properly worded—to ensure that Parliament is given the information at a stage when they can retain control, or shall we do what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, suggested; that is, leave it to the Executive? He said that they—the Government, the Ministers—will make provision possibly after having a joint Committee of both Houses. I have felt—
  EARL JELLICOE: I hesitate to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I was giving that assurance as a reinforcement to all the existing procedures by which this information would become available and which I explained, the Economic and Social Committee and so on.
  LORD GARDINER: The difference is this: should we put it in the Bill and thus ensure that Parliament has the requisite information, or shall we let the Bill become an Act without there being

  931
  any such control? I have once or twice before referred to this when we had issues before the House which affected Parliamentary control. I have watched this for twenty years, some outside Parliament, some in Government and some in Opposition, and all the time over the last twenty years Parliament has been losing power to the Executive. I do not believe that this is for the good of our country. In giving an example, I shall show that there is no Party issue about it. The Government of which I was a member refrained—I choose my words carefully—from appointing a Committee on the law of privacy until there was a Bill in the other place which might have got a Second Reading. It then did so only on terms that the Committee was not to be allowed to find out, much less make any recommendations about, the personal information about us which is on the computers and files of the Executive although, as the Committee itself pointed out, after taking a survey of public opinion they found public opinion was a good deal more concerned about the personal information on the files and computers of the Government Departments than they were about that in the hands of credit agencies and private offices.
  This continual increase in the powers of the Executive over Parliament is not right. Here Parliament can let this Bill go as it is, in which case no provision has been made in what will then have become an Act to ensure that Parliament has the necessary information before the Government produce, for passing, its Statutory Instrument. The other alternative is the one which is suggested and which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, calls, "leaving it to us to make the appropriate arrangements." It may or may not be after a Select Committee. It is quite true to say, as he did, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, would have been satisfied with this. But that is because he trusts the Executive. I have had a longer experience. And this Government are a particularly dogmatic Government, believing more in confrontation than conciliation. When they have a non-political Bill such as the Criminal Justice Bill, apart from drafting Amendments they do not allow Amendments of any kind to be made at all.
  932
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, "Well, every Government must get their legislation through." Of course that is quite right. I am not opposing this Bill. Nobody was opposing the Criminal Justice Bill. But there is this difference: when there is a Labour Government in power they have to attend very carefully to Amendments—and this is no bad thing—because they know that they cannot get anything through unless the Opposition agree. We have all had timetables and guillotines before, but never, I think, to the extent that has been seen in this Session and in particular in relation to this particular Bill. Therefore, if Parliament wants to retain its own control, this Bill ought not to be allowed to become an Act unless proper provision is made for the publication of the relevant materials, as the noble and learned Lord. Lord Diplock, said was essential.
  It may very well he that this Amendment—I rather think so myself—is not properly drafted. Community legislation is very complicated. But I would hope very much that we shall return to this at Report stage of the Bill, by which time I hope that the Government will have given earnest consideration to this point and will seriously have applied themselves to the question. Is not Parliament entitled to insist that the fact that this information should be obtainable at the right time should be written into the Bill and that the Bill should not become an Act while there is no such provision in it?
  LORD DERWENT: I am sure the noble and learned Lord would not want anything he said not to be exact, and I think he made a slip of the tongue. He said that there had been no Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. That is not accurate.
  LORD GARDINER: Yes; an Amendment was accepted from the Government Back Benches; that is quite right. But so far as the Opposition are concerned I think there was only one small drafting Amendment.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: Three: and two are being considered.
  LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think we need to quarrel about how many Amendments were or were not

  933
  accepted. Having over many years in Opposition sought to carry Amendments, I know that a great deal depended on the standing of the Minister who was answering. Tonight we have the two leading Ministers in your Lordships' House present, and I am bound to say—and I shall be very brief now—that I am deeply disappointed not merely at the reception by the noble Earl but by the form of his argument. He rested his opposition on three main principles: first, that this Amendment was defective; secondly, that it was undesirable from a procedural point of view; and thirdly, that it was unnecessary. I freely grant that the Amendment probably is defective and I take the point that the noble Earl made about the article in the German law, although I shall have something to say about his remarks and his interpretation of that law. But I really must reject the argument that it is procedurally improper for Parliament to lay down in an Act of Parliament that certain information should be given to it. I have never heard this argument used in the past. It may have been used in a particular case, but every nationalisation Statute provided for it. The times I have heard Conservative Members of Parliament in another place, very properly, standing up against this natural instinct on the part of the Executive to say, "Leave it to us!".
  I have already conceded a point and have altered a subsequent Amendment, and I accept the noble and learned Lord's powerful argument that it is inappropriate for us in legislation to set up Select Committees. But this Amendment is not concerned with this. It is concerned with giving information to Parliament, and therefore I believe that the procedural argument is not a worthy one to use in this particular context.
  On the defectiveness of the Amendment, if the Government were prepared to accept in principle that some provision of this kind, however confined—whether it is confined to matters that come before the Council; proposals that go from the Commission to the Council—I would certainly withdraw my Amendment, but the fact is that the noble Earl frankly and honestly rested his case on the grounds that this was undesirable and, more especially, unnecessary. He referred in a
  934
  way that I can only regret to one part of the particular article from which he quoted. The noble Earl knows what respect I have for him, but I must say that I frankly regard this as a piece of sophistry—to have taken the first sentence of an article which is appropriate to a different legislature. The important point about the article—and as I have said I will give it to him in German or in English, but the meaning is perfectly clear—is that in regard to any decision of the Council or any immediately applicable law which is created affecting the Federal Republic of Germany, information on this is to be given before the Council take the decision.
  Here I want to strengthen the case I made by stressing the point that many of these decisions, and many of the decisions which the Bundestag and the Bundersrat have had to consider, have frequently been taken in something of a hurry. I have examples here which I can quote from Niblock, and, if I may say so, the argument that it was different in 1957 has not stopped the German Parliament being more and more active in this field. No doubt it has been embarrassing to the German Executive, and perhaps they have been advised by German Ministers to resist this. But the fact is that draft regulations have been made where only three or four days have been available before Parliament has had to come to a view.
  The important thing is that until such time as the European Parliament is working—and I know no one, either pro-Market or anti-Market who regards it as a satisfactory institution at the moment; one of the reasons in favour of our going in is that we may be able to contribute to this, but it is not so at the moment—we have to rely on our own Parliament, not to dictate to the Council or the Commission but to ensure that their own Executive knows what Parliament thinks. I am disappointed that this Amendment is being rejected on the grounds that have been given, and I would urge your Lordships that this is classically a matter for Parliament and one in which the House of Lords can seek to influence a decision, which in no way damages the progress of the Bill. Therefore, despite the lateness of the hour I shall take this to a Division.
  11.54 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
  12.3 a.m.
  EARL JELLICOE: It was our hope that we could perhaps get a little bit deeper into Part I, to Clause 37, but we have been working at this quite a long time today, and this seems to be a strategic hour. I would therefore suggest to noble Lords that we might draw stumps now and if that is agreeable I beg to move that the House now resume.
  Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
  LORD SHACKLETON: The Government majority is slumping to under 100
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 82.

  CONTENTS

  Balogh, L.

  Garnsworthy, L.

  Serota, Bs.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Bernstein, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Stow Hill, L.

  Beswick, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Strabolgi. L. [Teller.]

  Boyle of Handsworth, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Tanlaw, L.

  Davies of Leek, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

  Walston, L.

  de Clifford, L. Gardiner, L.

  St. Just, L.

  White, Bs.

  Gardiner, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Pender, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Eccles, V.

  Perth, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Elles, Bs.

  Polwarth, L.

  Balerno, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Poole, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Reay, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Gainford, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Blake, L.

  Gowrie, E.

  Redmayne, L.

  Boyd of Merton, V.

  Greenway, L.

  Reigate, L.

  Brecon, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Maryle- bone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Robbins, L.

  Brentford, V.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Harvey of Prestbury, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Chelmer, L.

  Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  Cork and Orrery, E.

  Hewlett, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Hives, L.

  Sherfield, L.

  Cowley, E.

  Hood, V.

  Stonehaven, V.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Inchyra, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Cranbrook, E.

  Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Thomas, L.

  Croft, L.

  Kemsley, V.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

  Latymer, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Limerick, E.

  Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

  Davidson, V.

  Lothian, M.

  Vivian, L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Macleod of Borve, Bs.

  Wakefield of Kendal, L.

  Denham, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Mowbrav and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

  Wynford, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Northchurch, Bs.

  Young, Bs.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  while we are full of energy on this side. I am rather enjoying myself. If the noble Earl feels that we should stop, then I think he is probably wise. I had better not say anything more because he might change his mind.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

  COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES AND RECEIVERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.